February Steering Group Meeting

Ron Greenwood (RG)

William Owen (WO)

Carol Squires (CS)

John Morris

Cllr Clare Potter

Cllr Brian Bell

11 residents

LB Hackney

Source Partnership (ITLA)

Source Partnership (ITLA)

LB Hackney (Cllr)

LB Hackney (Cllr)

1.1

The meeting was chaired by Cllr Potter.

Apologies were received from Hana Chambers, Peter Sim and Alfred Fiorentini.

2.1

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

3.1

Programme update – RG

Three tenders were submitted by the deadline: midday today (8^th Feb). The next month will be spent evaluating the tenders with a scheduled tender report to be written by 8^th March. The quantitative part (pricing) is being assessed by QS and Potter Raper, the LBH Employers Agent. The qualitative parts break down into: programming proposals, resourcing, risk mitigation, site logistics, design integrity, community engagement and local employment and training opportunities.

WO has set up a meeting on 16^th Feb for the resident reps who will evaluate some of these items.

LBH would still like to arrange visits to tenderers’ sites but ongoing restrictions mean this will have to wait until March/April.

There will be an internal moderation meeting on 25^th Feb. to review the final qualitative scores.

A negotiation period of 9 weeks is in place if bids are non compliant in any way or come in over budget. This period will take until approx. mid June if needed. There will then be a report to Cabinet written while the leaseholder S20 process runs its course. A Cabinet approval will be subject to the S20 consultation process.

NC asked if this meant that the whole process is still on track to meet expected deadlines.  RG replied that the 9 week negotiation period should allow for delays to be minimised.

CP asked if everything was likely to be agreed by the end of summer. RG – hopefully and, if so a start on site date of December 2021 should be achievable.

3.2

Resident Evaluation Panel

WO reported that an e mail has gone out to all on the evaluation panel with a Confidentiality Agreement. WO urged all to fill their names in on the electronic versions asap and return to him as he cannot share the tender docs. until this has been done.  JM confirmed the Panel as Emley, Peter D, Peter A, Jill, Karsten and Jo.

3.3

Respite Centre

WO led on this item. It is generally agreed that the Respite Centre for phase 1&2 was inadequate. More people are now working from home but does LBH ask contractors to provide sleeping facilities? LBH have no fixed ideas on what the Respite Centre should consist of but contractors will want to provide one in order to qualify for the Considerate Constructors Scheme Award. So, questions WO was interested in getting answers to include:

·       what should a Respite Centre provide?

·       what are the different needs on phase 3&4 c/w 1&2?

·       where should a centre be located?

·       how can users make the most of it?

·       how will it be managed? How will a booking system work?

JWM made the point that in phase 1&2, the centre was on site and therefore, it provided little respite and there was little uptake. So location this time should be a prime consideration. It needs to be near but off the estate.

AA stated that in the summer with windows open it is noisy in normal times.

CP suggested that the Green Lanes/Queens Drive corner where DZ6S will be built would be a possible site. JWM thought this was still close to Weston Court, where the noisiest works are likely.

EP didn’t realise there was a Respite Centre available in phase 1&2 so good publicity for the one on phase 3&4 will be crucial. It should be something that can be used at short notice. Could local cafes or soft play areas be subsidised by the contractor to provide space for those seeking respite? It would be good if individuals who wish to do some work away from home could sit in a café without having to buy lots of expensive coffee!

JWM proposed the idea of the reservoir centre as a location where people could use rooms to work in or have meetings. Could a shuttle bus be provided to transport people there and back? PA said he would be prepared to walk up to the reservoirs if necessary. He also observed that the centre in phase 1&2 was not very big. It would also need a good internet connection.

CP suggested a survey to assess the numbers of night workers in order to inform the decision on providing sleeping facilities. RG thought the contractor’s Resident Liaison Officer would be tasked with getting this sort of information.

JG emphasised the number of people working from home, so in her view, this would likely be the main focus. WO asked if people were likely to be happy to work immediately alongside others, or require separate rooms. JG said she’d rather work in the company of others than try to work in a very noisy environment.

KH asked when the noisy work is likely to start. RG replied that this depends on the contractor’s programming but that good advanced notice will be required.

ES asked if contractors will be allowed to work at weekends. RG – it will be for Building Control to decide but the expectation is that work will only be carried out Mon – Fri. CP recalled that Higgins did work some Saturdays in phase 1&2 to catch up on the programme. JWM confirmed that some Saturday work did take place inside buildings during the 2^nd fix period.

4.1

WO reported that the 3 tenders received for the refit were all over budget but a productive meeting with Hackney Showroom and the TRA had resulted in a revised and cheaper brief. The 3 new tenders are expected back tomorrow (9^th Feb). If work can start in late March, there should be completion in June. Part of the extra time delay will depend on contractor availability.

5.1

RG gave an update:

Paving: LBH need to establish whether Higgins have now finished the works that comprise their commitments.

CCTV to bike stores: a quote for installation is with the CCTV team which is likely to be accepted. The installation will take approx. 3 or 4 weeks and they are waiting for an indication of when this can start.

Lifts: a quote is being reviewed for an independent consultant to inspect and do a report on the two worst affected blocks – Kimpton and Sandon.

Main front doors: a sub contractor will remove the superfluous handle

Latent defects records: a meeting with Higgins has been arranged to make sure that all defects reported directly to Higgins are known to LBH and have been dealt with.

Follow up questions:

NJ asked if there is going to need to be ongoing fixes to the paving that could have an impact on future service charges. RG – the meeting with Higgins will hopefully resolve if any outstanding issues are latent defects or now repairs

ES asked if this includes future treatments to the paving and also who is paying for the lift consultant. Could they include Radwell in their investigation?

KH asked that Wallington lift also be included. He also reported that there are still other defects outstanding.

RG added that it will becoming increasingly difficult to claim future repairs to paving are defects; the new sealant shouldn’t fail again.

AA reported that there are several issue with her flat and block; damp causing mould and door locks broken. RG and CP suggested taking these issues off line. AA to contact CP for follow up.

RG to ask Bronwen and Employers Agent to include these two blocks in the lift analysis

5.2

Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE)

WO emphasised that the POE survey is not primarily intended to resolve defects but rather as a lessons learnt exercise to inform future regen. However, LBH do still want to gather information on what is still outstanding. WO asked for any views on the survey form.

CP thought it looked well laid out and stated that it is important that as many people as possible are encouraged to complete it.

WO – it can be filled in on line as a test by anyone wanting to check how it works and then the form will be deleted.

6.1

EP reported that the TRA and Hackney Showroom are discussing how to spend a budget of £3k that needs to used by end March. Proposals they are looking at include: a Zoom art project, a Zoom quiz evening (with drag host) and assistance with a BLM film project. There are also Spring gardening events planned. The next meeting date is TBA.

7.1

CS gave an update:

·       we have continued to support leaseholders throughout the S20 process,

·       liaised with Annette Reid on vulnerable residents, noting that there have been several bereavements over the last few months,

·       we circulated a flier inviting residents to get in touch if needed

·       we await news on 15^th Feb about whether some relaxation of restrictions may make it possible to resume some appointments in the community centre

8.1

RG reported that there had been 3 more one to one meetings with leaseholders, to follow the 7 meetings held on 10/12/20. The next steps are: 2^nd stage S20 ‘Notice of Proposal’ with details of the successful contractor with individual, per flat costings and a 30 day consultation period; a 3^rd stage ‘Notice of intention to carry out qualifying works’ with more specific details of works proposed and costs, again with a 30 day consultation period.   Leaseholders have been made aware of repayment options. The upcoming newsletter will remind residents what is being proposed in the refurbishment programme.

EP expressed concern that the strength of feeling about the costs has been judged by LBH in the light of the numbers attending the surgeries (10). In fact the leaseholders whatsapp group has 34 members.  RG stressed that the consultation is not over.

EP was also concerned that non residents are disadvantaged as the backdated cut off date of 28^th May gave them no opportunity to return as residents or to change plans. She pointed out that there are no non resident owners on the RSG to articulate their concerns. Many do not receive mail from their tenants. RG noted that non resident leaseholders are obliged to inform LBH Leasehold Services of forwarding addresses.

RG reminded the meeting that the default position is that all leaseholders are charged the full recharge amount; the current arrangements are a variation to this. LBH dispute that a 10k cap was promised to all leaseholders.

EP asked when the stage 2 Notice will be issued. RG – when LBH are in a position to accept a tender and while the internal approval process is progressing. If September 2021 is the aim for Cabinet approval, then this will be the time when the Stage 2 Notice will be issued.

JG asked if there is anything the Leaseholder group can do now or do they have to wait until the Stage 2 Notice consultation? RG – comments should be lodged at the time of the Stage 2 Notice. LBH can’t do anything with the representations being made now.

JG asked if there was an update on the buyback option. RG – those interested should contact him and he will approach Simon Theobald (LBH Director of Finance) who will arrange for a valuation visit.

9.1

EP raised mould issues in the southside blocks. Will the major repairs deal with these?  RG – the 5 or 6 worst affected properties will have passive ventilation measures installed and the roof insulation, new windows and cladding of the undercrofts should improve thermal efficiency. CP has been closely involved in these issues through casework and is keen to see how these measures will improve the situation.

9.2

ES raised the £750 fee that sellers have to pay to have fire insurance cover confirmed.  RG – this is out of LBH hands as the insurance industry has reacted to new legislation in an extreme way.

10.1

Week commencing 22^nd March (probably 22^nd as this is the Monday) To be confirmed next week.

(a)   Update on progress and next steps

(b)   Respite centre (feedback exercise)

(a)   Update on progress and next steps

(b)   Post occupancy survey (feedback exercise)

Ron (LBH)

Will (LBH)