Steering group meeting March 2021
2021-03-31 19:00 - 20:00 (Europe/London) | Online
This is a closed meeting for those who have applied to be part of the residents steering group. It is mandatory to have attended the steering group training provided by Source Partnership. The steering group comprises of residents from both the old and new blocks and provides resident input into the next stage of new build and refurbishment of Kings Crescent.
For further information on joining the ‘Resident Steering Group’ please email john@sourcepartnership.com or carol@sourcepartnership.com
Minutes

In Attendance:
Cllr. Brian Bell (BB) (Chair)
Cllr Clare Potter (CP)
Ron Greenwood (RG)
William Owen (WO)
Carol Squires (CS)
John Morris (JM)
Menekse Saitoglu
7 residents (members of RSG)
LB Hackney
LB Hackney
LB Hackney
LB Hackney
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)

1.0
Introductions and apologies
Action

1.1

Apologies were received from Hana Chambers, Natalie Crouchley (who is moving from Kings Crescent), Peter Sim and Alfred Fiorentini.

2.0
Notes of previous meeting held 8th February 2021 and any Matters Arising not elsewhere on the agenda

2.1

The minutes from the last meeting were agreed as accurate. All matters arising to be discussed on agenda.

BB reminded members of the RSG that their role was to represent the whole community of Kings Crescent or at least their own block. It was not a forum for private or personal business to be raised.

3.0
Phase 3 & 4

3.1

Procurement update – RG

The three tenders have been submitted to an LBH moderation meeting and elements were assessed by a resident evaluation panel. LBH QS are now reviewing the commercial aspects of the bids and some contractual requirements. LBH are aiming for maximum risk to be borne by the contractor so there are cost implications to this approach. There is also a check going on with LBH Legal and Procurement teams to ensure that all requirements have been complied with.

The negotiation period will now start on 21/4/21 and last approx. 6 weeks, with a favoured contractor hopefully emerging late May. The internal approval process will start in June alongside the Stage 2 S20 notice which involves a 30 day period for representation back to the Council. Stage 3 and its 30 day notice period will start in August. Concurrently, work on preparing a cabinet report will be carried out with a likely Cabinet meeting to approve the awarding of the contract in September (subject to the S20 process). Contract mobilisation will run from approx. Oct 2021 to Jan 2022 with start on site predicted for late Jan next year.

RG recorded thanks to the Evaluation Panel for their contribution; LBH want to capture the best of all the qualitative sections of all 3 bids to persuade the successful contractor to adopt them.

JG asked if the negotiation period meant that all 3 bids were over budget. RG confirmed that this was the case and that LBH are looking for savings but not ones that will compromise fundamental design elements.

JG asked what happens if there is no agreement on price after the negotiation period. RG is confident that agreement will be reached and added that the bidders know the overall budget so know where they need to make savings if they want to be successful.

JG asked if any change of scope of the works will impact on the S20 liabilities of leaseholders. RG – yes and these will be reflected in the costings in the Stage 2 S20 notice. This stage of the process cannot take place until LBH know the costs from the successful contractor.

PD asked if Early Contractor Involvement will result in any change to detailed design. RG noted that contractors will be looking at supply chain savings, e.g on kitchen fittings or on consultancy costs (e.g. structural engineers). LBH will not allow an impact on the external appearance. Any savings on building standards will be on internal specifications.

KH asked if issues around costs might be addressed by adding more stories onto planned blocks. RG – definitely not. BB added that this would need a new planning application which isn’t feasible.

3.2

Resident Evaluation Panel feedback

JG went through the summary of the Panel’s impressions of all 3 bids. JM emphasised the closeness of the scores. JG highlighted some key elements of the 3 bids in the sections that the Panel considered. The summary document is attached to these minutes.

CP agreed with the conclusion on the best site for the respite facilities (behind Bramfield Court on the Queens Drive side) and commended the positive feedback from the Panel. BB and CP noted thanks to the Panel for their work on this.

KH emphasised the importance of the inclusion of daytime sleeping arrangements in the respite approach for shift and night workers.

PA noted that all 3 contractors gave comprehensive, good quality answers and that it was hard to distinguish between them.

3.3

Considerate Constructors Scheme (CCS)

JWM gave an overview of the scheme based on her experience of working for Higgins on phase 1&2.

CCS is a voluntary scheme that aims to raise standards across the whole of the construction industry. It consists of 5 parts. Contractors should:
1. Care about appearance.
Examples from Higgins included: wheel washing of all vehicles and regular washing down of the road, all hoarding were kept neat and tidy, non-construction employees had to wear a suit to look professional
2. Respect the community
This was a big part of the RLO’s job; they managed the respite centre and it was important that everyone visiting the site was made to feel welcome and safe. The RLO was the first point of contact for complaints. The local economy was supported by providing local work as traffic marshalls and apprenticeships
3. Protect the environment
This was everyone’s responsibility and of paramount importance. Jill did daily boundary walks with monitoring equipment to log noise levels. This will be of particular importance for Weston Court. Higgins also worked with allotment holders to help them encourage beneficial wildlife to their plots.
4. Care about safety
All staff and visitors had to do a H&S induction before coming onto site, CCTV, well maintained fences, 24 hr security were all part of this. CCTV picked up an assault and this was of help to police dealing with the incident.
5. Value their workforce
Higgins had monthly Employers Engagement Meetings where a rep from each sub-contractor met to raise issues, e.g. standard of site facilities, H&S problems. Personal development needs were also met – Jill went on training courses (e.g community dev. course with Newman Francis, First Aid), all employees and sub-contractors were provided with training to obtain CSCS cards and alerted when certificates were due for renewal.

There are also mascots and resources for going into local schools to raise awareness of site safety amongst younger children and for older students, a chance to ‘sell’ the industry as a potential career option.

The standards are monitored by twice yearly visits from CCS inspectors who allocate marks out of 9 for each part, with 5 more marks available for ‘above and beyond’ achievement. Contractors should aim to score at least 40 points.

RG added that in addition to these standards, LBH will have its own key performance indicators.
The meeting’s thanks to Jill for this presentation was noted.

4.0
Unit C update

4.1

WO reported that a contractor has been selected to do the fit out. The timescale for the whole process of completing the work is extended by the requirement to get Building Control sign off once works are completed. A pre-contract meeting will determine likely start and finish dates. Approx. start in June? A more definite timeline should be available at the next RSG.

5.0
TRA update

5.1

EP reported that the TRA and Hackney Showroom have been busy planning for activities that can take place as soon as restrictions are further eased. LBH Community Development fund paid for a successful quiz night on 19/3, an activity book for primary pupils, both organised with Hackney Showroom. Future projects being planned include gardening (purchase of seeds, tools and the creation of new beds for community use), an art project and support for a local film maker who is creating a Black Lives Matter-themed film.
EP also welcomed the new noticeboards on the estate. Meetings for the rest of 2021 are now in place and publicised.

6.0
Update from ITLA

6.1

CS noted that Source’s involvement has continued to be minimal due to lockdown restrictions. A request has been made to open up the allotment area behind the Vince Murrain Centre; this could be unwise given the current condition of the area and the still unresolved issue of the open sewer pipe. CP asked if this area could be made safe so that residents can capitalise on one more growing season now. RG said that the issue with the sewer pipe has been noted and needs to be chased internally.

JM raised the continued inability to use the VM Community Centre. CS noted that it will be open for local elections in May, so Source will be pressing to be able to use it for meetings of 6 or less.

RG

7.0
Phase 1 & 2

7.1

Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE)

WO asked if RSG members and neighbours could be encouraged to complete this. 10 have been completed on line; there may be others completed in hard copy and waiting in the LBH offices. WO will be calling all residents in the new blocks to chase for the surveys.

EP has reminded everyone on the TRA website and Whatsapp groups. KH to also add a reminder on the FB site.

KH

8.0
Any urgent business

8.1

RG informed the meeting that the CCTV to the bike stores is being installed next week.

8.2

KH asked about progress on resolving the problems with some of the northside blocks’ lifts. WO reported that a lift consultant had visited yesterday; their report should be available in approx. 4 weeks.

8.3

EP raised the continued long list of outstanding defects in the northside blocks which is taking up a lot of time at TRA meetings. RG reported that issues have been escalated to Head of Regen. and Head of Building Maintenance. There should be some tangible progress to report at the next TRA meeting on 15th April. EP noted that residents are getting very frustrated with the time this is taking to resolve, especially now that increased service charges bills have been sent out. Can RG help to get Leasehold Services Team to the next meeting on 15/4? RG said he would contact them.

RG

9.0
Date of next meeting

9.1

26th May 2021, 7.00

Previous information:
Meeting to be held on
Wednesday 31st March starting at 7.00pm
(via Google)

AGENDA

Agenda item
Lead

1
Introductions and Apologies

Cllr Bell (Chair)

2
Notes of previous meeting held 8th February 2021 and any matters arising not elsewhere on the agenda

Cllr Bell (Chair)

3
Phase 3 & 4
a) Update on progress with contractor procurement
b) Feedback from resident evaluation panel
c) Considerate Constructors Scheme

Ron (LBH)

Jill

4
Unit C update

Will (LBH)

5
TRA update

Emley (TRA Chair)

6

ITLA update
Source

7
Phase 1 & 2
(a) Post occupancy survey
(b) Outstanding issues

Will (LBH)
Ron (LBH)

8
Any urgent business

Cllr Bell (Chair)

9
Date of next meeting

Cllr Bell (Chair)

Steering group meeting May 2021
2021-05-26 19:00 - 20:00 | Online
This is a closed meeting for those who have applied to be part of the residents steering group. It is mandatory to have attended the steering group training provided by Source Partnership. The steering group comprises of residents from both the old and new blocks and provides resident input into the next stage of new build and refurbishment of Kings Crescent.
For further information on joining the ‘Resident Steering Group’ please email john@sourcepartnership.com or carol@sourcepartnership.com

Notes of Kings Crescent Steering Group Meeting
held on 26th May 2021 via Google Meet

Those Present:
Cllr. Brian Bell (BB) (Chair)
Cllr Clare Potter (CP)
5 residents:
EP, JWM, KH, PA, PD

(residents names removed for public version)

In Attendance:
Ron Greenwood (RG)
William Owen (WO)
Carol Squires (CS)
John Morris (JM)
LB Hackney
LB Hackney
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)

1.0
Introductions and apologies
Action

1.1
Apologies were received from residents JG, PS, NJ, TD and AF.
BB asked it to be noted that he would call on Peter Sim and Alfred as they have been unable to attend any meetings since they started to take place remotely.

BB

2.0
Notes of previous meeting held 31st March 2021 and any Matters Arising not elsewhere on the agenda

2.1
The minutes from the last meeting were agreed as accurate. All matters arising to be discussed on the agenda.

3.0
Phase 3 & 4

3.1
Update on progress with contractor procurement – RG
Week 4 of negotiations has now started with the 2 remaining tenderers. One tenderer dropped out as they were realistic about their likely inability to meet the budget target. The 2 tenderers are very keen to win the work and have devoted a lot of resources to achieve a deliverable programme within budget. Both MDs have been involved, demonstrating commitment from senior managers within the organisations.
RG expects another two rounds of negotiations before a Best & Final Offer in early July; the whole period of negotiation will have taken approx. 8-9 weeks. One challenge the tenderers are facing at the moment is getting commitments from pre-cast concrete suppliers at the necessary price and scale. This illustrates the issue of achieving savings while retaining the integrity of the design. LBH are also looking at alternative specs for the new build in the areas of structural engineering and M&E, so alternative specs for lifts, lighting etc.
Scheduled for the selection of a contractor in July, with internal approvals (including Cabinet) in September. The 2nd stage of the S20 process would be due to complete at the end of August, with stage 3 completing at the end of October. Contracts would be signed in mid November with start on site March 2022.
BB asked which contractor dropped out. RG informed the meeting that it was United Living.

3.2
Site visits

These have been proposed in order for the tenderers to provide some exemplar projects for RSG members and LBH to visit. [One potential contractor] have offered a visit to Thamesmead to illustrate a project that is completed and one on site. [The landlord] are welcoming the opportunity too. RG acknowledged the distance away from Kings Crescent and will talk to [contractor] about other possible options. [Another contractor] have offered sites in Enfield and Lewisham. JM reported that dates being proposed are in w/c 7th June but week day visits are a problem for some residents. BB suggested looking at Saturdays 12th or 26th. He would prefer the same group to be at all visits for consistent comparison. JWM asked if a photographic or video record of the visits could be taken for those who can’t make the dates. RG agreed.

RG

3.3

Feedback from tenderers’ meetings with TRA and Hackney Showroom
RG thanked Emley, Nina and Sam from Hackney Showroom and JM for participating in the ‘added value’ meetings with the contractors. EP felt that both were very open to hearing about what the TRA and HS are planning and seemed responsive to helping meet their aspirations if successful. EP also emphasised the point she made about wishing for early community involvement in fitting out the new community space to be built as part of the new development.

