November Steering Group Meeting

(PD) (Datchworth Court)

(ES) (Radwell Court)

TD (Theobalds Court)

(JG) (Theobalds Court)

(AA) (Barley Court)

(NC) (Kimpton Court)

HC (Sandon Court)

(PA) Weston Court)

(NJ) (Sandon Court)

Cllr Clare Potter (CP)

Ron Greenwood (RG)

Carol Squires (CS)

John Morris (JM)

Source Partnership (ITLA)

Source Partnership (ITLA)

1.1

No apologies were received.

2.1

The minutes from the last meeting were agreed as accurate.

2.2

CP noted that her and Cllr Bell have not been able to restart surgeries due to lockdown but they are available for residents via Members’ Services or direct contact.

3.1

Programme update

RG gave feedback.

Shortlisted contractors are currently working through the tender documentation and RG and colleagues are fielding questions from them. Residents may have seen people walking round the estate from the bidding contractors but there should have been no knocking on doors. LBH have set aside times for escorted site visits between 7^th and 12^th Dec. One tenderer has asked to see the inside of a southside flat. RG is arranging this via Source. Anyone willing to allow a contractor to visit please contact CS or JM.  NB, the inspection will be purely visual.

The deadline for tender returns is now 25/1/21. Evaluation will be between 25/1/21 and 19/2/21. If the tender price of the successful contractor is beyond the LBH budget or there are other elements that need to be clarified, a 9 week period for negotiation has been set aside. Best and final offer will be put to LBH Cabinet early summer 2021 with planned contract signing July. Mobilisation and satisfying some planning conditions will follow with start on site targeted currently for 23/11/21.

3.2

Tender evaluation and site visits

During the evaluation period resident involvement in site visits to bidders’ other sites and evaluation of some of the qualitative sections of the brief will take place. These will include approaches to site logistics, respite facilities, road closures, parking arrangements and community engagement. CP noted that a resident evaluation panel was agreed last time: Emley, Jill, Karsten, Peter Akhurst and Jo. Possible Peter D. if a Datchworth resident was required. BB suggested paring down the numbers nearer the time if needed.

3.3

Materials workshop

The materials workshop had to be put on hold with the new lockdown. There will now be a newsletter from LBH with a summary of the design information and contact for queries.

3.4

Follow up questions

AA asked how many shortlisted contractors there are.

RG – 3.

AA also asked for clarification on the materials workshop.

RG explained that the materials that would have been on display were examples of those specified already that were part of the planning application. The only forseen reason these might be changed is if there is an issue with supply.

AA – will there be one principal contractor?

RG – yes, with sub contractors for various aspects of the works.

NC asked about possible completion dates for the whole scheme.

RG – approx. 3 years, so possibly January 2025, although refurbishment will be finished first

4.1

The latest draft of the FAQ document from LBH Leasehold team was circulated on 6^th Nov. BB stated that the purpose of this being an agenda item was to make sure that the arrangements are explained as properly and clearly as possible.

NJ sought confirmation that this only applies to southside leaseholders.

Response – yes.

EP asked how long it took to invoice the northside leaseholders given that LBH say final invoices are issued within 18 months of completion of works.

RG – Leasehold Team should really deal with this but it can be emphasised that individual, interim invoices will be sent out within 12 weeks of start on site which is when leaseholders should start to pay.

EP asked about the situation if she wanted to sell her flat, e.g. in early 2021, i.e. after 28^th May 2020 but before works start.

RG – any seller’s enquiry would pick up the existence of the S20 notice and if there was no formal estimate of the full costs to the existing owner, it would come down to a negotiation with the purchaser.

JG – if it’s right that the cap cannot be passed onto an incoming purchaser, this isn’t consistent with the aim to encourage a stable community at Kings Crescent. She felt it unfair to backdate the rule to this May. What is the justification for this?

RG – Hackney wished to recognise the time that existing residents have spent waiting for the works to get underway, so the cap arrangement was implemented.

JG – we now have no options if we wish to move.

RG – future purchasers would benefit from the added value of the refurbishment, so the flats should hold their value.

JG expressed disappointment at the approach, having up to now felt positive about the RSG.

RG replied that the arrangements took a lot of internal discussion within Hackney with a view to coming up with something that was fair. The rationale was set out in the Cabinet report.

EP asked if someone was selling, who is Hackney invoicing?

RG – there would be a charge on the property and this would be disclosed at the point of the sale process. The exact cost will be clear at the time the interim invoice is issued.

EP – so the understanding would be that the invoice goes to whoever is in ownership at that time?

JG asked if this would be the first time leaseholders would know the exact full cost.

RG replied that the 2^nd stage S20 notice which is issued after the successful tender has been accepted would contain the first, personalised notification of the recharge cost to each owner.

BB emphasised that the cap is a huge benefit to those who get it but it comes at a significant cost to the overall scheme.

EP raised the issue of the 2011 cap that apparently included major repairs to the southside blocks. This would mean that roofs and windows already paid for from that tranche of works should count towards the cap.

RG clarified that these were paid for from a specific source of funding and a line was drawn under the costs. We are starting again to reflect a new set of circumstances.

PD asked if higher costs due to contractual variations that are not the contractor’s fault will be included in the cap.

RG confirmed that the £10k cap remains in place for anyone qualifying.

PD – so leaseholders are also protected against something that is not the client’s responsibility?

RG – yes.

PA asked if works that were carried out at the time of the Leaseholder Charter (when the £10k cap was first introduced) would be done again. We have already paid for some of the works.

RG suggested bringing individual circumstances up in a surgery meeting when they are arranged. RG also apologised for the delivery of the notice concerning podium works which was a mistake.

CP asked if there was a date yet for the surgeries to take place.

RG – at the moment they are planned for w/c 7^th December.

CP added that concerns can still be raised with councillors or Source.

5.1

RG reported that unfortunately, no tenders were received for the fit out work. It is likely that the complexity and amount of tender documentation was too great for the 3 companies invited to tender.

Two more contractors have been identified and the retender period will now close on 10^th December with a possible start on site date early in January. The works themselves should not take long but the process of getting sign off from Building Control will take some weeks, so completion may be in March 2021. RG expressed confidence that there will be tenders returned this time, including possibly from two new contractors.

6.1

BB did not want to spend time in this meeting covering these issues again; they are being worked through within the Council and at ETRA meetings.

EP asked if lessons had been learnt from the experience of many defects being reported directly to Higgins without LBH knowing.

RG explained that the arms length arrangement with Higgins will not be repeated. Hackney will be marketing the open market sale homes themselves with a new in house team.

LBH have only recently got full details of the defects from Higgins and these are being reviewed. Another post-occupancy survey will be carried out this winter and there will be time to transfer these lessons learnt to phases 3 & 4.

ES commented that the arrangement whereby defects were reported directly to the contractor was unconventional; it should have been to the Employer’s Agent/Client side.

BB stressed that it is essential that this does not happen again.

RG advised that this is the understood procedure but that the process is often short cut. RG added that dealing with defects management is one of the questions to be evaluated in the current tender.

7.1

EP gave an update. Homework Club started and has continued since the current lockdown with some one to one sessions and some done via Zoom.

The next general TRA meeting is on 2^nd December.

There is still a significant sum available in the Community Development pot, so the TRA would welcome ideas on how this could be spent.

NJ expressed a huge thanks to Emley for her hard work and commitment, which was endorsed by all.

8.1

CS reported that it has been frustrating to almost be in a position to resume face to face activities and then have another lockdown imposed. Source have been supporting leaseholders and working with LBH on the FAQs and proposed surgeries.

9.1

None

10.1

14^th December at 7.00 via Google Meet

(a) Programme update

(b) Tender evaluation, site visits

(c) Materials workshop