RSG 23 Oct 2025

Paul Cushion (PC) (Theobalds Court)

Karsten Hartman (KH) (Wallington Court)

Patricia Sim (Theobalds Court)

Emley Pine (EP) (Bramfield Court)

Carol Squires (CS)

Menekse Saitoglu

John Morris  (minutes)

Lee Walsh (LW)

Tom Roberts (TR)

Source Partnership (ITLA)

Source Partnership (ITLA)

Source Partnership (ITLA)

Mulalley

HHB Architects

CS chaired the meeting in Cllr Potter’s absence.

The rest of the minutes were agreed.

3.2

●      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

4.2

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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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

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.