- This event has passed.
November Steering Group Meeting
November 28, 2018 @ 7:00 pm - 8:30 pm
Minutes from the meeting taken by John Morris from Source Partnership:
Notes of Kings Crescent Steering Group Meeting held on 28th November 2018 in the Community Centre
|Those Present:||Cllr Brian Bell (BB) (Chair)
18 residents from various blocks
|In Attendance:||Ron Greenwood (RG)
Bronwen Thomas (BT)
Carol Squires (CS)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
Source Partnership (ITLA)
|1.0||Introductions and apologies||Action|
|Apologies were received from: Cllr Clare Potter.
|2.0||Notes of previous meeting and matters arising|
|2.1||KH requested that on page 3, top para, 3rd line, the minute “40% of Wallington residents” read “40% of all residents.” His intention at the last meeting was to argue that the feedback from consultations had led him to assume that 40% of all Kings Crescent residents would oppose the creation of the 11 storey block. It was unclear whether this was an inaccurate minute or what KH had meant to say.
It was noted that Sainsburys was opening tomorrow (29th).
|3.0||Update on play street|
|3.1||Markings on the street and the bell bollards are now in place. Signage was delayed by at least two further weeks.
|4.0||Kings Crescent Story
|4.1||BT gave a presentation on the outline of the KC Story as compiled by Ranait of Source. Some additional contributions would still be welcomed.
|5.0||Feedback from Bourne Estate visit
|5.1||DP was invited to give his feedback. He noted that the caretaking seemed to be better there and so refuse chutes were still used. His perception of the distance between blocks was that although 16m seemed generous at ground level, at first floor and above, it seemed a lot closer and that there was a feeling of overlooking.
RG added that the central courtyard at Bourne was comparable in size to the one proposed at King’s Crescent which will be 36m in width.
BB asked about the community centre at Bourne. RG thought that the KC scheme proposals will provide a much better community facility space.
BB asked for an update on the management of Unit C as a temporary community space. RG reported that a potential provider has been identified who will offer a comprehensive range of activities and a fit out for temp. community use for 5 years. LBH are inviting another potential provider to talk through their proposals before making a decision and starting the process of drawing up a lease for signing. One factor has been the constraints that will need to be imposed because of the residential units above the centre. BB made the point that it will be crucial to have a space that is well used and busy. RG will ask the successful organisation to give a presentation to the RSG.
EF asked if this will be a commercial operator. RG confirmed that the organisation in question is a charity.
MJ asked if the centre would be run on similar lines as the one at Cazenove where some activities are available for £1. RG – a lot of activities will be subsidised but not necessarily free.
AC asked where this arrangement works well. BT suggested the Robin Redmond Centre at Woodberry Down and centres at Hackney Wick and Haggerston.
BT added that for further comparison for other features of the new KC development, LBH would be trying to organise a visit to commercial workspace units situated under residential in the new year.
|6.0||Final exhibition 10th December|
|RG notified the meeting that the final exhibition of the proposals before submission to planning is on Monday 10th December between 2.30 and 8.30 p.m. in Unit C. This will not be as extensive an exhibition as previous events. The model will be central to the event but there will be fewer boards that will pick up on:
· lessons learnt and a summary of what has been taken on board from feedback and what hasn’t from previous exhibitions, drop ins, visits and doorknocking exercises
· changes made to the masterplan
· daylight/sunlight studies
· parking, service delivery and refuse arrangements
· the look and feel of the 3 proposed courtyards with details of the associated buildings, landscaping, public realm, planting and the games court
· the refurbishment proposals
KH asked if there will any opportunity for further feedback. RG replied that this will be limited as this is the last exhibition before a planning application. There will be opportunities for representations as part of the formal planning process. KH feels that the feedback forms that were submitted after the July event were not taken into account. RG’s view is that it could not be certain whether feedback forms were submitted from households or individuals so how representative this was could not be ascertained, particularly since there are almost 550 households on the estate.
AC thought that communications had not been great. She only heard of the issues from word of mouth. Is the website up to date? BT said that the KC proposals and consultation info should link from the main LBH website.
AC hoped that feedback is not being dismissed and she would be happy to provide feedback from Kimpton Court. RG made the point that other stakeholders’ views needed to be taken into account as well, including the GLA, design panel etc. KH suggested that LBH will have ignored the views of a substantial number of residents. In the written reply from RG to KH, it is implied that everyone else except the active Wallington Court residents supports the proposals. RG read an excerpt from a letter of support he had received from a Kimpton Court resident. NF asked if the writer gave evidence to back up their support for the proposals.
KH acknowledged that views were polarised. EF claimed 27 in Wallington Court opposed to the scheme. She asked how residents can be sure that feedback has been fairly represented if RG only feeds back positive reactions? RG has never read out opposed feedback, so how can we trust the LBH viewpoint? RG responded that the negative feedback was being articulated regularly at RSG meetings, in writing to other council staff and the local MP. EF asked what others in the meeting felt (NB, this was not answered by any other attendees). WD said he had not given feedback, so does RG assume he is in favour of the plans?
BB asked about the timetable from now on. RG – indicative timescale would be:
· Exhibition 10/12
· Finalisation of detailed design early in new year
· March 2019 planning application submitted
· Approx. Sept 2019 determination given.
Running concurrently to these will be:
· Expressions of Interest for main developer April 2019
· Shortlist June
· Tenders returned Sept
· Cabinet sign off by Nov?
· Negotiations with the successful tenderer up to Jan 2020 when contract would be signed
· Start on site possibly Spring/early Summer 2020
· 3 year programme, with refurbishment largely done first
· 2022-2023 phased handovers
Resident representation on the interview panel for the contractor will be encouraged. NB a key qualitative measure will be how contractors propose to work on an occupied site.
RG added that one key consistent message was that residents just want the works to get going.
PS asked if LBH had any contractors in mind. RG replied that there needs to be a formal and open tender process but key criteria will be ability to work on a complex scheme with residents in situ.
BB encouraged those opposed to the scheme in its current form to exercise their right to write to the mayor and their MP.
AC asked why LBH will not flip the site of the tall block. RG summarised the reasons: sunlight from the S and SW will be maximised through the large central courtyard, which he believed will be better than a run of buildings along Murrain Rd, the design concept is to step down heights of blocks along Murrain Rd and there is a need to build the number of homes proposed to fund social rent, the external improvements to existing blocks and provision of the community centre .
SC suggested there is a feeling of irritation amongst residents that LBH want to move on and shut down further conversation. RG believes the arguments have been rehearsed enough at consultation events. SC believes that opposing views could have been treated with more respect. SC asked if it is true that building high gives LBH the chance to maximise the value of flats at the top of the blocks. RG stressed that LBH felt the design was right but that it was also true that higher values can be achieved by building taller blocks. An additional factor was the desire to knit together the two halves of the estate by creating a large central courtyard.
BB brought the discussion to a close by reminding the meeting that there are other channels through which to continue to make representations.
|7.0||Any urgent business|
|7.1||There was none.
|8.0||Date of next meeting|
|8.1||Next meeting 17/12/18; a short meeting with Christmas snacks after.
The Meeting closed at 8.10 pm