BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Kings Crescent - ECPv6.15.18//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Kings Crescent
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://kingscrescent.org
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Kings Crescent
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/London
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20240331T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20241027T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20250330T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20251026T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20260329T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20261025T010000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20250320T190000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20250320T200000
DTSTAMP:20260404T013848
CREATED:20250518T192534Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250518T193233Z
UID:3114-1742497200-1742500800@kingscrescent.org
SUMMARY:Resident Steering Group Meeting 20 March 2025
DESCRIPTION:Resident Steering Group‘ meetings happen every few months. \nKings Crescent residents can apply to be in the RSG and it is a chance to meet with Hackney’s Regeneration Team\, architects\, builders etc to discuss the plans for the next round of new buildings and refurbishment of existing blocks on the South of Kings Crescent Estate \n  \nNotes of Kings Crescent Steering Group Meeting held on 20th March  2025 \n  \n  \n\n\n\nPresent:\nCllr Clare Potter (CP) (Chair) \n  \n \n  \n  \n10 Residents: \nEP\,PS\, PD\, RB\, RW\, ES\, SJ\, KM\, GG\, EV \n(names removed for web version) \n  \n \n\n\nIn Attendance:\n  \nRon Greenwood (RG) \nChey Brown \nWill Greatrex \nJane Havemann \nCarol Squires (CS) \nMenekse Saitoglu \nJohn Morris (minutes) \nLee Walsh (LW) \nTom Roberts  (TR)\n  \n  \nLB Hackney \nLB Hackney \nLB Hackney \nLB Hackney \nSource Partnership (ITLA) \nSource Partnership (ITLA) \nSource Partnership (ITLA) \nMulalley \nHHB Architects \n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n1.0\nIntroductions and apologies \nAction\n\n\n  \n \n  \nApologies were received from JWM\, KH\, PC\, Cllr Adejare\, AF\, RS \n \n  \n  \n \n\n\n2.0\nNotes of previous meeting held 4th December 2024 and any Matters Arising not elsewhere on the agenda\n \n\n\n  \n \n  \nThe minutes from the last meeting were agreed. \n \n  \n \n\n\n3.0\nPhase 3&4 update – Mulalley \n \n\n\n \n  \nLW and TR presented a programme update and the latest redesigns of the new build proposals. Presentation slides accompany these minutes. \n  \nQuestions/comments: \n  \nBrick details. EP – concern about the darkness of brick that might absorb rather than reflect light. TR – the precise spec for the brickwork is not fixed. CP – there has been discussion about a visit to another Hackney estate that has used similar shades of brick. RG – this is the Frampton Estate which used bricks from the same manufacturer but the colours are not identical to those proposed here. \n  \nBalconies. CP – will residents feel or hear a difference when the new balconies on the south side of KC are in use? LW – the walkways are concrete paviours\, so there will not be any ‘metallic’ sound as people walk on them. \n  \nCP – what will the front of the balconies look like? TR- metal mesh that can be seen through. But emphasised that it’s still early days in the design process. \n  \nThere was further discussion around maintenance of balconies. LW assured the meeting that the steel construction would be as robust as concrete and there would not be additional maintenance requirements \n  \nRB asked about the disruption in ground floor gardens when balconies are being installed. TR acknowledged there will be disruption but it will less than with the previous design and balcony materials. RG confirmed that gardens will be reinstated on a like for like basis. \n  \nWeston Court bike store. RB asked if LBH will manage the proposed bike storage under Weston Court as current storage facilities are quite chaotic. KM added that bikes are stacked up with some abandoned; there must be some learning from the bike storage under north side blocks. ES questioned the security of the proposed arrangements. RB asked if entrances to stores could be within the courtyard. LW – this proposal has been made in collaboration with Secured by Design. There will be access from the courtyard with individual fob access to compartments within the storage facility. TR added that part of the design involves finding a solution to the drop in level immediately outside Weston Court. \n  \nTR also noted that the bike store will have Sheffield stands\, i.e. metallic installations fixed to the floor rather than hangers which should help address some of the issues with bikes not being stored tidily. \n  \nES expressed regret at the abandonment of the plans for work spaces under Weston Court. LW reminded the meeting of the reasons why this was no longer practical\, including major disruption to residents above. \n  \nCP asked what the difference was between the new flats in phase 1 created from old garages and the situation under Weston Court. TR – in phase 1 the foundations were level and provided sufficient room for new flats to be created. At Weston Court\, the foundations are close to ground level and would need to be underpinned which is very noisy and disruptive. In phase 1&2 the foundations were deeper so underpinning was not needed. \n  \nSJ asked if there could be some general storage space created and not all bike storage. LW – there needs to be a minimum amount of bike storage for the number of homes. RG suggested there could be some creative use of the space as long as planning regulations are met. \n  \nHoarding line and routes through the estate. JM asked for clarification on the hoarding line that seems to cut off Casbeard St. LW – the route shown has marshalled gates at each end for construction traffic. This arrangement was in the original plans once the Casbeard St route was chosen; it was always the case that Casbeard St would be closed to pedestrians and is not the result of any changes to the hoarding line. But LW confirmed that  Casbeard St will be kept open for as long as possible. \n  \nRB asked about routes for elderly residents who need to get to the shops. Will LBH help them navigate the estate once hoarding is up? RG stressed importance of involving housing management teams. CP – we need to work closely with TRA and LBH to keep vulnerable residents in mind. \n  \nEV – can there be a pedestrian route that maybe sacrifices some parking spaces? LW – the construction zone is\, as planned\, as small as possible and there is very limited storage space for materials. There also needs to be access on the road in front of Bramfield\, Theobalds and Datchworth for emergency and refuse vehicles. CS reminded the meeting that phase 1&2 split the estate and we need to try to avoid this for phase 3&4. \n  \nGG – is there going to be a loss of parking? RG – some spaces will be lost but there are arrangements being put in place for off estate parking. \n \n \n\n\n4.0\nTemporary MUGA consultation\n \n\n\n  \n \n  \nRG presented the outcome of the consultation to assess views on the proposal to create a temporary play area on Murrain Road for the duration of the building works. Slides attached. \n  \nQuestions/comments: \n  \nES asked what the objections were from those against the proposals. RG – the impact of noise\, the potential for ASB\, a focus for drug users. RB – these aren’t the users of the MUGA. \n  \nCS pointed out that the location was cited as a problem by residents on the south side of the estate\, so those opposed to the proposals were not all necessarily objecting on grounds of noise\, ASB etc. \n  \nRG – we are suggesting that\, given the closeness of the result of the consultation\, we take a step back and look again at the issue\, this time with a commissioned play specialist. KM – it will be good to have someone involved who really understands the issues and who will look at the estate as a whole\, across ages and all options; as long as it doesn’t take too long! \n  \nEV – ideas might include 2 smaller spaces for play? \n  \nRG\, in response to brief discussion about formal/informal play made the point that LBH don’t want to produce something that is not used or is inappropriate. \n  \nRB – the objection to having to use the park is that each trip needs to be fully risk-assessed. She added that some facilities would be good for the summer. \n  \nIt was noted that there was some disappointment that this has not been concluded yet. \n  \n  \n  \n \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n \n\n\n5.0\nITLA update – Source \n \n\n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n \n  \nCS reported that residents visiting the Source drop ins have reflected the views just discussed about the MUGA. RB noted that there is a perceived divide between north and south on the estate.