Steering Group 21 July 2022
2022-07-21 19:00 - 20:00 (Europe/London) | 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
