EASTENDHOMES BOARD MEETING Thursday 15 th June 2014, 7.00PM 3 Resolution Plaza, London, E1 6PS M I N U T E S. Apologies:

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "EASTENDHOMES BOARD MEETING Thursday 15 th June 2014, 7.00PM 3 Resolution Plaza, London, E1 6PS M I N U T E S. Apologies:"

Charity Lang
5 years ago
Views:

1 EASTENDHOMES BOARD MEETING Thursday 15 th June 2014, 7.00PM 3 Resolution Plaza, London, E1 6PS M I N U T E S Present: Board Members Resident Members Colin Antoine [CA] Les Eldon [LE] Margaret Higgins [MH] Council Members Independent Members John Kettlewell [JK] Neil McAree [NM] Maureen McEleney [MM] Janet Seward [JS] Apologies: Resident Members Helen Goody Council Members Independent Members Jamir Chowdhury Amjad Rahi Officers Paul Bloss [PB] Chief Executive Peter Gibbs [PG] Finance Director / Company Secretary John Henderson [JH] Managing Director Steve Inkpen [SI] Director of Special Projects In attendance Alex Bailey (Minutes) 1. Apologies for absence 1.1 Apologies had been received from Helen Goody, who was unwell; and Amjad Rahi, who was unable to make the rearranged date. The Board conveyed their best wishes to HG for a swift recovery. 2. Declarations of Interest 2.1 There was none. 3. Minutes of the meeting held 30 th March 2015 / Matters Arising The minutes were AGREED by the Board as an accurate record. 3.1 A policy on Hoarding has been added to the Policies Action Plan and will be discussed at the Service Review Committee. 3.2 It has been confirmed that NM is no longer a voting member of the Finance & Audit Committee, in order to ensure full compliance with the revised NHF Code of Governance. 3.3 PG had included stress-testing of the Business Plan at the 2 nd June Board training session. ACTION

2 3.4 PB and PG had completed an analysis of Board member attendance and discussed it with NM. One member had previously received a written warning for non-attendance. A report was presented for discussion under item 15 of the agenda. 4. LBTH Board Members and Representation 4.1 NM explained that the LBTH Head of Democratic Services had written to EEH shortly before the Tower Hamlets Mayoral election, acknowledging that the previous terms ended on 31 st May and stating that new appointments will be made after the vote. PG observed that it appears the new appointments will be made for a period of one year. NM requested that PG contact LBTH if there is no contact in the next month, and to include a communication from the Board that the nomination of noncouncillors, or for a longer period, would be acceptable to the Board. 4.2 MM asked if there had been any contact with the newly-elected Mayor. PB stated that he has been invited to open the communal space outside Resolution Plaza, which should be completed in late July. The Board NOTED the report. 5. BBBC Blocks / Wheler House Options 5.1 PB summarised the report, including the origins and history of the feasibility study. This had started with a request from residents to look at redevelopment options for Herbert and Jacobson Houses, and when this had been shown to be unworkable, it had led onto further discussions and a request to undertake a feasibility study of the BBBC blocks/wheler House. SI had informed the Holland local board at the time that the feasibility study would be a major piece of work, that repair contracts would not to be progressed, and that an Initial Demolition Notice would be served with the effect of suspending Right to Buy applications. The local board had approved the feasibility study. 5.2 PB said a number of residents had subsequently organised a campaign to oppose a redevelopment option being considered, including use of social media and mainstream media coverage. PB had attempted to engage with journalists to ensure that factually correct and balanced articles were produced by journalists but with limited success. 5.3 PB continued that within the blocks in question, the majority of the properties are in leasehold ownership and that the proposal put forward is to consult on all options, including more detailed information on the costs to leaseholders of refurbishment and repair works. The cost of the full range of possible works could be very high for leaseholders, many of whom would not qualify for the discretionary 10k cap on works available to resident leaseholders who owned the property at the time of transfer and who remain resident in the property. The Board will need to consider how refurbishment work would be programmed, i.e. works could be done all at once, which would become due, which would create some economies, but a significant upfront cost or by element over time, which may be less cost efficient but could make budgeting for leaseholders easier over a longer period. PG 2