\n \n\n\n6.0\nAny other business  \n \n\n\n  \n6.1\n  \nPD raised an instance of Sunday working on 23rd February. Contractors were using very noisy equipment\, including circular saws; could have been UKPN. RW endorsed this as a major disruption on a Sunday at Datchworth Court. PD emailed an RLO email address at Mulalley but didn’t receive a response. Who could he have called to complain at the time? LW – this would not have been Mulalley carrying out enabling works. Unfortunately\, Mulalley have little control over statutory authorities if they are not working within the curtilage of the Mulalley site. Mulalley should be aware of works but not the times they are carried out. CP noted that there needs to be procedures in place in the future to deal with this type of incident. LW committed to invstigating why there was no response to PD from the RLO email address. \n  \n·       Post meeting note. The following response has been received from LBH: \n  \nLee from Mulalley has followed up on the AOB raised by Peter at last week’s RSG\, around the works taking place at the weekend\, and his subsequent email which was not responded to. \n  \nIt does seem that Peter’s email was missed\, as it went direct to the RLO director’s inbox – Mulalley have apologised for this and have advised that all resident liaison emails for King’s Crescent should be directed to joanna.kaye@mulalley.co.uk. Please could this email be included / updated in any future correspondence with residents? \n  \nJust so you’re aware regarding the complaint itself\, it does appear to have been contractors employed by UKPN. Mulalley will raise this with the contacts they have but as noted in the RSG\, UKPN are a statutory undertaker so Mulalley have no real control over their working hours. \n \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \nLW\n\n\n  \n6.2\n  \nEV asked for an update on the promised Mulalley website. It would be helpful so residents can be better informed about when and why things are happening and who is carrying them out. LW – there will be more communications\, including a website when there is a greater level of activity to report on. Newsletters should be going out. RB noted that residents do not receive regular bulletins. LW – a new Project Manager will start in early April who will be a contact. He also committed to resolving the issue with newsletters. \n \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \nLW\n\n\n  \n6.3 \n \n  \nRG – we will be planning an open exhibition of plans possibly in June. This will be part of the consultation leading up to the planning application with amendments from the original\, determined application. \n \n \n\n\n7.0 \nDate of next meeting  \n  \nCP – date to be decided. Likely in 3 months time\, to be confirmed after the exhibition referred to above. \n \n \n\n\n\n  \nSlides from the presentation can be viewed HERE
URL:https://kingscrescent.org/calendar/resident-steering-group-meeting-20-march-2025/
LOCATION:Hackney Showroom\, Murrain Road\, London\, N4 2GD
CATEGORIES:steering group meeting
ORGANIZER;CN="Source Partnership":MAILTO:john@sourcepartnership.com; carol@sourcepartnership.com
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20251023T190000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20251023T203000
DTSTAMP:20260404T013848
CREATED:20251125T133938Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251125T133938Z
UID:3239-1761246000-1761251400@kingscrescent.org
SUMMARY:RSG 23 Oct 2025
DESCRIPTION:Resident Steering Group‘ meetings happen every few months. \nKings Crescent residents can apply to be in the RSG and it is a chance to meet with Hackney’s Regeneration Team\, architects\, builders etc to discuss the plans for the next round of new buildings and refurbishment of existing blocks on the South of Kings Crescent Estate \n  \nNotes of Kings Crescent Steering Group Meeting held on 23rd October 2025  \n  \n  \n\n\n\nPresent:\nCllr Clare Potter (CP) (Chair) – late \nPaul Cushion (PC) (Theobalds Court) \nKarsten Hartman (KH) (Wallington Court) \n \nKathy MacEwan (KM) (Kimpton Court) \nPatricia Sim (Theobalds Court) \nEmley Pine (EP) (Bramfield Court) \n  \n \n\n\nIn Attendance:\nRon Greenwood (RG) \nCarol Squires (CS) \nMenekse Saitoglu \nJohn Morris  (minutes) \nLee Walsh (LW) \nTom Roberts (TR)\nLB Hackney \nSource Partnership (ITLA) \nSource Partnership (ITLA) \nSource Partnership (ITLA) \nMulalley \nHHB Architects \n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n1.0\nIntroductions and apologies \nAction\n\n\n \nApologies were received from Peter Douglas\, Rowena Scarborough\, Ellie Virk. Cllr Potter gave advanced notice that she would be late. \nCS chaired the meeting in Cllr Potter’s absence.\n  \n \n\n\n2.0\nNotes of previous meeting held 9th July 2025 and any Matters Arising not elsewhere on the agenda\n \n\n\n  \n \nOne correction to the last minutes: item 4.1\, Jane Kaye should be Joanna Kaye\, Mulalley RLO. \nThe rest of the minutes were agreed.\n  \n \n\n\n3.0\nProject update – Lee Walsh\n \n\n\n3.1 \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n3.2 \n  \n \nLW gave an update on Mulalley’s activities since the last meeting and proposed timings for future events. Presentation slides are attached with these minutes. \n●      S73 planning application due to be submitted Nov 2025. This seeks approval of the changes made to the original\, consented application from 2021. Outcome of this expected March 2026. It is hoped that the process of seeking approval from the Building Safety Regulator will conclude in Sept 2026. Mulalley hope to be able to start on site Oct 2026. \n●      Some live services are still being uncovered. \n●      Sewer diversion works along Casbeard St will start early in the new year and last approx. 