4.0
Unit C update

4.1
WO gave feedback on the new timescales for the fit out. The building contract has been signed off following resolution of a few queries from London Fire Brigade. Contract will be signed tomorrow (27th May). Start on site scheduled for 7th June with estimated completion in 6 weeks. Building Control will need to sign off at the end of the process. Overall completion now likely to be end July/beginning August.

5.0
Phase 1&2 update

5.1
WO gave feedback on the Post Occupancy Evaluation survey. He noted that there were more responses than expected and they were well thought through and articulate. The single biggest group of responses came from shared ownership properties. There was a wide spread of scores by block and by tenure and the message was similar across all. Highlights of the responses included:
· heating and plumbing issues were a common cause of concern
· winter gardens and balconies were generally welcomed
· problems with front doors and bike sheds were also highlighted. (CCTV in bike sheds is due to be installed very soon).
· in terms of services, repairs received the lowest scores (both for speed of completion and confusion over who to contact)
· increases in energy costs a major concern (the Energy Team in LBH are investigating this)
Actions include:
· the problem with the lifts has been identified as overheating in a key part of the mechanism; ventilation measures are being investigated.
· new door handles have been fitted to Kimpton and Sandon
WO felt that although many of the issues are not new to officers, it has been useful to convey to colleagues in other departments the concerns expressed by residents. BB concurred that the exercise has been helpful and it proves that the issues are widespread – not just a few people complaining loudly.
KH asked if LBH are looking at lift issues in all the blocks. WO replied that the assumption now is that the problems experienced in Kimpton and Sandon are common to all blocks. The mitigation measure of installing some extra ventilation is now about identifying where this should be – in the control panel, in the lobby area?
KH added that the lifts are very noisy and he is surprised that these modern lifts do make so much noise. WO explained that the plan is to solve the overheating problem, isolate that as an issue then look at other factors.
EP expressed concern at the number of people still reporting that the emergency button is not working and are still getting stuck in the lift. It is frustrating that experts apparently confirm that the lifts are ok while residents know there are still problems.
KH mentioned that although signs in lifts say not to call the Fire Brigade in case of emergency, if the lift engineer is e.g. 2 hours away, people will call the FB.

6.0
TRA update

6.1
EP reported on recent meetings. There has been an ETRA meeting since the last RSG. One outcome was a promised separate meeting with Leasehold Services. BB agreed to help chase the leasehold section for a further meeting.
Another major issue that arose was the ongoing concerns over electric meters overcharging. RG stated that problems are made complex by the need to bring together so many departments within the Council. Regen is not necessarily the best team to resolve these. BB acknowledged the time it takes to resolve problems.
There is a community activity-oriented TRA meeting on 10th June and an AGM in September. New committee members would be very welcome.

BB

7.0
ITLA update

7.1
CS reported back. Source had hoped to be able to be back on site; Community Halls Team were slow to respond to our Risk Assessment and request to be allowed back into the Vince Murrain CC office. BB to take this up with Community Halls.
CP asked if the capping off of the sewer pipe was still a problem. JWM said she saw someone around the rear of the centre, so they could have been fixing this. WO to investigate if this work has been carried out.

BB

WO

8.0
Any urgent business

8.1
None

9.0
Date of next meeting

9.1
27th July 2021, 7.00. We will seek advice nearer the date if it will be possible to meet in person.
EP asked if the Stage 2 S20 Notices will have gone out by the time of the next meeting. RG replied that, technically on current timescales, yes but cannot be guaranteed. In any event there will be an update on the process at the meeting.

Steering group Meeting July 2021
2021-07-27 19:00 - 20:00 | Online
This is a closed meeting for those who have applied to be part of the residents steering group. It is mandatory to have attended the steering group training provided by Source Partnership. The steering group comprises of residents from both the old and new blocks and provides resident input into the next stage of new build and refurbishment of Kings Crescent.
For further information on joining the ‘Resident Steering Group’ please email john@sourcepartnership.com or carol@sourcepartnership.com

Notes of Kings Crescent Steering Group Meeting
held on 27th July 2021 via Google Meet

Those Present:
Cllr. Brian Bell (BB) (Chair)
Cllr Clare Potter (CP)
7 residents:
EP, JWM, KH, PA, PD, HC, TD
(Names removed for public version)

In Attendance:
Ron Greenwood (RG)
William Owen (WO)
Carol Squires (CS)
John Morris (JM)
Menekse Saitoglu
Sam Curtis Lindsay (SCL)
LB Hackney
LB Hackney
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Hackney Showroom

1.0
Introductions and apologies
Action

1.1
Apologies were received from residents ES and RA

2.0
Notes of previous meeting held 26th May 2021 and any Matters Arising not elsewhere on the agenda

2.1
The minutes from the last meeting were agreed as accurate. All matters arising to be discussed on the agenda.

It was noted that the sewer behind the Vince Murrain Community Centre has finally been repaired with a permanent cover.

3.0
Hackney Showroom update

3.1
Sam updated the meeting with the planned events over the coming months organised by HS:
· 14/8 – street party 12 noon to 6.00 pm to launch the refitted HS/TRA space.
· Everyone on the estate should have received a brochure listing activities for the rest of 2021.
· 16/8 for 2 weeks Futureheads for 8-11 year olds. On line sign up. All activities are free for KC residents.
· From 3/9, every Friday an over 60s lunch club, 12 -2. In parallel with this, HS are also launching a befriending service.
· The TRA is restarting the homework club in the HS space from 6/9.
· Disco Loco library on Tuesdays 4-6 with reading and activities
· Easy Rollers – soft play and music for under 1s between 10 and 11 am, under 5s 11 to 12.
· Kings Feast – a meal and quiz, kids before 7.00, adults 7.00 to 9.00
· 15/9 TRA AGM
· TRA family fun mornings once a month from 7/10 – coffee and drop in to chat to Chama, HS Community Co-ordinator.
· The space will also be open for hirers.
· Once open, HS will be at Murrain Rd 10-6 Monday to Friday.
CP asked what the arrangements will be for local residents to run activities.
SCL confirmed that for events run by HS there will be no charge for KC residents but if someone is running an activity for which they charge, a small subsidised charge will be levied on their use of the space.
JMW to send SCL details of someone she knows who is interested in running seated exercise classes.

JMW

4.0
Unit C update

4.1
WO reported that there are a few snags to sort out before hand over. He showed some photos of the internal fit out.

5.0
Phase 3&4 update

5.1
RG reported that the 6th and final negotiation meeting is due to be held next week. A total of 12 weeks of negotiations. He was encouraged by the attention to detail and the involvement of senior directors, demonstrating a keenness to win the work.
Issues that have been challenging or been the subject of value engineering include:
· Uncertainty about pricing and availability of pre cast concrete such that part of the ground floor flank elevation to the main courtyard on DZ5N has been changed to brick
· Alternative lift supplier being discussed with the LBH lifts team for sales flats
Savings on refurbishment have been considered in the light of a desire to maintain design parity with the new build blocks.
· RG presented proposals to retain brickwork to walkways facing inwards to the estate. EP, PA and JWM were in favour of this as long as existing metal work and other retained elements are cleaned up. JWM asked if the balcony walkways would be resurfaced. RG confirmed they will.
The view is that the external changes may require a planning application as a material amendment to existing permission.
Further value engineering proposals will result in:
· Not replacing Weston Court roof. The condition survey indicates that the roof has a 15 year life. The view is that preserving the roof is more sustainable than its replacement with a green one. RG acknowledged that this will put Weston Court out of synch with the other blocks in terms of future roof replacement programmes. PA agrees with this.
KH asked if brick is not considered a better option visually. RG – specifying pre cast concrete does fit with fashion but there is an aspiration to specify a mix of pcc and brick.
CP asked if these reductions will result in a lower charge for leaseholders. RG replied that inevitably, the less is spent on the refurbishment, the lower the leaseholder recharge will be.
HC queried the rationale for changing roofs given the release of carbon when carrying out building works. RG agreed with the principle that it is more sustainable not to change the roof.
CP asked if, when the Weston Ct roof does need replacing it will be replaced with a green roof. RG assumed that this would be the case unless there has been further technological developments when this time comes.
· Omission of external resident stores from spec. is another potential saving. JWM strongly opposed to this; they are used extensively, though she acknowledged they can attract ASB. RG suggested the option of identifying alternative storage facilities. Fire safety is also a consideration in removing stores where they are currently situated. BB asked what is proposed for the areas where the stores will have been removed. RG replied that there are no plans at the moment; it could be worked through with residents and the contractors.
CP asked if data could be brought to the next meeting demonstrating how well used the stores are at the moment. WO to compile a report for the next RSG.

BB asked for an updated timetable. RG reported:

o Final negotiation meeting 6/8/21
o Best and final offer to be submitted by 23/8/21
o S20 stage 2 to be issued once the result of the tender is known – Sept.
o A surgery for leaseholder queries will be organised mid Oct.
o End of October completion of S20 process.
o Cabinet approval on 6/10/21.
o Contract signed in November.
o 3rd stage S20 notice is more by way of information and can be issued after contract entered into.
o Spring 2022 start on site.

EP raised the timescale of the S20 process: if cabinet has given the go ahead early in October, there will not have been the opportunity for leaseholders to put concerns via S20 consultation before the cabinet approval. RG stated that the issues are well known and there will be a delegated authority to deal with ongoing concerns at Director level.

BB emphasised that leaseholders can only be charged a maximum of what they have been notified in the S20 notices. It looks likely that there will now be reductions for all blocks.

EP asked for an update on leaseholder buy backs. RG reported that they have continued and that 2 or 3 more are being processed at the moment.

WO

5.2
There was a site visit to [one of the potential contractor’s] sites this morning. BB asked for feedback.

PA found it interesting. The finishes and the show flats seemed well designed, despite a few small issues with cupboards and doors. The community centre was an impressive size and similar to the size of the planned CC at Kings Crescent.

PD thought common areas were a generous size and again, finishes looked good.

BB noted the balconies that looked out over a very busy road and the underground car park apparently flooded.

WO ran through photos and videos he took on the visit.

RG noted that one area of discussion arose around the desire to start the conversation about the fit out of our community centre early.

6.0
Phase 1 & 2 update

6.1
WO reported that many defects have now been resolved. An external consultant went round the energy centre and has asked to speak to a few residents about monitoring their energy use over a period of time.

LBH are still waiting for a response from Higgins on resolving the problem with venting the lift shafts. WO will let residents know when remedial works are starting.

KH reported that the Wallington lift is very noisy. WO to note and pass onto the lift consultant. He also noted that a new lift contractor is now in place for LBH – Apex.

BB asked that this is kept on the agenda for future meetings.

WO

WO

7.0
TRA update

7.1
EP reported that the TRA had their quarterly community-focused meeting on 10/6. An event around the allotments was organised on 20th June; there is another one this Sunday.

The homework club is switching to HS in September.

The TRA secured a grant so that HS’s Futureheads programme can be extended into a second week.

TRA AGM is on 15th Sept. Nominations for new committee members are welcome.

8.0
ITLA update

8.1
JM gave an update: Source have resumed a presence at the CC office on Mondays and Wednesdays but there have been very few visitors. We will take a break over August and review in September.

We have been dealing with leaseholder buyback requests and anticipate more work when the next stage of S20 Notices go out.

9.0
Any urgent business

None

10.0
Date of next meeting

22nd September 2021, 7.00. We will seek advice nearer the date if it will be possible to meet in person.

Agenda:

Agenda item
Lead

1

Introductions and Apologies

Cllr Bell (Chair)

2
Notes of previous meeting held 26th May 2021 and any matters arising not elsewhere on the agenda

Cllr Bell (Chair)

3
Hackney Showroom – update and future activities

Nina, Sam (HS)

4

Unit C update

Will (LBH)

5
Phase 3 & 4
a) Update on progress with contractor procurement
b) Site visits – Ladderswood Estate 27th July

Ron (LBH)
Ron (LBH) / John (Source)

6
Phase 1 & 2

Will (LBH)

7
TRA update

Emley (TRA Chair)

8

ITLA update
Source

9

Any urgent business

Cllr Bell (Chair)

10
Date of next meeting

Cllr Bell (Chair)

Steering Group Sept 2021
2021-09-22 19:00 - 20:00 | Online
This is a closed meeting for those who have applied to be part of the residents steering group. It is mandatory to have attended the steering group training provided by Source Partnership. The steering group comprises of residents from both the old and new blocks and provides resident input into the next stage of new build and refurbishment of Kings Crescent.
For further information on joining the ‘Resident Steering Group’ please email john@sourcepartnership.com or carol@sourcepartnership.com

Notes of Kings Crescent Steering Group Meeting
held on 22nd September 2021 via Google Meet

Those Present:
Cllr. Brian Bell (BB) (Chair)
Cllr Clare Potter (CP)
3 residents:
EP, ES, PD

(resident names removed in public version)

In Attendance:
Ron Greenwood (RG)
William Owen (WO)
John Morris (JM)
LB Hackney
LB Hackney
Source Partnership (ITLA)

1.0
Introductions and apologies
Action

1.1
Apologies were received from residents HC (who asked for her intention to step down from the RSG to be noted), KH, JWM, PA, AA, Carol Squires (Source)

2.0
Peter Sim

2.1
Councillor Bell and Councillor Potter shared some memories of Peter Sim who died on 23rd August. Peter was the longest standing RSG member and a tenacious advocate for Kings Crescent residents and for the progression of the estate’s improvement and redevelopment. A minutes silence was observed.

3.0
Notes of previous meeting held 27th July 2021 and any Matters Arising not elsewhere on the agenda

3.1
The minutes from the last meeting were agreed as accurate. All matters arising to be discussed on the agenda.

4.0
Phase 3&4 update

4.1
Contractor procurement update
RG reported that negotiations with the 2 bidding contractors are now complete but the deadline for submission of their Best & Final Offers has now been extended to 30th September. This is in response to the recent holiday period and the requirement for them to provide additional detailed information for LBH that was recently requested to establish a comprehensive Building Information Modelling system. This provides a detailed record of all components of new buildings once built. This is particularly important for setting in place a fire safety record. ES confirmed that this comprises 3D modelling and is now becoming standard across the industry.
RG stressed that although this means more delays, LBH are working to achieve the best quality scheme possible. Post Grenfell, there are more safety requirements to deal with. CP acknowledged the frustration this will undoubtedly cause for residents but it is important that the Council meets all these obligations.
RG reported that the programme is now aiming for a Cabinet approval for the successful tenderer on 6th December, with contract signing January 2022. There will be 3 – 6 months set up before start on site in Spring/early Summer 2022.

4.2
Southside leaseholders S20
RG reported that the Stage 2 Notices will now be sent out in January to avoid arriving with leaseholders just before Christmas. They cannot be sent out before the Cabinet approval as the identity of the contractor has to be included as well as cost estimates, total costs broken down by block and component. The specification will also be available on request. There will be surgeries organised for individual owners to discuss personal circumstances and to get clarity on the Notice and payment options. These will be held approx. half way through the statutory 30 day consultation period.
EP raised the issue of the stress this has been causing leaseholders who have no way of planning for the future, not knowing when the 5year clawback of charges period will start. She asked that LBH seriously consider setting a start date for the 5 years now rather than leaving it as the practical completion date. This could be from now, contract signing date or start on site date. RG indicated that internally, this has been raised and a response to the project slippage is being considered. The S20 letter will contain information on any changes to the current arrangements. CP asked that her and Cllr Bell’s weight be added to the representations being made to senior management for this review.

4.3
Pre start on site engagement
RG noted an important piece of work will be around the fit out of the new community facility in DZ5N. The programming of the new build is not known but early decisions on how the space can be fitted out to match the community’s needs and aspirations will ensure it is fit for purpose when completed. The space, at 195 sq m is slightly smaller than the Vince Murrain centre and roughly the same as Unit C. There is a fit out budget. Some LBH officers are looking at options for the future management of the new centre and using Woodberry Down as an example of how social businesses can be involved.
RG would like a clear brief agreed with residents involved in the decision-making, via the RSG, TRA and Hackney Showroom. An example would be whether a commercial kitchen is required. Many at the Ladderswood visit in Enfield liked the size of the community centre there but felt that the size and facilities in the kitchen were unnecessary. However, EP pointed out that a kitchen similar in size to the one in Vince Murrain made it possible to run small cooking classes and to make simple hot meals, while the kitchen in the Hackney Showroom facility is not big enough or well enough equipped to do this.
CP – a commercial kitchen is more about the facilities and standard of the equipment rather than the size of the room.
There was discussion around the need for a business case for a particular approach to the CC fit out. However, there has been consultation through surveys on what residents would like to see in a community facility and EP added that through the activities now running at Unit C, the TRA are able to judge demand and interest from users that can inform decisions on the new space.
It was agreed to set up a Working Group to explore options and produce a brief. EP to canvass interest among residents to join this, RG to identify relevant Council officers to participate and JM to help facilitate.
Action – the Working Group to be constituted by the next RSG meeting on 17/11/21.

RG, EP, JM

5.0
Phase 1 & 2 update

5.1
WO reported back.
· Still waiting for Higgins to produce a programme for venting the lift mechanisms. As soon as this is available, a letter will be sent to all affected residents telling them when their lift will be taken out of service for the work to be carried out.
· Work is still progressing on reconciling energy bills with use. A consultant has been commissioned to inspect the energy centre and they will use a monitoring system that individual residents can use to check their usage against what the energy centre is saying is produced. WO asked for volunteers to have a small piece of equipment fitted. This will produce anonymised data on energy usage. ES volunteered. EP also offered to ask other residents through the TRA facebook site. She also suggested targeting residents who have experienced problems with billing. WO agreed with this.
WO also reported that the relevant section of the LBH IT system is now able to process refunds and the new charges from April 2021 and an update will be available for the ETRA meeting on 12th Oct.
· ES raised an issue with weeds in the Radwell courtyard and who is responsible for keeping this area tidy. WO is on site before the end of the week and will take photos.
· There was discussion about responsibilities for the maintenance of the courtyards, play equipment and the plants, shrubs and fruit bushes. EP asked who to get permission from if the TRA wanted to remove the metal structures that were supposed to be the frames for a fruit maze in one of the courtyards. These are in the shade and haven’t grown. The metal frames are now just a hazard. WO stated that ultimately it is Housing Services who will give the go ahead. He added that he had seen emails between Annette Reid and Eray Taylor on this issue.
This discussion led to a wider one around a lack of clarity on how decisions are made to change designs and layouts and in some cases to remove items that were installed as part of the original development.
ES thought that the original designers should be consulted first before changes to their structures are made and are leaseholders paying for these alterations?

RG agreed that MUF should explain the rationale behind their design. It is important that design intent can be explained and lessons learnt when these are later contradicted by H&S considerations.
ES noted that this is a common tension but that if designers can justify their ideas, H&S should be satisfied.
It was agreed that MUF should be invited to an RSG meeting to talk through these issues.

EP

6.0
TRA update

6.1
EP reported that the AGM took place on 15th Sept. There was a delay to starting the meeting while waiting for a quorum but this was achieved and a new committee was elected with EP still Chair.
Activities are now restarting with the homework club, Family Fun mornings and many other events being run by Hackney Showroom. It is proposed to make the Kings Feast a regular occasion, with the next one in December then again in March 2022.

7.0
ITLA update

There were no updates from Source.

8.0
Any urgent business

None

9.0
Date of next meeting

17th November, 7.00.

Steering Group Nov 2021
2021-11-17 19:00 - 20:00 | Online
This is a closed meeting for those who have applied to be part of the residents steering group. It is mandatory to have attended the steering group training provided by Source Partnership. The steering group comprises of residents from both the old and new blocks and provides resident input into the next stage of new build and refurbishment of Kings Crescent.
For further information on joining the ‘Resident Steering Group’ please email john@sourcepartnership.com or carol@sourcepartnership.com

Notes of Kings Crescent Steering Group Meeting
held on 17th November 2021 via Google Meet

Those Present:
Cllr. Brian Bell (BB) (Chair)
Cllr Clare Potter (CP)
6 residents (names removed for public version)

In Attendance:
Ron Greenwood (RG)
William Owen (WO)
Carol Squires (CS)
John Morris (JM)
Menekse Saitoglu

LB Hackney
LB Hackney
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)

1.0
Introductions and apologies
Action

1.1

No apologies were received.

2.0
Notes of previous meeting held 22nd September and any Matters Arising not elsewhere on the agenda

2.1

One correction was noted from 5.1. The minute should have read: ‘MUF to be invited to a meeting specific to the design intent for the landscaping and play facilities.’ Subsequent to the September meeting, MUF have met with WO and colleagues on site.

3.0
Phase 3&4 update

3.1

Indicative timetable for contractor selection
RG thanked all for participating in the selection process and for their patience during such a long procurement period. A preferred bidder has now been identified and approved at the internal approval panel, the Gateway that comprises all relevant senior managers. Tender levels were approved and risks (e.g. sales element, future management and maintenance commitments) all noted. The Cabinet Procurement and Insourcing Committee (CPIC) will consider the recommendation on 6/12. The report will be publicly available on 26/11 but with the identity of the recommended contractor and commercially sensitive information in a confidential section. The publicly accessible section of the report will include descriptions of the S20 process, design changes, risks considered, sustainability and how the tenders were evaluated and scored. It will be possible to watch the CPIC meeting on 6/12, in person or via livestream but the public parts will be short, with discussion about the confidential parts of the report exempt from public viewing. Questions can be submitted to the meeting from members of the public but because of the notice needed, they will need to be submitted at the same time as the report becomes public. However, in exceptional circumstance, the Chair may allow a late submission for consideration. If approved, the Council’s Chief Executive will have delegated authority to enter into a contract with the successful bidder, subject to the S20 process.

3.2

S20 process
RG reported that the aim is to issue Stage 2 Notices on 10/1/22 with the statutory consultation period ending on 11/2/22. Surgeries for leaseholders will be set up in the 3rd or 4th week of January. The Q&A section from Stage 1 will be amended, with a likely change being the timing of the start of the 5 year discount period to a date, to be decided, that will be the agreed start on site date for the refurbishment works rather than the practical completion dates of the different blocks. The aim is to respond to all leaseholder observations will be by the end of February so that contracts can be signed in March.

EP asked if any more information will be given to leaseholders before January. RG replied that all information will go into the Stage 2 Notice and accompanying letter and FAQs in January, so, no.

EP – many leaseholders are still very unhappy and it seems their ability to influence further decisions will now be taken away because the CPIC will have approved the appointment of the tenderer and the costs by the time of the Stage 2 Notice. RG replied that the recommendation to cabinet is subject to completion of the S20 process and there will be due regard paid to submissions as part of this process. BB added that objections would have to be quite fundamental and valid to change the approach. RG emphasised the amount of time and effort that has gone into making sure the quality and price of the contractors’ tenders has met very tight criteria. He also confirmed that the whole package of works, refurbishment and new build will be let as one contract and has been the subject of one planning permission, although acknowledges that they form two different elements.

EP is still concerned about the huge financial impact on non-resident leaseholders. BB felt that this has been answered at length and that leaseholders who rent out their properties have made this decision to become landlords and it is reasonable for them to not qualify for the discount. CP reiterated this point. RG added that individual leaseholders will be able to talk to the Leasehold Team about personal circumstances and cases of financial hardship will be considered.

3.3

Indicative timescales and other issues with phase 3&4
RG noted that after contract signing, mobilisation works will include surveys to ascertain presence of asbestos, underground obstructions and issues around drainage of the site. Other activities will include planning submissions for the design changes and site set up including erection of hoardings, site facilities etc. Preparatory works could include strip out of Weston garages.

There will also be initial events organised by the contractor around their construction management plan, communications, resident liaison, attendance at RSG, workshops on lessons learnt from phase 1&2, investigation on connecting up to the existing CHP, drainage, decommissioning of the current community centre and support for community activities. BB emphasised that the drainage under and around Weston Court is a key issue that he has expressed concern about.

Party Wall Notices
WO is leading on this. Potentially at the same time as the Section 20 consultation, Party Wall Notices will be sent to all leaseholders so that where works take place, e.g. construction of balconies, that will affect the existing building structure, there are surveyors appointed to ensure that the previous condition is reinstated. Notices will go out before contracts are signed so there is time for the process to be conducted properly. EP asked if leaseholders will have to pay if they wish to appoint their own surveyor. WO – no, but surveyors will need to be approved by LBH and need to be RICS certified.

Fire safety and cladding
KH raised the issue of phase 1&2 new blocks no longer being compliant with current fire safety regulations. He was concerned about his own and neighbours’ circumstances but also asked how LBH will address this for phase 3&4. RG replied that this is one reason why the tender process was prolonged; this formed an extra section that tenderers had to address in the Best and Final Offer. The contractor will be obliged to provide EWS1 forms. LBH has made every effort to anticipate as best they can what fire regs. will be in the future, and ensure full compliance. Another element of the tender process was the implementation of a record of building components for the new blocks for reference if issues arise in the future. Building materials will be different from those used in phase 1&2 but LBH can only comply with whatever legislation is in place at the time of construction.

KH emphasised that leaseholders are trapped with many mortgage providers now not lending because of the materials used in the phase 1&2 construction. RG acknowledged this as a nationwide problem. KH asked what plans LBH have to remediate the situation. AA added that information is produced in plenty of time, so LBH must have had notice that an approach to this problem was needed. BB and CP offered to take up this issue as Councillors.

4.0
Feedback from Community Centre Working Group

4.1
The working group met this morning (17th November) and consisted of Emley, Andrew Mitchelson, Remi Murrain, RG, WO and JM. Good progress was made with a discussion about possible uses and management of the new CC and consequently, what sort of fit out will be needed. It will be important that the group can meet the contractor asap for early discussions. A wider resident consultation will take place in January with an update at the next RSG.

5.0
TRA update

5.1
EP reported that the family fun mornings are still happening monthly. The half term art project was successful. BB noted that the contractor’s hoardings will need artwork. CP suggested making sure that Andrew Mitchelson is involved in this.
Chama, Hackney Showroom’s Engagement worker has started monthly drop ins on the first Thursday of each month for anyone to visit HS with ideas, to volunteer or just to find out what HS are doing.
The TRA meeting scheduled for 7th December will be preceded by a winter market and the meeting itself will be informal to encourage people to get involved.
Hackney Showroom are organising another Kings Feast on 11th December with family entertainment between 5 and 7 pm, then adults 7 to 9 pm.
BB noted that Annette Reid, KC Housing Officer is off on sick leave. Her manager, Andrea Scott is providing an ad hoc management service with existing resources.

6.0
ITLA update

6.1
CS gave an update. Source Partnership’s contract is currently on an extension. Source are keen to get back working on site and we will be discussing with Hackney Showroom possibly using their facilities once the Vince Murrain Centre is decommissioned. There is Source equipment and furniture in the VM Centre which can be recycled for use elsewhere within KC.

We are working with Chama (HS) to introduce him to vulnerable and/or elderly residents who might be interested in the Friday lunch club or might benefit from some support for e.g. shopping or just more regular contact.

7.0
Any urgent business

7.1
KH wished to voice dissatisfaction about the continued repair issues in the northside blocks. Lifts were out of order again at Wallington Court and bike thieves are at work again. Video evidence of the latter was sent to LBH but with no response.

WO gave advice to use the repairs email box and the webchat function to report repairs. He added that it is best to not email several LBH officers at once as this results in no one taking responsibility to respond; it’s sometimes unclear who’s job it is to reply in these instances.

EP noted that there are still many phase 1&2 issues unresolved. Service Charges are now the big issue with many leaseholders experiencing significant increases. Leaseholders have asked for another meeting with Judith Morrison but so far she has not responded. BB offered to help contact her.

BB

7.2
AA asked if the cyber attack had compromised residents’ personal data. BB stated that the main problem was not so much the leakage of data, rather that the attack rendered older computer systems useless. CP reported that a minor breach of data did occur and people affected have been contacted. CP added that the attack had been a serious issue for some services e.g. children’s services and officers have spent considerable time resolving these. There is information on the LBH website and an email to contact if further follow up is required.

7.3
JM offered apologies to Federica (residemt) who joined this meeting for the first time and who wasn’t introduced at the start of the meeting.

8.0
Date of next meeting

27th January 2022, 7.00.

Steering Group Jan 2022
2022-01-27 19:00 - 20:00 | Online
This is a closed meeting for those who have applied to be part of the residents steering group. It is mandatory to have attended the steering group training provided by Source Partnership. The steering group comprises of residents from both the old and new blocks and provides resident input into the next stage of new build and refurbishment of Kings Crescent.
For further information on joining the ‘Resident Steering Group’ please email john@sourcepartnership.com or carol@sourcepartnership.com

Notes of Kings Crescent Steering Group Meeting
held on 27th January 2022 via Google Meet

Those Present:
Cllr. Brian Bell (BB) (Chair)
Cllr Clare Potter (CP)
4 residents:
EP, PD, KM, KH
(resident’s names removed for public version)

In Attendance:
Ron Greenwood (RG)
William Owen (WO)
Carol Squires (CS)
John Morris (JM)
Menekse Saitoglu
LB Hackney
LB Hackney
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)

1.0
Introductions and apologies
Action

1.1

Apologies were received from residents JWM & AA.
Kathy was welcomed to the RSG; she has recently moved [to Kings Crescent].

2.0
Notes of previous meeting held 17th November and any Matters Arising not elsewhere on the agenda

2.1
Minutes were agreed.

2.2
BB noted that he did write to Judith Morrison, Head of Leasehold Services to ask her to organise another meeting with northside blocks leaseholders re bills etc. TRA to let him know if dates are not agreed.

TRA

3.0
Phase 3&4 update

3.1
RG reported that on 10th January, 3 pieces of correspondence had gone out:
i) a letter to all residents to inform them that Durkan were the preferred bidder,
ii) letters to Durkan informing them of this and to Mulalleys informing them that they were unsuccessful; and
iii) the S20 stage 2 Notice to all southside leaseholders.

Next steps are now to finalise the contract negotiations and enter into a contract by mid March. There may be some visible signs of works starting by the end of March, e.g. bore holes to discharge planning conditions, investigate possible adverse ground conditions before foundations start. At the same time, Durkan will start to generate a Construction Management Plan.

3.2
RG presented 4 key aspects of the bid.
1. Pre-contract works. These will take approx. 5 months, including developing detailed designs (M&E, kitchen and bathroom details), investigating soil and ground for asbestos, concrete, ordering materials – in particular the pre cast concrete panels, organising parking suspensions, party wall agreements, erecting site facilities (which will be in front of Datchworth Ct on the Queens Drive/Green Lanes side), respite facilities, dismantling the community centre, erecting hoarding, stripping out the Weston Court garages and part of the podium.
2. Construction and phasing. The whole contract is scheduled for 140 weeks. Refurbishments will take place first, starting at Bramfield Court and working round to Theobalds, Datchworth and Weston Courts. Each block’s works will start within 3 months of each other, 10 months per block, 12 months for Weston Court. The refurbishment will be completed well in advance of the new build.
The respite centre will be situated within the estate. Durkan will explain their reasoning for this at Meet the Contractor events. (Residents and LBH originally preferred these facilities to be sited outside the estate on Queens Drive).
EP asked for an explanation of the reference to the Weston Court podium. RG described how the podium will be cut back slightly to make space for the work space underneath, but there will still be a walkway outside front doors. EP also asked for confirmation of the location of the respite centre. RG confirmed, illustrated with a presentation slide where the facilities will be located along with a temporary ball court and storage.
RG – works will start with hoarding off areas and starting to take down garden fences and sheds in order to provide access for plant to install balconies.
PD asked if the respite centre will have computers. RG – that is the intention, based on lessons learnt from phase 1&2. He also queried removal of sheds from rear gardens. JM noted that the installation of balconies will be very disruptive but that gardens will be reinstated in full.
PD – where will the columns go that will support the balconies? There are cables etc that run up the wall that need to be preserved. WO – there will be a full inspection of the gardens and individual issues before works start. PD also has a soakaway in his rear garden that he will not want to be damaged when scaffolding is installed. RG reassured that full surveys and individual consultations will take place before works start. BB emphasised the extent of disruption to gardens.
RG continued with construction plans for the new build. This will commence within 4-6 months of start of refurbishment works and will proceed west to east, i.e. DZ4, DZ5N, DZ5S, DZ6N, DZ6W, DZ6S. 219 new homes will be built, 4 retail units, workspace, community facilities and 3 courtyards.
KM asked if the design of the public spaces had been completely worked up yet. RG replied that there will be an element of detailed design still to complete. Residents have requested a review of phase 1&2 play equipment, so a workshop will be organised to discuss details of phase 3&4 landscaping etc.
3. Community Engagement. Durkan are keen to follow up initial discussions with the TRA and Hackney Showroom. They have noted the need to bring the north and south sides of the estate together, to produce engaging communications in a variety of formats and to have discussions around the fit out of the new community centre. They plan a series of workshops and wish to produce a Residents Charter. There is a desire to learn from phase 1&2. They will attend RSG, TRA meetings and also organise dedicated communications meetings. One offer from them is regular site visits for residents to see first hand progress of the construction work.
4. Training & Employment. Durkan will promote site-based roles for local residents and provide funding, to be agreed with the TRA and HS. They will have contractual apprenticeship and local labour targets.

3.3
Section 20 process. RG reported that stage 2 consultation ends on 11th Feb. 3 households attended the surgeries on 24/1. Questions at these centred on timescales, the discount eligibility and scope of works. RG announced that, following representations from leaseholders, the decision on the 5 year discount period has now been signed off and this will now start from 1/4/22 for all southside leaseholders.
The 3rd stage of the S20 process will start once the contract is signed at which point leaseholders will receive a detailed breakdown of costs applicable to them as individuals. EP asked for confirmation that contracts will be signed by the time that the stage 3 notice goes out. RG confirmed this will be the case.

4.0
TRA update

4.1
EP reported back. The community-focussed meeting before Christmas was combined with a Winter Market which was successful. However, the meeting itself was less well attended, leading the TRA to look at different ways of engaging with residents. An ideas sheet is up on the wall at HS rear room for people to leave comments and suggestions. The Kings Feast was split between a children’s event and an adult one. The adult event was cancelled due to the covid concerns before Christmas as was a proposed theatre outing for elders and other events throughout January. TRA and HS are planning to get things back up and running in February with the resumption of the homework club (now transitioning into a youth club) and the Friday lunch club.
BB asked about the Community Centre Working Group. WO noted that there is a meeting arranged for 4th Feb to discuss possible visits to other centres and progressing the brief for the fit out.

5.0
ITLA update

5.1
CS reported that Source’s time recently has been spent supporting leaseholders during the S20 process and helping to facilitate surgeries/meetings. We have also spoken about the imminent decommissioning of the community centre. We plan to establish a regular time to be available at HS to raise awareness of Durkan’s emerging proposed approach to the building works and community engagement.

6.0
Any urgent business

6.1
KH raised the ongoing issues for northside leaseholders with EWS forms and the cladding on the blocks. BB reported that a comprehensive briefing had been provided by officers but it is confidential. His view is that the problem lies 100% with the lenders and councillors have been reassured that the other issues are relatively minor. There may be another meeting with offices on this in 2-3 weeks time.
KH emphasised that he and fellow leaseholders want the regeneration to work and that the community is brought together. But many are concerned that the blocks contain the Kingspan cladding that was present at Grenfell. If the EWS rating was compliant then there wouldn’t be a problem. There is dissatisfaction that LBH are not taking their responsibilities seriously and just laying all the blame on the lenders. BB re-emphasised his point about lenders and that the buildings were compliant when the products were installed. However, LBH do want to resolve these issues. If elements do need to be removed then a capital works programme will need to be agreed across the borough. He acknowledged that the letter that went out just before Christmas was poorly expressed.
KM added that it is important that people can work together on this and that it is sad that a problem like this threatens the good will that exists.
KH noted that many leaseholders will be stuck with existing mortgages as lenders won’t now lend on the properties and LBH cannot just step away from this. BB denied the Council were stepping away. CP added assurances that officers are working on this as a priority and that everyone’s ‘eyes are still on the ball.’
KH – Clare Williams’ explanations at the last TRA meeting didn’t leave leaseholders satisfied. Who else can we contact? RG explained that the Resident Safety Team are the people who are dealing with this. This team is led by Mikel Jankowski. He also reminded the meeting that this is a national issue – not just a local, Hackney problem. A Building Safety Act is imminent and there is an onus on LBH to have a resident engagement strategy in place.
BB – Steve Waddington as Director of Housing is an officer further up the hierarchy if residents are not satisfied with responses to date.
KH raised the Government’s Building Safety Fund; if the view is that LBH don’t need it now, if they decide later they do, will the fund be exhausted? BB – if we’re eligible for funding, we will apply for it. CP added that this point is taken and will raise it with Michal.

BB

8.0
Date of next meeting

28th February 2022, 7.00.

Steering Group 28 Feb 2022
2022-02-28 19:00 - 20:00 | Online
This is a closed meeting for those who have applied to be part of the ‘residents steering group’ (RSG).
It is mandatory to have attended the steering group training provided by Source Partnership.
The steering group comprises of residents from both the old and new blocks and provides resident input into the next stage of new build and refurbishment of Kings Crescent.
For further information on joining the ‘Resident Steering Group’ please email john@sourcepartnership.com or carol@sourcepartnership.com

Notes of Kings Crescent Steering Group Meeting held on 28th February 2022

Those Present:
Cllr. Brian Bell (BB) (Chair)
Cllr Clare Potter (CP)
8 Residents:
EP, JWM, PA, PS, AA, KM, AF, ES
(Resident names removed on web version)

In Attendance:
Ron Greenwood (RG)
William Owen (WO)
Carol Squires (CS)
Menekse Saitoglu (MS)

LB Hackney
LB Hackney
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)

1.0
Introductions and apologies
Action

1.1
Apologies were received from John Morris and residents KH, PD, NJ
Most members had not received their RSG papers Brian apologised and ask that these be circulated with the minutes of this meeting

Source

2.0
Notes of previous meeting held 27 January 2022 and any Matters Arising not elsewhere on the agenda

2.1

The minutes were agreed as a true record subject to those residents who had not received them having chance to comment on them. To be sent to Source

All

2.2

A good meeting with Mayor, service heads and leaseholders was held where frustrations were aired and dates have been agreed for leaseholder surgeries.

TRA

3.0
Phase 3&4 update

3.1

Contractor Procurement Update

RG stated that the negotiations with Durkan are frustratingly still on-going and had not as hoped been completed and there will be a delay of around 3-4 months whilst the Council is acting in the best practice procurement and due process to ensure that there is no risk to the programme or compromise to the quality of delivery.

The Regeneration team will be exploring how much design development work can be done ahead of completion of negotiations.

Reasons for the need for care at this stage is the volatility in supply chain and materials needs to be de-risked. This may have an impact on price.

There remains a second contractor who will need to be given the opportunity to review their bid. There was a discussion about the realistic chances of reaching a conclusion with the main contractor.

The Greater London Authority (GLA) will be advised that there will be no start on site for the GLA funded council housing during March.

RG

3.2
Section 20 process

The start date for the “5 year” recharge will remain as at 1 April 2022 the Stage 2 process may have to be re-run but the date will not be adjusted

Responses to Section 20 Stage 2 Observations has been published and information provided where requested. Emley stated that some of the answers were inconclusive, Ron asked her to e-mail where more detail is required and to raise these issues at the surgeries when they are convened

3.3
Community Centre Fit-out

The Community Centre Working Group have visited the Gascoyne CCs and the Barnsbury CC, there is a meeting arranged for them to discuss progressing the brief for the fit out.

WO

4.0
TRA update

4.1

Emley provided an update on activities:

· Half-term art project led by Andrew Mitchelson
· Input into the Resident Engagement Strategy with TPAS
· Now A Whatsapp Group for the Southside

Future events:

· Gardening event 6 March
· TRA meeting 7 March
· Kings Feast 19 March
· Charity Day for Autism 2nd April
· Well-being classes (Zumba, Pilates, Yoga and meditation)

4.2
It was suggested that a Walkabout with Annette be arranged to address some repairs issues (Cables dangling from buildings etc). CS to arrange with her.

Source

4.3
PA complained that posters are being stuck to the outside of new notice boards. Annette to be asked to provide TRA and / or Source Partnership with keys
Source

5.0
ITLA update

5.1

Source continues to provide a limited on-site. Presence will increase when activities do. Very quiet in terms of residents approaching us for advice reflective of lack of progress to getting on site.

Discussed the possibility of holding advice sessions around the mobilisation and site set-up using the presentation shared at the January RSG. Design refresher suggested also. These to be programmed for the Spring.

Source

6.0
Any urgent business

6.1

Day-to-day Service charges there is an on-going issue with completion and quality of work carried out. BB asked that this be dealt with at the leaseholder surgeries

6.2
JWM advised that Peter Gorman has passed away after a short illness recently. He was a long-standing member of the community and had been very active in the tenant management organisation and TRA in years gone by. The RSG asked for condolences to be passed to his family.

JWM

8.0
Date of next meeting

To be confirmed subject to progress within the next few weeks

Steering Group 21 July 2022
2022-07-21 19:00 - 20:00 | Hackney Showroom Space, 4 Murrain Road, London, N4 2BN, United Kingdom
RSG

This is a closed meeting for those who have applied to be part of the ‘residents steering group’ (RSG).
It is mandatory to have attended the steering group training provided by Source Partnership.
The steering group comprises of residents from both the old and new blocks and provides resident input into the next stage of new build and refurbishment of Kings Crescent.
For further information on joining the ‘Resident Steering Group’ please email john@sourcepartnership.com or carol@sourcepartnership.com

(Minutes of the meeting will be posted here when they are available)
Agenda

Agenda item
Lead

1
Introductions and Apologies

Cllr Potter (Chair)

2
Notes of previous meeting held 28th February and any matters arising not elsewhere on the agenda

Cllr Potter (Chair)

3
Phase 3 & 4 update

Ron (LBH)

4
Phase 1 & 2 update

Will (LBH)

5
TRA update

Emley (TRA Chair)

6
ITLA update
Source

7

Any urgent business

Cllr Potter (Chair)

8
Date of next meeting

Cllr Potter (Chair)

Resident Steering Group Meeting 13 Oct
2022-10-13 19:00 - 20:30 | Hackney Showroom Space, 4 Murrain Road, London, N4 2BN, United Kingdom
This is a closed meeting for those who have applied to be part of the ‘residents steering group’ (RSG).
It is mandatory to have attended the steering group training provided by Source Partnership.
The steering group comprises of residents from both the old and new blocks and provides resident input into the next stage of new build and refurbishment of Kings Crescent.
For further information on joining the ‘Resident Steering Group’ please email john@sourcepartnership.com or carol@sourcepartnership.com

Notes of Kings Crescent Steering Group Meeting held on 13th October 2022

Those Present:
Cllr Clare Potter (CP) (Chair)
7 Residents:
EP, JWM, KH, PS, PA, ES, PD

In Attendance:
Ron Greenwood (RG)
Carol Squires (CS)
Menekse Saitoglu
John Morris (minutes)
Brian Bell
LB Hackney
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Guest

1.0
Introductions and apologies
Action

1.1

Apologies were received from residents KM, NJ, & AF and Cllr Soreya Adejare

2.0
Notes of previous meeting held 21st July 2022 and any Matters Arising not elsewhere on the agenda

2.1

The minutes were agreed as a true record

3.0
Phase 3&4 update

3.1
RG confirmed the successful contractor is Mulalley. LBH hope to sign a contract with them in December or January. CP noted that no communication has gone out to residents formally announcing this and it would be prudent to wait until the contract is signed. However, RSG members are under no obligation to keep this confidential.

RG explained the actions over the next year. These include ensuring the development is compliant with new building regulations coming into force next June; these cover provision of ventilation, energy, electric charging points for vehicles and fire safety. There is also the need to get any blocks over 18m high signed off by the new Building Safety Regulator which takes 12 weeks. During 2023, there will also be a value engineering exercise carried out to try to achieve approx. 10% savings. LBH will explore with Mulalley the possibility of starting the refurbishment works while awaiting the Building Safety Regulator sign off.

KH asked if the designs were based on the old building regs.
RG – yes, but now there is a definite implementation date for the new regulations, LBH cannot now avoid the requirement to redesign in order to comply with them.

ES suggested that the benefits of 10% savings could be wiped out by inflation.
RG acknowledged this but LBH are committed to achieving savings in e.g. sub and superstructure of the new buildings, looking at off site construction, possibly standardising some components such as windows. ES noted that off site construction can create a higher quality product. CP added that there have been constant reassurances that quality will not be compromised.

PA asked if changing the use of the proposed workspaces under Weston Court had been considered. RG explained LBH doubts that creating residential units here might not provide sufficiently high quality accommodation and floor to ceiling heights could be an issue. PA noted that the phase 1 garage conversions had worked well. CP’s understanding is that if the commercial units do not work out, there is the option to convert them to residential. It was agreed that it would be worth exploring a residential use as an option.

KH asked about phasing; will the new build be linked to the refurbishment?
RG replied that as they are signing one contract, the two will be linked and Mulalley have said they will try to stick with the proposed programme of starting at Bramfield Court and working round the south side blocks from there.

KH asked about viability in terms of achieving good sales value when marketing flats. RG replied that the time it will take to complete new homes for sale will probably extend beyond the current economic cycle, so current market conditions are not necessarily an indicator for the viability of the sales.

PA mentioned the Mulalley’s site on Highbury New Park which seems to have stalled. RG – this is in Islington and there may be many reasons why the programme has been delayed. Mulalley have done a lot of work in Hackney and are committed to continuing work in the borough.

PA and JWM thought that the internal Decent Homes work that Mulalleys did was not very satisfactory. RG acknowledged that at the site visits, residents preferred Durkan but this tender has been won fairly and represents the best value for residents and the borough.

ES asked about checking the quality of work. RG responded that there will be Clerks of Works by trade and the LBH in-house design team are also a resource to ensure high standards.

ES asked about the extent to which architects KCA and HHB will be involved. RG replied that Mulalley are being strongly encouraged to retain their services.

CP raised the positive feedback from other existing and more recent Mulalley schemes in Hackney. CS referred to the good tenant feedback from Bridge House. It was agreed to work towards a site visit here on a Saturday morning in January 2023. CS to suggest possible homes to visit and to make initial approaches to residents.

RG showed slides of Mulalley’s tender introduction to illustrate their approach to resident engagement (using Newman Francis as engagement specialists). There was evidence that they had looked carefully at lessons from phase 1&2 and future involvement with the RSG.

KH emphasised the importance of making communications easy if things are not looking right. RG highlighted an example of Mulalley’s approach: when arranging the works in south side rear gardens, they will have block meetings and 1:1 meetings with ground floor residents, a condition survey will be completed, secure storage for items that need to moved will be arranged and good notice of the start of works given.

JWM asked about how concrete posts for the balconies will be installed in ground floor rear gardens; the pocket park and other features on Queens Drive must be preserved. RG indicated that Mulalleys will be aware of all the constraints and suggested that they be invited to an RSG meeting soon to explain their access management plan.

RG talked through slides reminding the meeting of the design principles and illustrating Mulalley’s approach. It was agreed to look at the second half of the presentation at the December RSG meeting which showed elements of Mulalley’s Invitation to Tender response.

CS

4.0
Phase 1& 2 update

4.1
RG introduced a post-occupancy evaluation exercise to concentrate on the heating, ventilation, energy efficiency and comfort of flats. A survey will be carried out between 25th October and 27th November. In addition, volunteers are sought for a data logging exercise to gather more detailed information. ES and KH volunteered and JWM suggested that Julie, a ground floor tenant in the northside blocks might also be willing to put herself forward.

4.2
RG introduced the proposal to replace an item of equipment on the play street with stepping stones (images were circulated before the meeting). JWM reported a lack of enthusiasm from members of the youth club. No decision could be made on this at the meeting.
[See images below of suggested ‘stepping stones’ for Play Street]

4.3
Ongoing defects in the new northside blocks was discussed. RG reported that the LBH lifts team have a proposal that Steve Waddington (the director responsible for this service area) is committed to implementing. CP reported that she and Cllr Adejare have received a lot of casework on this issue. She has asked for data on each breakdown and is pressing to get someone to speak to this at the ETRA on 19th.

KH wished to emphasise the importance of communication from LBH; the service from the operational teams has been unacceptable. He also cited the failure of the main door to his block. JWM added that southside residents have also been dissatisfied with the service they receive. CP re-stated that she is working to get someone to address these issues at next weeks’ ETRA meeting. KH also asked for someone to attend to deal with fire safety issues.

CP suggested that EP email her with anything else that needs to be raised at the meeting.

EP

5.0
TRA update

5.1
EP gave an update.
i) The AGM was held on 14th Sept. The committee is largely the same; EP still Chair.
ii) A trip to the beach was organised for 10th Sept.
iii) The committee had decided to issue a newsletter update instead of the next community & social TRA meeting
iv) A winter market is planned for 3rd December
v) Hackney Showroom’s next Kings Feast is on 19th November
vi) JWM reported that the Youth Club is getting stronger. A small group of older ‘young’ people approached her to ask about a youth club for their age group, so she is meeting them again to explore this

6.0
ITLA update

6.1

CS reported that Source are now halfway through their 5 year contract but are not halfway through their budget. We have met RG to discuss a revised work programme to be established early in 2023 so that it links with Mulalley’s work programme. CS encouraged the RSG to let us know if there’s anything else we could be doing.

6.0
Any urgent business

6.1
None

7.0
Date of next meeting

Tuesday 6th December, 7.30 pm start to allow for yoga class in the HS Studio to finish.

Suggested new ‘stepping stones’ installation for Play Street:

Resident Steering Group meeting 17 April 2023
2023-04-17 19:00 - 20:00 | Hackney Showroom Space, 4 Murrain Road, London, N4 2BN, United Kingdom
This is a closed meeting for those who have applied to be part of the ‘residents steering group’ (RSG).
It is mandatory to have attended the steering group training provided by Source Partnership.
The steering group comprises of residents from both the old and new blocks and provides resident input into the next stage of new build and refurbishment of Kings Crescent.
For further information on joining the ‘Resident Steering Group’ please email john@sourcepartnership.com or carol@sourcepartnership.com
Key Summary Points:
* Mulalley have been appointed as Hackney’s building contractor
* Plan: 1 year of design review for cost optimisation then 1 year for design approval process and ‘Building Safety Act’ compliance (new regulation). So work due to commence in 2 years
* Part of the Play Street will be out of action for approx 2 years once the work starts at the Green Lanes end of the site
* There will be opportunities for residents to be consulted and meet the contractors during this coming year of design review
* Hackney Regeneration Team will be sending out a newsletter to all residents in June to provide an overview of the process and programme with Mulalley
* Source Partnership will be resuming a drop-in service from June onwards to answer resident questions

Notes of Kings Crescent Steering Group Meeting held on 17th April 2023

Those Present:
Cllr Clare Potter (CP) (Chair)
Cllr Soreya Adejare (SA)
8 Residents:
EP, JWM, EV, PS, PA, PD, KM, AF

In Attendance:
Ron Greenwood (RG)
Chey Brown
Carol Squires (CS)
Menekse Saitoglu
John Morris (minutes)
Lee Walsh (LW)

LB Hackney
LB Hackney
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Mulalley

1.0
Introductions and apologies
Action

1.1

Apologies were received from resident KH

2.0
Notes of previous meeting held 13th October 2022 and any Matters Arising not elsewhere on the agenda

2.1

The minutes were agreed as a true record

3.0
Introduction to Mulalley and the Kings Crescent project – Lee Walsh , Contracts Manager

3.1

Lee gave a presentation, (slides below) followed by questions.