3 5.4 NM summarised the options for consultation as; phased works with reference to a maintenance programme and anticipated component failure or full refurbishment in one contract. 5.5 NM queried if there was a written promise to install lifts to the blocks. PB confirmed that this had been included in the transfer offer document. LE added that the feedback from the EMB was that lifts should be installed. LE added that the EMB are requesting that the Initial Demolition Notice be withdrawn as it can affect leaseholders ability to re-mortgage. 5.6 LE continued by presenting a petition on behalf of the Holland emb. He added that the emb had demanded that any consultation on feasibility of redevelopment of the blocks be abandoned. NM replied on behalf of the Board, that had agreed that the feasibility study should be subject to consultation with all tenants and leaseholders on the blocks and that this option should be included in the consultation. 5.7 MH asked how many members there were on the Holland Regeneration sub-group. LE replied that it has 6 members. SI added that the architects presentation had been to the full EMB. 5.8 JK asked if redevelopment had been costed and if it was feasible for EEH to meet this scale of project within the Business Plan, including impacts on cashflow management. SI replied that he had been clear at the outset that if all necessary support was maintained (local authority, resident support, and favourable feasibility study) then EEH would be in a position to consider the funding requirements for such a major project. The scheme assembly costs would be very high and a detailed project plan would need to be devised at that stage. 5.9 MM agreed that the scale of the project would make this a challenging scheme in any circumstances. Doing so in the face of political or coordinated resident opposition may make it impractical. MM added that she would not be surprised at leaseholder challenge to full refurbishment based on the scale of work and costs, even if it were more financially efficient to do all of the works at once. It would be important to hold robust stock condition data identifying that works needed to be done within the timeframe On the issue of lifts, MM requested looking again at what was in the offer document, with reference to the wording and images. MM commented that EEH need to make sure that residents are aware of the scale of the impact of such works on the communal courtyards and communal areas of introducing a number of new lift shafts, including a substantial loss of amenity spaces and parking spaces to the estate MM added that EEH need to be clear how cost estimates have been arrived at. Given the social media campaign, EEH must have regard to misinformation being spread by those with vested interest and it is equally important that leaseholders understand what they may be liable to contribute to further repair and refurbishment works. PB 3

4 5.12 CA emphasised that EEH should try to ensure the voices of tenants are heard and listened to by EEH as well as leaseholders, as tenants risk being marginalised due to being considered to have less of a direct financial stake; in reality, of course, tenants making their contribution to the cost of works over a longer term through their rent JS mentioned the risk of reputational damage associated with social media campaigns, which also seek to subvert EEH strategic objectives and ambitions. JS suggested that EEH need to look at our communications strategy, as more general perceptions can form, not just related to this issue LE stated that at the Holland emb, there is opinion held by members of the board that EEH received money from the government or council to pay for the cost of works to the estate, including new lift towers. PG and PB confirmed that this is not true. The only funding received for the estate was to support Decent Homes works (new kitchens and bathrooms and other work for tenanted properties). All other works to the estate have been and are to be funded by EEH NM expressed concern that EEH may be undertaking a consultation on which all the options may be unpopular. He agreed that EEH must consult on the installation of lifts, as they were in the offer document but the associated costs and implications. Given the cost associated with full refurbishment, a range of options is appropriate. NM agreed that for completeness EEH should also continue to provide information on redevelopment In response to a question from NM, SI confirmed that were a full redevelopment scheme to happen, as on any other estate, under a CPO arrangement property owners would be entitled to receive an independently assessed market value plus a 10% uplift NM stated that EEH should consult within an agreed timeframe, that information should be handled sensitively, and it should be made clear that the Board has not taken a decision thus far and genuinely wants to hear the views of all residents about all options PB, MM and SI observed the difficulties associated with effectively consulting in the face of an organised campaign with misinformation being spread through social media. LE stated that EEH should not take too long over decision making. PB proposed that a new press statement summarising the Board s discussion be published on EEH website within 24 hours. The Board AGREED following the discussion that EEH should seek to consult all residents on all the options, and that a statement should be published on EEH website explaining this decision. 6. Holland Community Centre 6.1 It was noted that all Board members had been contacted regarding the proposal made and there was a consensus in support of the proposal. 6.2 SI added that he had raised the potential use by Toynbee Hall with the Holland emb and had received no objections. The Board AGREED the proposal. PB 4