12 weeks. Casbeard St will be closed to traffic but the footpath retained\, protected by Heras fencing. \n●      Ground remediation will continue until Spring 2026. \n●      Site investigations will continue until Aug/Sept 2026 to align with anticipated Building Safety Regulator approval around the same time. \n●      LW illustrated façade investigation locations on the slides. Scaffolding will be erected at these points.  The intention is to start and complete the investigations between November and December. \n●      Joanne\, the RLO’s role was explained. (See slide). \n●      Communications: monthly newsletters will be established\, supplemented by bulletins on specific issues. The Comms. portal will be set up once building work starts on site. In the meantime\, LW suggested a work group with residents and relevant Mulalley staff to tailor comms for this particular scheme. \n  \nQuestions/comments \n  \nEP – can we share Joanna’s number with residents? \nLW – yes. \n  \nEP – will sewer diversion works affect the trees at the end of Murrain Rd? \nLW – not the trees but some street furniture might have to be relocated \n  \nKH – will the road be renewed after the diversion works are completed? \nLW – it will be repaired and properly resurfaced at the end of the construction works \n  \nKM – what is the current approach to Social Value? It would be good to hear from Julian’s successor and get a sense of what resources might be available from the SV team at this stage. \nLW – Amber\, in the Social Value team is available and Julian’s successor as Head of Social Value\, Christina Byrne will introduce herself very soon. A budget has been allocated for all 3 schemes in Hackney that Mulalley are working on\, with Kings Crescent benefitting from the majority of it. LW and Christina will meet to agree what is left from the current SV allocation\, pre construction phase. \n  \nKM felt that there should be some support left in the budget for the garden project\, from Julian Sanz’s time. \nLW suggested that Kathy email him with her/the TRA’s assumptions to prompt him to discuss with Head of SV. \n  \nEP – is there still money available to fund youth workers? Remi (TRA Chair) has asked if this can be extended pending the outcome of a National Lottery application. \nLW wished to make it clear that there was never a commitment to fund these roles. The support provided was to pay for a shortfall temporarily following a previous unsuccessful external funding bid.\n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \nKathy to email Lee \n  \n  \n  \n  \n \n\n\n4.0\nOverview of S73 planning application – Tom Roberts\n \n\n\n4.1 \n  \n  \n4.2 \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n \nTR gave a comprehensive presentation on all aspects of design and other elements of the Section 73 application that seeks approval for the parts of the scheme amended since the original application. Presentation slides accompany these minutes. There were also brick sample boards available in the meeting room. \n  \nQuestions/comments \n  \nKH – can TR confirm that heights of blocks hasn’t changed? \nTR – no heights have changed but there have been some increases in roof parapets (of approx. 0.5 of a metre) to keep maintenance workers on the roofs safe. \n  \nCS – is there an impact on room sizes following reconfigurations? \nTR – some rooms have been redesigned to create new layouts for fire separation \n  \nPC – have flats been made smaller to allow for 2nd staircases? \nTR – Some 2 beds have become 1 beds. Minimum size of 70sq m for a 2 bed has been retained. \nRG confirmed that the scheme is still viable even though there are some different sized flats. The overall number of homes is the same. \n  \nEP queried the dark brick on the external elevations of DZ4. She believes it will feel oppressive. Currently the sunlight bounces off the light coloured brickwork of phase 1 blocks. Could we ask that a survey is carried out of residents’ perceptions and preferences on the brick colour? \nTR – we feel that it will not be as dark as feared. \nKH asked if the choice of brick is a cost issue. \nRG confirmed not. \nKH – light coloured brick can look beautiful. \nKM – while a dark brick looks good on some buildings\, it does seem that a lighter brick would work better here. Could we visit some developments where the proposed type of brick has been used? \nCS suggested taking this issue away from this meeting and Source will carry out a simple poll of potentially affected residents to gauge views while the idea of a lighter brick colour is being reviewed by HHb\, Mulalley and LBH \n  \nEP – how tall will the new buildings be? \nTR – DZ4 will be 