CP asked for the slides to be circulated.

PA – can data from previous site surveys be used by Mulalley to reduce the work involved?
LW – these will be used to provide a basic understanding but Mullalley will need to explore in much greater detail, e.g. soil surveys will be taken at 5m intervals.

CP – will the extended period for redesign etc. mean that investigations will be more thorough, so chance of issues arising later is minimised?
LW – no, the delays at this stage won’t mean the surveys will be any more thorough; they will be thorough anyway but it means that due diligence can be completed earlier, making good use of the extended period of redesign, sign off etc.

SA – can we be assured that the length of time at this stage will not have a detrimental impact on leaseholders?
RG – leaseholders will benefit from cost optimisation but it is important that the principle of design parity between new build and refurb is maintained. Cost optimisation is a way to balance quality and cost.
LW – no one can predict market forces but there are signs that costs are starting to plateau. The pressures on the building industry have been unprecedented following Brexit, the pandemic and the Ukraine war (an example of the latter was a 500% increase in the cost of concrete and steel in 3 months). RG added that estimates of build cost inflation had been factored into the approval of the scheme.

SA – what does ‘added value’ mean to Mulalley?
LW – it differs between projects and depends on what communities’ priorities are. It could be funding existing projects, business development mentoring, local school equipment donations, work in schools on career options and job-readiness.

KM – the plan to use the section of Murrain Road at the Green Lanes end is a real concern as Hackney Showroom and the street immediately outside have become a valuable focus for community activity. It is a ‘people street.’ How can you help limit the impact? JWM added that taking away the play area and the other site logistics mean that there will be little space for young people to play, gather etc.
LW – unfortunately, the only way to get construction vehicles on and off site is from Green Lanes; there are height and width restrictions that prevent other means of access.
JWM – can’t the currently vacant area adjacent to Green Lanes not be used as it was for phase 1&2?
LW – we will be building on that. The plan is that the new build blocks will be constructed all at the same time; a phased programme for this part of the development will prolong the build period by years.

EV – will the refurbishment take place in parallel with the new build?
LW – there is some flexibility in when and how long the refurbishment takes. If it is done at pace, it will obviously be completed sooner but there will be more disruption. If the community want to see less disruption, then the programme for the refurb. could be lengthened.

CP asked how long the half of the play street nearest Green Lanes will be out of action.
LW – maybe 2 years?
RG added that there will be photographic and video evidence stored of the play street in its current form so it can be reinstated exactly as before. Items on the play street that need to be moved will be stored or re-located. This includes the trees. It was noted that pedestrian access along Murrain Road to Green Lanes will still exist.
EV – it will be important to maintain easy pedestrian access across the estate, so the north and south sides are not completely separated. Does this mean the ball court will go?
LW – yes.
RG – we aim to try to find solutions to some of these issues with residents through workshops etc.
CP – it will be important that the estate continues to be brought together through the social value part of Mulalley’s contract.
LW also noted that a lot of space on the estate will be taken up by storage of materials (illustrated by black cross-hatched areas on the site plan).

CS – could meanwhile uses be considered for e.g. storage facilities when not in use? Also what are residents’ views on the proposed respite facilities?
There was discussion about the respite provision, noted that it wasn’t well used in phase 1&2. Can it be used for more social/community/play activities? LW – this is all up for further discussion and community will have the opportunity to reshape provision in dialogue with Mulalley.

CS noted that there is only one lift serving Weston Court – at the Datchworth Court junction. If the access to Green Lanes at the north end of the block is closed off, it will be a long walk for residents to access the lift.
LW – would be open to keeping the access available at the other end of Weston Court.

CP – phase 1&2 had major problems with lifts and the energy centre working efficiently. If better aftercare can be assured for installations in this phase, perhaps by sourcing from UK, more expensive manufacturers, this might be worth it to save costs after completion.
LW – the cost optimisation process is being done in collaboration with the client; ultimately, these sort of costs are not Mulalley’s decision. Note that the cost optimisation exercise isn’t a way for Mulalley to make savings and maximise profit; it’s about getting best value.
RG – there is a new, borough-wide spec for lifts that will be used and there will be an enhanced M&E clerk of works inspection process.
LW – Mulalley will employ its own lift consultants who will have an input into design, will lead on market testing of suppliers and will carry out an inspection function pre-handover, at snagging before the lifts are put into operation.
CP -what about the energy centre?
LW – Mechanical & Electrical contractors will be managed separate M&E managing agents, who are consultants, not Mulalley, therefore there is independent scrutiny of this aspect of the contract.

PA asked when the Weston Court podium will be coming down.
LW – we will look to progress this as early as possible. However, it will be a process of deconstruction rather than demolition in order to minimise noise, dust etc.

AF asked about access to Weston Court for deliveries.
LW confirmed that access will be maintained.

EP sought confirmation of the timeline; 90 to 100 weeks before start on site?
LW – yes, it will be that long. An early start to the refurb. was considered but compliance with the new Building Safety Act is needed for all aspects of the contract before any work can start. Planning consultation and the impact of the BS Act are 2 key factors that will affect the timeline that are out of Mulalley’s control.
CP noted that another 2 year’s wait is hard to hear for residents but commended Ron on providing consistency throughout the process leading up to this point.

4.0
Future resident engagement – Source

4.1

CS noted that Source have now vacated the VM Community Centre but we want to agree a programme of activities to maintain momentum with resident engagement. We propose monthly drop ins at Hackney Showroom to provide information and seek views on e.g. meanwhile uses and other issues that residents can help to influence. Noted that information needs to be disseminated widely across homes; the 8 households represented at this meeting cannot be expected to be the conduit for spreading all info.
RG – there is a newsletter due to go out.
CS – if there are design and other significant changes, these should be communicated as we go along. This could include introduction of meanwhile uses to soften the blow of losing part of the playstreet.
RG agreed and highlighted the importance of resident input into design of the public realm.
CS – we could use the logistics plan to generate residents’ views at drop ins. We could start drop ins this month.
JWM suggested speaking and visiting the Elders Lunch Club.

RG also noted ongoing discussions about site visits. Mulalley sites in Bethnal Green, Parkview (Highbury New Park) and the now completed Bridge House still possibilities.

CP – are there any other communities we are not reaching?
EP – non-resident leaseholders?
SA – are translated written materials needed?

5.0
TRA update

5.1

EP reported back:
· A newsletter was produced in Nov 2022.
· The winter market, where the TRA had a stall was a success.
· The recent Community Meeting which was less formal engaged more people.
· Youth Club going well.
· Gardening also going well.
· Upcoming events:
o 7/5 – a coronation event, with LBH funding will be held at the VMCC
o 13/5 – a gardening event
o 14/6 – next Community Meeting
o 20/9 – TRA AGM at which Emley will stand down as Chair
ETRA meetings have stopped in their previous format. LBH/resident liaison will be organised differently.

6.0
Any other business

6.1

SA wished to record thanks to Emley for her participation in the Council’s scrutiny review of regeneration.

7.0
Date of next meeting

7.1

CP proposed quarterly meetings would be appropriate, so the next RSG would be early July. However, it was agreed to wait until the new year’s municipal calendar has been published to confirm a date when CP and SA can attend.

CS – there needs to be something to say to make the meetings worthwhile.
RG – next meeting could include discussions about preparing for the cost optimisation exercise.
CS – once people have had a look at the slides from tonight’s presentation, there should be more questions.
LW – Mulalley can commit to attending all future RSGs, even if LW himself does not attend; it may be more relevant for specialists within the company to attend to deal with specific issues with RSG meetings focusing on one or two themes at future meetings.

The meeting ended at 8.45 pm

Slides from Mulalley presentation:

Open Resident Steering Group Meeting
2023-07-12 19:00 - 20:30 | Hackney Showroom Space, 4 Murrain Road, London, N4 2BN, United Kingdom
For more details of what will be discussed see the Hackney Update Newsletter (delivered to all properties & HERE) and the minutes of the previous RSG meeting in April and slides of Mulalley’s presentation HERE

Resident Steering Group Meeting
2023-11-28 19:00 - 20:00 | Hackney Showroom Space, 4 Murrain Road, London, N4 2BN, United Kingdom
Resident Steering Group‘ meetings happen every few months. Kings 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

Notes of Kings Crescent Steering Group Meeting held on 28th November 2023

Those Present:
Cllr Clare Potter (CP) (Chair)
Residents:
EP, JWM, EV
KH, ES, PS, RS
PA, PD, KM, AF
(Names removed on website version for privacy)

In Attendance:

Ron Greenwood (RG)
Chey Brown
Jane Haverson
Menekse Saitoglu
John Morris (minutes) (JM)
Lee Walsh (LW)
Vincent Raymond (VR)

LB Hackney
LB Hackney
LB Hackney
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Mulalley
Mulalley

1.0
Introductions and apologies
Action

1.1

Apologies were received from Carol Squires

2.0
Notes of previous meeting held 17th April 2023 and any Matters Arising not elsewhere on the agenda

2.1

The minutes were agreed as a true record, although they were circulated several months ago. CP and JM committed to pick up any actions that were noted in April.

3.0
Enabling works for phase 3&4 – Mulalley

3.1

LW and VR gave a presentation; slides HERE.

Questions and subsequent discussion as follows:

PA – when will the sewer problems in Weston Court be picked up? There should be information on this issue from before.
VR – we need to do comprehensive surveys of all components to ascertain the extent of all potential problems.

KH – how will the height difference between old and new blocks be dealt with?
VR – buildings will follow a gradient.

EV – for clarification, Casbeard St will be closed from approx. Sept 2024 onwards?
VR – timings on street closure depends on response times of utilities companies. Mulalley will close the street as late as possible. Also, if there is likely to be a prolonged period of inactivity between end of prep/enabling works and start on site, Mulalley would be willing to consider a temporary re-opening of the street.

CP recorded thanks to residents for their feedback and to Mulalley for reconsidering the access route onto site.

KM – what can be done with the new hoarding?
LW – Mulalley will change all the hoarding; existing has been in place for many years and there will be a new hoarding line. Mulalley very open to ideas to e.g. paint the hoarding using local young people or street artists. Easter holidays might be a good time to start to organise this.

AF – the presentation mentioned the possibility of access works from Green Lanes affecting the bus stop opposite.
LW emphasised that it may be necessary to move the bus stop – not take it away – to accommodate a layby opposite on the Sainsbury’s side of the road. Mulalley will be talking to Highways about this.

PA – the tree on Murrain Rd that will need to be relocated could be planted in a space near Sainsbury’s.
VR – Mulalley are flexible about where trees that need to be moved can be re-situated and it will be done after discussion with LBH and the community. VR emphasised that any relocation will be done by an experienced arboriculturist and any trees that do not need to be moved will be fully protected.

PA – is the Datchworth arch high enough for construction traffic? And will it be possible to open Queens Drive at its junction with Green Lanes so vehicles do not have to come down all the way down Queens Drive?
LW – yes, there will be no problem getting appropriately sized vehicles through this point. The access to Queens Drive from Green Lanes will not be opened, although if it could be it would be very helpful. Feedback from discissions with Highways will be provided.

PD – on the same point, there will be disruption to more people with traffic approaching along Queens Drive.
LW – LBH will not want to keep the gate open and it could not reasonably be overseen by a marshall/banksman who would have to open it for construction traffic while preventing all other vehicles from also driving into Queens Drive. A permanent opening here would create a rat run from Green Lanes at periods of high traffic density. However, LW committed to speaking to Highways about this and feeding back either at the next meeting or via Ron.

JWM – will there be certain times of the day when deliveries will be made to site?
VR – school run times will be avoided, so traffic will be allowed access only from 8.30/9.00 a.m. and only up to approx. 3.00/3.30.

EP – what will happen to the trees on the Green Lanes/Queens Drive corner (where DZ6S will be)?
VR – there are trees that will be too big to move; the machinery to do this doesn’t exist in the UK. Mulalley will carefully work around trees and have to be careful not to affect the root structures.

KM sought clarification on timelines.
LW – we are about 20 weeks into the original programme for redesign and cost optimisation process. Starting enabling works now and seeking all relevant permissions during 2024 should ensure alignment with a start on site in 2025.

LW to feedback from discussion with Highways

LW to feedback from discussion with Highways

4.0
Approach to future Social Value work with Mulalley – Source

4.1

JM – further to discussions with Mulalley and LBH, Source are keen to facilitate the formation of a residents group specifically to look at Social Value issues with Mulalley, the TRA and Hackney Showroom. This could consist of a number of residents who are not on this RSG but who have an interest in Social Value issues.
CP – Councillor Adejare would like to promote any opportunities that might emerge for Parkwood School students. Other areas of interest could be: funding/resourcing the Youth Club, the hoarding decoration project, funding/support for making the allotments work better for residents. CP added the idea mooted earlier this year of establishing a memorial as part of the public realm works to residents who passed away during the covid pandemic. EV also mentioned a sustainable energy project.

