- This event has passed.
Resident Steering Group Meeting 13 Oct
October 13, 2022 @ 7:00 pm - 8:30 pm
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:
