Resident Steering Group Meeting 20 March 2025

10 Residents:

EP,PS, PD, RB, RW, ES, SJ, KM, GG, EV

(names removed for web version)

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

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

The minutes from the last meeting were agreed.

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.

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.

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.

6.1

PD raised an instance of Sunday working on 23^rd 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.

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