Source to start work on facilitating a Social Value steering group Q1 of 2024

5.0
ITLA update

5.1

JM – Source have continued to run monthly drop in sessions between 4.00 and 6.00 pm for any resident to call in for an update. The last one of the year will be on 12th December and will be advertised as an opportunity to see Mulalley’s proposals as presented tonight.

6.0
Any other business

6.1

CP asked about the other workshop sessions that have been discussed for 2024.
RG – once a firm programme has been agreed, it will be possible to align workshops with the relevant elements of the design/cost optimisation process. Subjects for workshops are likely to focus on play/public realm works, refurbishment details and the new community centre fit out.
LW – the public realm discussions will be the first priority as this will need to be included in the minor planning amendment application and discussions could start around Easter 2024. Workshops on design modifications for the refurbishment and the new community centre might be appropriate mid to late summer 2024.

KM asked for confirmation that the planning application will be for minor amendments (S73).
LW – yes. The footprint of the buildings will not change (except possibly and slightly, DZ6S), but this will impact on the need to now build a second staircase within the affected blocks.

KM – the quality of materials is also important.
LW – there are budget concerns but the client wants quality maintained and Mulalley’s design team will be working closely with LBH’s design guardians.

ES asked that RSG is informed of design changes. He also requested a commentary on where savings have been made in order for residents to understand how the cost optimisation has been achieved.

RG – residents will no doubt be interested in the impact of cost optimisation on how buildings will look. A presentation on the revised designs can be provided prior to the S73 application.

KH – what is the latest thinking on programming of the refurbishment and new build?
LW – it will be one construction period, although for the refurbishment, there is still discussion to be had with residents around a quicker but more disruptive programme or a less disruptive but slower programme. To re-emphasise, the Building Safety Regulations affect all existing blocks as Weston Court is +18 metres high and is connected to the rest of the south side blocks. Also, services infrastructure is also linked between southside existing homes and new build, so e.g. fire strategy, road network will be established across the whole estate.

CP – the last LBH Cabinet meeting considered an update on the KIngs Crescent scheme and asked if this could be circulated as it is a public document. NB timescales mentioned in it are now out of date.

Mulalley and LBH to provide details when able

JM to circulate with presentation and minutes

7.0
Date of next meeting

Next meeting will be in March 2024, date to be proposed nearer the time.

The meeting ended at 8.15 pm

Actions
By when
Who?

Feedback from discussion with Highways on moving Green Lanes bus stop
Next RSG
LW

Feedback from discussion with Highways on possibility of opening gate to enable access to Queens Drive from Green Lanes
Next RSG
LW

Work on facilitating a Social Value steering group to start
Q1 of 2024
Source

Details of where design changes have been made and how cost optimisation has been achieved
Q4 of 2024?
Mulalley and LBH

Report to November Cabinet on Kings Crescent regeneration to be circulated with Mulalley presentation slides
With minutes by 11/12/23
JM

Resident Steering Group Meeting 20 March 2025
2025-03-20 19:00 - 20:00 | Hackney Showroom, Murrain Road, London, N4 2GD
Resident Steering Group‘ meetings happen every few months.
Kings 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

Notes of Kings Crescent Steering Group Meeting held on 20th March 2025

Present:
Cllr Clare Potter (CP) (Chair)

10 Residents:
EP,PS, PD, RB, RW, ES, SJ, KM, GG, EV
(names removed for web version)

In Attendance:

Ron Greenwood (RG)
Chey Brown
Will Greatrex
Jane Havemann
Carol Squires (CS)
Menekse Saitoglu
John Morris (minutes)
Lee Walsh (LW)
Tom Roberts (TR)

LB Hackney
LB Hackney
LB Hackney
LB Hackney
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Mulalley
HHB Architects

1.0
Introductions and apologies
Action

Apologies were received from JWM, KH, PC, Cllr Adejare, AF, RS

2.0
Notes of previous meeting held 4th December 2024 and any Matters Arising not elsewhere on the agenda

The minutes from the last meeting were agreed.

3.0
Phase 3&4 update – Mulalley

LW and TR presented a programme update and the latest redesigns of the new build proposals. Presentation slides accompany these minutes.

Questions/comments:

Brick 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.

Balconies. 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.

CP – 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.

There 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

RB 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.

Weston 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.

TR 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.

ES 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.

CP 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.

SJ 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.

Hoarding 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.

RB 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.

EV – 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.

GG – 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.

4.0
Temporary MUGA consultation

RG 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.

Questions/comments:

ES 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.

CS 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.

RG – 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!

EV – ideas might include 2 smaller spaces for play?

RG, 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.

RB – 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.

It was noted that there was some disappointment that this has not been concluded yet.

5.0
ITLA update – Source

CS 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.

6.0
Any other business

6.1

PD 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.

· Post meeting note. The following response has been received from LBH:

Lee 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.

It 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?

Just 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.

LW

6.2

EV 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.

LW

6.3

RG – 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.

7.0
Date of next meeting

CP – date to be decided. Likely in 3 months time, to be confirmed after the exhibition referred to above.

Slides from the presentation can be viewed HERE

RSG 23 Oct 2025
2025-10-23 19:00 - 20:30 | Hackney Showroom Space, 4 Murrain Road, London, N4 2BN, United Kingdom
Resident Steering Group‘ meetings happen every few months.
Kings 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

Notes of Kings Crescent Steering Group Meeting held on 23rd October 2025

Present:
Cllr Clare Potter (CP) (Chair) – late
Paul Cushion (PC) (Theobalds Court)
Karsten Hartman (KH) (Wallington Court)

Kathy MacEwan (KM) (Kimpton Court)
Patricia Sim (Theobalds Court)
Emley Pine (EP) (Bramfield Court)

In Attendance:
Ron Greenwood (RG)
Carol Squires (CS)
Menekse Saitoglu
John Morris (minutes)
Lee Walsh (LW)
Tom Roberts (TR)
LB Hackney
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Mulalley
HHB Architects

1.0
Introductions and apologies
Action

Apologies were received from Peter Douglas, Rowena Scarborough, Ellie Virk. Cllr Potter gave advanced notice that she would be late.
CS chaired the meeting in Cllr Potter’s absence.

2.0
Notes of previous meeting held 9th July 2025 and any Matters Arising not elsewhere on the agenda

One correction to the last minutes: item 4.1, Jane Kaye should be Joanna Kaye, Mulalley RLO.
The rest of the minutes were agreed.

3.0
Project update – Lee Walsh

3.1

3.2

LW gave an update on Mulalley’s activities since the last meeting and proposed timings for future events. Presentation slides are attached with these minutes.
● 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.
● Some live services are still being uncovered.
● 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.
● Ground remediation will continue until Spring 2026.
● Site investigations will continue until Aug/Sept 2026 to align with anticipated Building Safety Regulator approval around the same time.
● 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.
● Joanne, the RLO’s role was explained. (See slide).
● 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.

Questions/comments

EP – can we share Joanna’s number with residents?
LW – yes.

EP – will sewer diversion works affect the trees at the end of Murrain Rd?
LW – not the trees but some street furniture might have to be relocated

KH – will the road be renewed after the diversion works are completed?
LW – it will be repaired and properly resurfaced at the end of the construction works

KM – 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.
LW – 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.

KM felt that there should be some support left in the budget for the garden project, from Julian Sanz’s time.
LW suggested that Kathy email him with her/the TRA’s assumptions to prompt him to discuss with Head of SV.

EP – 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.
LW 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.

Kathy to email Lee

4.0
Overview of S73 planning application – Tom Roberts

4.1

4.2

TR 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.

Questions/comments

KH – can TR confirm that heights of blocks hasn’t changed?
TR – 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.

CS – is there an impact on room sizes following reconfigurations?
TR – some rooms have been redesigned to create new layouts for fire separation

PC – have flats been made smaller to allow for 2nd staircases?
TR – Some 2 beds have become 1 beds. Minimum size of 70sq m for a 2 bed has been retained.
RG confirmed that the scheme is still viable even though there are some different sized flats. The overall number of homes is the same.

EP 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?
TR – we feel that it will not be as dark as feared.
KH asked if the choice of brick is a cost issue.
RG confirmed not.
KH – light coloured brick can look beautiful.
KM – 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?
CS 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

EP – how tall will the new buildings be?
TR – DZ4 will be 6 stories high. No additional stories have been added.

KM asked if a more detailed impression of what it would be like to walk around a new block could be produced.
KH – 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.
TR – there will be a model but it won’t show brick colours.

Balconies
PC – re south side new balconies; will they have solid floors?
TR – yes, they have to be solid.

Landscaping/public realm
EP 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.
TR – 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.

EP – will sound from the new courtyards be similar to existing behind new blocks? Is there a way the sound from play can be mitigated?
TR – the nw courtyards will be bigger, more open and MUF have designed in trees that should dampen down noise.

KM – 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.
TR acknowledged there is a conflict between ‘doorstep play’ and children’s ability to move around and make noise.
CS suggested picking these items up at the exhibition, provisionally organised for 2nd December.

CP asked whether the planning application will be considered by the Planning Committee or by delegated authority to officers.
RG – delegated unless there are material objections.

Source

Tom to speak to MUF re play facilities

5.0
ITLA update – Source

5.1
CS – Source have continued to hold monthly drop ins during the summer. The MUGA consultation has been a key topic over these months.

We 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.

CS – we also looked at what could usefully be a regular agenda item.
CP, reflecting previous discussion, suggested Social Value.

EP – 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.
LW 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.

CS 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.

6.0
Any other business

6.
There was no further business

7.0
Date of next meeting

7.1
CS suggested 21st January and 25th March 2026 with the exhibition for all residents taking place on 2nd December.

A copy of the minutes and the accompanying presentation slides from Mulally can be found HERE

KC RSG 20 Jan 2026
2026-01-20 19:00 - 20:30 | Hackney Showroom Space, 4 Murrain Road, London, N4 2BN, United Kingdom
Notes of Kings Crescent Steering Group Meeting held on 20th January 2026

Present:
Cllr Clare Potter (CP) (Chair)
Residents:
PC, KM, EP, PD

In Attendance:
Ron Greenwood (RG)
Joe Stancer (JS)
Carol Squires (CS)
Menekse Saitoglu (MS)
John Morris (JM) (minutes)
Lee Walsh (LW)

LB Hackney
LB Hackney
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Mulalley

1.0
Introductions and apologies
Action

Apologies were received from Jill Walker-Murrain, Ellie Virk, Karsten Hartman, Ewan Stone, Alfred Fiorentini, Gouri Ghosh.

2.0
Notes of previous meeting held 23rd October 2025 and any Matters Arising not elsewhere on the agenda

One action on page 4 of the previous minutes remains: Tom to speak to MUF re play facilities . LW to remind Tom (Roberts of HHB). The rest of the minutes were agreed.

LW

3.0
Project update – Lee Walsh

3.1

3.2

LW gave an update on Mulalley’s activities since the last meeting and proposed timings for future events. Presentation slides are attached with these minutes. [Slides HERE]

Questions/comments

EP noted that the hoarding for DZ6S seemed to be going up. RG confirmed struts are in place. LW to further investigate this.

KM raised the concerns that may be expressed at the loss of the play street for 3 months. LW clarified that there will not be a loss of space but that there needs to be temporary access from Green Lanes provided for emergency vehicles as a result of the sewer diversion works. CP noted concerns and asked that the changes to the play street happen asap to minimise disruption during the Spring and Summer seasons.

EP addressed the general issue of children’s play and complaints from some residents about noise. In the longer term, can residents be assured that LBH, when marketing new flats, will make it clear that they are situated on an estate with many families?

RG – new MUGA plans will start to be developed in the Spring. LBH are aware of how intensively the courtyards are used. There will be a management strategy in place for public realm as part of the planning application.

PC asked how the decommissioning of parking spaces will be managed. RG – some spaces have already been taken out of use. The process will be phased and LBH think there will be enough spaces for existing users. Regen. Team are working closely with the Parking team. RG and JS will hold surgeries to deal with queries and concerns with the proposed parking restrictions, supplemented by Source drop ins (first Wednesday of every month).

LW

4.0
Feedback from 2/12/25 exhibition – Joe Stancer

4.1

4.2

JS presented the outcomes of December’s consultations. The comments from the exhibition held on 2/12 were generally positive about the development and the survey on brick colours resulted in an overwhelming vote in favour of the lighter colour (57 in favour of the lighter brick, 7 in favour of the current, darker red colour). There was also an invitation to RSG to suggest ways to canvass views on the proposed Weston Court, Green Lanes façade artwork. See attached slides.

EP asked about wider publicity for artwork ideas. Could the Youth Club be involved? KM suggested a history of the estate as a theme; she had been impressed by a mural at Regents Park Estate, LB Camden that featured people who used to live there. CP noted the work that went into the history project and the photography project 10 years ago.

PC thought the model at the exhibition was very helpful to help residents understand the phase 3&4 plans.

CS asked how the outcomes from the exhibition are to be communicated, noting that residents have expressed frustration in the past at being consulted but then not finding out the outcomes of that consultation.

It was agreed that feedback should be produced before news of the outcome of the planning application. In order to do this more quickly, LW offered Mulalley to produce the publicity from material written by LBH.

LBH/Mulalley

5.0
Social Value

5.1
CS observed that residents were unsure about how they can influence social value contributions.

LW – Christina Byrne, Social Value Manager at Mulalley has been in touch with KM re some funding for allotments and will be making further contact soon to scope out what Mulalley can offer. CS – can she come to the March RSG? LW to check her availability over the next 2 months to get KC social value engagement moving.

LW reminded the meeting that Mulalley have one fund to spread across the 3 projects it is working on in Hackney at the moment, although KC is the largest. There will be significantly more money available once formally in contract and on site. Mulalley currently fund the local food bank. The meeting called for Mulalley to publicise more what it is funding; LW to co-ordinate this information for the RSG. As before, LW suggested that residents draw up a ‘shopping list’ of needs for Mulalley to use to target its funding. EP made the point that similar exercises have taken place in the past and she would feel reluctant to ask everyone again to elicit the same information.

Getting residents involved in these kinds of exercises has proved difficult. KM suggested setting up a stall outside Hackney Showroom to gather views. LW warned of managing expectations.

LW

LW

6.0
ITLA update, RSG terms of reference – Source

6.1
CS expressed It was noted that there were more apologies from residents than attended. Our summary paper (attached) indicates that general motivations for being an RSG member and attending meetings was to receive updated information and to be kept informed. Source can offer induction training/workships for residents interested in becoming RSG members. It was agreed that Source will target publicity/invitations to unrepresented blocks (e.g. social housing blocks at the west end of Murrain Road).

Residents at this meeting all agreed that they found the meetings very useful, otherwise they would not know what’s going on. JM suggested that now that Mulalley updates with clear presentations are a key part of the agenda, residents might find attending meetings more informative.

It was agreed that an open event in the summer to mark the completion of the planning process would be organised to attract and inform residents.

CS reminded the meeting that Source will continue its drop ins every first Wednesday of each month. Timings to be reviewed, to 4.30 to 6.30 or 5.00 to 7.00, subject to the availability of HS space.

Source

Source, LBH, Mulalley

7.0
AOB

7.1
i) PD reported that the run off from jet-washed wheels of construction vehicles could be causing drain blockages. LW to raise this with the relevant team, look at fitting silt filters to drains and carry out a drain survey. Mulalley have permission from Thames Water to deal with drain blockages now.

ii) PD also raised the issue of the slope around the new DZ6S hoardings that could become very muddy and difficult to navigate when access to the bus stop on Green Lanes is restricted by the hoarding. LW to check this on site.

iii) MS reported that most questions she receives are around start on site dates. LW could not provide a definite date as the time the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) may take to provide approval is unknown. But the aspiration is still to start on site towards the end of 2026/start of 2027.

KM asked how long it may take to mobilise for a start on site once BSR approval is received. LW – not long but contracts with sub contractors and final procurements will need to completed after approvals, which could take approx. 2 months.

iv) EP asked why the lights on hoardings had to be so bright and why some are pink, some white. LW will check with relevant team; some may still be waiting for shrouds to be fitted. Also to check colours!

v) EP also noted that leaseholders’ estate lighting bills have increased by approx. £400 p.a. Are Mulalley using estate lighting that is paid for by owners? LW confirmed not.

LW

LW

LW

8.0
Date of next meeting
Tuesday 17/3/26 at 7pm

KC RSG 17 March 2026
2026-03-17 19:00 - 20:30 | Hackney Showroom, Murrain Road, London, N4 2GD
Notes of Kings Crescent Steering Group Meeting held on 17th March 2026

Present:
Cllr Clare Potter (CP) (Chair)
Residents:
RB, JWM, GG, ES, KM, EP, PD, EV, KH

In Attendance:
Ron Greenwood (RG)
Joe Stancer (JS)
Carol Squires (CS)
John Morris (JM) (minutes)
Lee Walsh (LW)
Christina Byrne (CB)

LB Hackney
LB Hackney
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Mulalley
Mulalley

1.0
Introductions and apologies
Action

Apologies were received from Alfred Fiorentini, Paul Cushion, Menekse Saitoglu

2.0
Notes of previous meeting held 20th January 2026 and any Matters Arising not elsewhere on the agenda

2.1

Actions from last minutes:
· Discussions on play facilities ongoing between Mulalley, HHB, LBH
· Footpath has been redirected by Datchworth Court following discussions around DZ6S hoarding
· Feedback from last year’s exhibitions has been incorporated in the Statement of Community Involvement in planning application.
· Invitation for CB to attend this meeting made and she is here
· Source drop ins continuing starting at 4.30 now
· Construction vehicle mud-washing run off now being filtered and Mulalley have an agreement with Thames Water to drain straight into mains

EP raised the issue of lights on the hoardings that were discussed at the last meeting. Some are still very bright and shine into flat windows. LW -highway regulations mean that there needs to be white lights illuminating footpaths, red lights on roadways and a certain lux level maintained. RB – lights shine into her bedroom in Theobalds Ct. KH – Casbeard St seems dark. LW to investigate lighting on Casbeard St.

LW

3.0
Project update – Lee Walsh & Ron Greenwood

3.1

3.2

There is not much new to report from the last meeting. Ground investigations continue; many obstructions, e.g. under the DZ6S site and an old plant room from the towers under Casbeard St. and unregistered services uncovered. Mulalley are undertaking a mapping of the entire estate, which takes time. The water table is high as a result of the wet winter and ground conditions are poor across the whole estate. Concrete that has been unearthed is stockpiled to test if it is contaminated and if it isn’t to be re-purposed.

Questions/comments

i) KH raised the issue of mosquitos that have been a major problem, over summer months but also over the winter too. ES endorsed this, stating that agencies (unknown?) have been investigating the infestation. Bob Miller (Project Manager) is aware of this and is ensuring that, as far as possible, there is no ponding or static water. JWM mentioned the constant high level of standing water in front of the old boiler room. Again, Bob is aware of this and is striving to mitigate impact from this potential mosquito infestation.

ii) EV asked if more notice can be given when noisy works are planned. She recently tried to contact Joanna Kaye, RLO when some loud excavations started and did not receive a response. LW accepted that messaging could be better and Malcolm Stephenson, Senior Project Manager, is working with LBH to agree more effective communications plan. JS confirmed that letters are being sent out to the flats worst affected by the ongoing works. ES asked what hours Mulalley are contracted to work within. LW – 8.00 am to 6.00 pm Mon-Fri and 8.00 am to 1.00 pm on Saturdays. In response to ES’s observation that some works went on until 8.00 pm., LW noted that UKPN are not covered by Mulalley’s agreed hours, so this would have been their contractors.

iii) RG updated the meeting on progress with the planning application. This is due to be decided at a Planning Committee in late April. He asked the RSG if members would endorse a statement of support from the group, read out by CP.

KH asked if the record of community consultation included the change of brick colour on some new blocks. RG confirmed that it did.

ES suggested that the 4th bullet point in the list of aspirations: “A well managed and maintained neighbourhood where incidences of anti social behaviour are dealt with effectively,” should be more accurately classified within a management area of responsibility and therefore not a design aspiration. It was agreed to omit this bullet point.

EV stated she wouldn’t be comfortable signing this statement.

KM stated that this was the first time she has seen this document. CS – this is a slightly amended version of a statement that was agreed to and signed by CP and a number of other members for the original planning application. KH suggested this was actually less contentious than the original.

It was agreed that an amended version of the statement would be circulated for members to have another week to comment.

Source

4.0
Introduction to Christina Byrne, Social Value lead at Mulalley

4.1

CB introduced herself and gave an overview of Mulalley’s interpretation of ‘social value.’ This is focused on skills, work experience, employment opportunities and, sometimes directly and sometimes via local charities, is presented via schools and colleges. Mulalley already run a work experience programme across Hackney for 16-24 year olds. Mulalley also use their supply chain to employ local labour. They also partner with Hackney Food bank to provide donations, financial and in kind. RB has provided a list of ideas for projects with the TRA and young people, including trips off the estate while there is no play area/MUGA. Views from young people have been garnered from doorknocking across the estate.

CB – are there any other suggestions from members? It is important to provide as wide a range of choices as possible across age ranges and the local demographic. But it is also important that initiatives funded by Mulalley Social Value Team do not replicate what LBH management should be providing (e.g. maintenance of open spaces).

KM suggested that the success of the allotment/gardening group could be built on by helping generate interest in wider planting opportunities across the estate. CB gave volunteer days from within Mulalley staff as an example of how support in kind can be provided. Hackney Foodbank also has volunteering opportunities.

CP suggested the elders group is a good contact for a different segment of the Kings Crescent population. RB raised the feeling from the doorknocking exercises that many KC-resident elders do not want to attend the Friday lunches in Hackney Showroom. HS are still delivering some lunches on the estate. HS also organise other activities, e.g. over 60’s disco.

EP asked if Mulalley can generate a list of projects that have had success in the past to stimulate ideas that could work here. CP suggested this accompanies the list that LW showed the meeting of projects already funded.

LW noted the proposal for a celebration, possibly a barbecue to mark the milestone of the new planning approval. This could take the place of the next scheduled RSG date. KH asked if there could be a digger available for children who are excited by construction vehicles.

EV noted that there is an appetite for residents to meet each other more. Estate-wide social events might help promote this. CS added that the Source drop ins are available for residents who do not want to attend formal meetings.

KM acknowledged that language issues sometimes prevent greater levels of involvement. Turkish-speaking parents often bring their children to interpret but many are now getting involved in the allotment group (now there are 69 allotment beds in the phase 1 courtyards with many new people involved).

Much communication between residents at the moment is conducted via WhatsApp groups. KH – there are 127 members of the Leaseholders Action Group, with 100+ communicating on whats app. He added that there is a sense of demoralisation amongst residents in the north side ‘new’ blocks, particularly leaseholders who have experienced many issues with the management of the common areas, in particular the lifts. RB is in the process of setting up an estate-wide whats app group through the TRA.

Mulalley (CB?)

5.0
Source update

5.1
CS – drop ins still useful, held on the first Wednesday of each month, 4.30 to 6.30 in Hackney Showroom. The February drop in highlighted the appearance of the hoarding around the DZ6S site and the closure of the footpath. Credit is due to Mulalley for responding quickly to this. JS will attend the drop in on 1/4/26 to deal with queries, concerns about the proposed temporary parking rearrangements.

Source can also be a conduit for social value ideas that residents might communicate to us. We have raised the opportunities presented by the proposals for artwork or an enlivening of the Weston Court Green Lanes façade.

Further suggestions were raised for public displays: JWM – could we use the material that is available on the history of KC? Stories on hoardings? EV suggested that a better public mapping of the blocks would be welcomed.

6.0
AOB

6.1
ES sought clarification on the Weston Court Green Lanes elevation proposal. RG – the proposals at the moment are that there would be artwork that is co-designed between residents and a professional artist. CB has an artist contact who has produced work in Finsbury Park. KH noted the well known mural in Dalston and KM the artwork at Regents Park Estate that features ex residents. She suggested trying out ideas on the hoardings that currently envelop the site.

6.2
ES asked if lessons are being learnt from the experience of residents in the phase 1&2 blocks in terms of design, installation of services etc.? KH suggested that if LBH can confirm that the same issues will not affect the new blocks, the fact that these issues have been acknowledged and efforts made to ensure they do not repeat, might improve morale slightly amongst the current leaseholders. RG confirmed that LBH are of course very much aware of the issues with lifts etc. and will continue to learn lessons from phase 1&2 and strive to make sure these problems do not reoccur.

7.0
Date of next meeting

7.1
It was proposed that the June meeting would take the form of a wider community event. Current dates already occupied include 14/6 for a TRA family fun day and 11/7 for Hackney Showroom’s street party. Other suggestions included an early evening summer event, potentially on a Friday.

Kings Crescent Residents Steering Group

Meeting to be held on
Tuesday 17th March 2026 starting at 7.00pm
Hackney Showroom

AGENDA

1
Introductions and Apologies

Cllr Potter (Chair)

2
Minutes from the last meeting 20th January and matters arising

Cllr Potter (Chair)

3
Project update & RSG support for planning application
Lee Walsh, (Mulalley)

4
Introduction to Social Value Manager Christina Byrne
(Mulalley) and Discussion

Cllr Potter

5
ITLA Up-date
Carol & John
(Source Partnership)

7
AOB
Cllr Potter (Chair)

8
Date of next meeting
Cllr Potter (Chair)