5 7. NHF Code of Governance Self-Assessment 7.1 PB acknowledged that this was a lengthy document. Following the Board s decision previously to adopt the new (2015) version of the Code of Governance, a self-assessment has been completed highlighting how EEH is complying with the revised code of governance. 7.2 NM observed that he would no longer be chairing the Personnel Committee or serving as a voting member of the Finance & Audit Committee and that this resolved two areas of potential non-compliance with the revised code. The Board AGREED the self-assessment. 8. HCA Regulatory Framework and Standards Annual Self- Assessment 8.1 PB introduced the report and explained that following the introduction of the revised Regulatory Framework in April, EEH had carried out a new self-assessment exercise. The Board AGREED the self-assessment. 9. Business Plan and Stress Testing 9.1 PG explained that it was necessary for the Board to first agree the amended Business Plan, which will then be discussed with Barclay s. PG drew the Board s attention to the baseline assumptions included at 4.5 of the report. 9.2 PG added that section 5 of the report showed the impacts of different scenarios which had been considered by the Board as part of stress testing the plan. PG continued that Appendix One, which showed the current plan, identifies a peak debt being reached in 2017 and thereafter declining. PG also said that Appendix 6 was an example of an extreme scenario, in which the combination of factors stress tested were sufficient to break the Business Plan. 9.3 JK asked what would happen in such an extreme scenario. PG stated that Barclay s would not agree such a Business Plan, and that Board would have to consider options around refinancing or other fundamental changes of approach. 9.4 JK asked how extensive the scale of proposed works included in the agreed Business Plan were. PG observed that it included a total volume of works which had been increased from 138m to 157m. The Board AGREED the Business Plan proposals. 10. Finance & Audit Committee Agenda and Reports 10.1 JK explained that F&A had received management accounts for both the Group and EEH (CD), which were within budget JK added that the Financial Regulations have been updated to require both the EEH Chair and the Chair of F&A to be signatories to the accounts JK observed that the Committee have asked for and were receiving more detailed information to support monitoring of the capital works programme. 5

6 10.4 JK added that as part of the Treasury Management Strategy review, the Committee had discussed again whether EEH should look at its corporate banking arrangements. NM, JK and PG have met informally with Barclay s. To get an idea on their willingness to lend further, PG will include a theoretical development programme in the next Business Plan proposal. Barclay s will now only consider lending over 7 years, and options for raising further capital had been discussed JK continued that F&A had looked at VFM monitoring and the outcomes of two internal audit reports, and had also received a progress update on the work towards developing the assets and liabilities register. PB added that to progress work within the tight target timescales, EEH may look to bring in external support JK noted that the committee had also looked at the Terms of Reference for the Home Ownership Forum. On the Risk Register, work to mitigate risks associated with VAT shelters was progressing. MH asked about how the joint work with the Bromley by Bow Centre was monitored. JH and AB explained that ongoing monitoring takes place, including impact on the rent accounts of referred tenants. The Board NOTED AND AGREED the decisions taken. 11. Key Performance Indications 2014/ MM asked when the General Build repairs contracts are due for retendering. JH explained the process of monitoring performance to decide on a final year extension MM asked about long-term void performance and JH commented that the definition has recently been looked at by the Housing Management Team to ensure that empty properties are managed through the correct process. MM added that she was very impressed with the performance on gas servicing and estate services. The Board NOTED the report. 12. Regeneration Update The Board NOTED the report. 13. Service Review Committee Minutes 26 th March JS summarised the items which had been discussed. The Board NOTED the minutes. 14. Personnel Committee Minutes 18 th March 2015 The Board NOTED the minutes. The meeting closed at 9.10pm. PG 6

EASTENDHOMES BOARD MEETING Thursday 26 th November 2015, 7.00PM 3 Resolution Plaza, London, E1 6PS M I N U T E S. Apologies:

EASTENDHOMES BOARD MEETING Thursday 26 th November 2015, 7.00PM 3 Resolution Plaza, London, E1 6PS M I N U T E S Present: Board Members Resident Members Onjona Begum [OB] Les Eldon [LE] Helen Goody [HG]