6 stories high. No additional stories have been added. \n  \nKM asked if a more detailed impression of what it would be like to walk around a new block could be produced. \nKH – Kimpton and Wallington Ct residents will be facing the tallest building so it would be good to get a better sense of how this would feel. \nTR – there will be a model but it won’t show brick colours. \n  \nBalconies \nPC – re south side new balconies; will they have solid floors? \nTR – yes\, they have to be solid. \n  \n  \n  \nLandscaping/public realm \nEP raised the issues that there have been with the Murrain Rd play equipment; residents wouldn’t want these replicated in the new courtyards. Equipment needs to be able to be maintained by the management team after completion. \nTR – LBH have hopefully learnt lessons from phase 1&2 play arrangements. RG confirmed this. TR will check back with MUF what current thinking is on play equipment. \n  \nEP – will sound from the new courtyards be similar to existing behind new blocks? Is there a way the sound from play can be mitigated? \nTR – the nw courtyards will be bigger\, more open and MUF have designed in trees that should dampen down noise. \n  \nKM – leading on from Dinah Bornat’s work\, has there been enough consideration given to the way children navigate their way safely around the estate and between play spaces? There will still be vehicles moving round the estate\, drawings still show vehicle routes. Bikes deliveries speed through. Could routes be designed so they read less like roads? PC added that bikes and e scooters can be dangerous when driving through; the play street needs better segregation from this. \nTR acknowledged there is a conflict between ‘doorstep play’ and children’s ability to move around and make noise. \nCS suggested picking these items up at the exhibition\, provisionally organised for 2nd December. \n  \nCP asked whether the planning application will be considered by the Planning Committee or by delegated authority to officers. \nRG – delegated unless there are material objections. \n \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \nSource  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \nTom to speak to MUF re play facilities \n\n\n5.0\nITLA update – Source\n \n\n\n5.1\nCS – Source have continued to hold monthly drop ins during the summer. The MUGA consultation has been a key topic over these months. \n  \nWe have also circulated some revised terms of reference for the steering group and JM asked members\, by email what motivates them to attend meetings and to invite suggestions on how the group can play a more active role in the development proposals. JM summarised the responses – most who answered said they came to RSG meetings to keep informed of current progress and for updates. It was also apparent that we need to be clearer with residents on what they can influence and what is presented to them as information. The quality of the consultation material was also raised and the presentations tonight have been an improvement\, particularly in terms of ‘readability’ on the screen. \n  \nCS – we also looked at what could usefully be a regular agenda item. \nCP\, reflecting previous discussion\, suggested Social Value. \n  \nEP – at TRA meetings we try to ask residents what they want\, so it would be useful to know what money might be available and when. \nLW reminded the meeting that their Social Value budget has to be spread across 3 estates and this budget in the pre-construction phase is limited. It will be larger when construction starts. Mulalley would like to see a ‘shopping list’ of suggestions that doesn’t just funnel all the money to youth activities. He repeated that a working group of residents and Mulalley staff could start to address some of these issues. KM endorsed this approach as a way of keeping the TRA involved and valued. \n  \nCS suggested deferring further discussion on the group’s terms of reference but adding Social Value as a regular agenda item. CP suggested further discussions on our approach to the governance of the RSG could take place at the next partnership meeting which is the regular meeting between CP\, Source and LBH officers. \n \n \n\n\n6.0\nAny other business  \n \n\n\n6.\nThere was no further business\n \n\n\n7.0 \nDate of next meeting  \n \n \n\n\n7.1\nCS suggested 21st January and 25th March 2026 with the exhibition for all residents taking place on 2nd December. \n \n \n\n\n\n  \nA copy of the minutes and the accompanying presentation slides from Mulally can be found HERE
URL:https://kingscrescent.org/calendar/rsg-23-oct-2025/
LOCATION:Hackney Showroom Space\, 4 Murrain Road\, London\, N4 2BN\, United Kingdom
CATEGORIES:steering group meeting
ORGANIZER;CN="Source Partnership":MAILTO:john@sourcepartnership.com; carol@sourcepartnership.com
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR