EASTENDHOMES BOARD MEETING Tuesday 20 th September 2011, 7.30PM The Centre, Merchant Street, E3 4PZ M I N U T E S. Apologies:

Transcription

1 EASTENDHOMES BOARD MEETING Tuesday 20 th September 2011, 7.30PM The Centre, Merchant Street, E3 4PZ M I N U T E S Present: Board Members Resident Members Bernard Cameron [BC] (Vice Chair) Colin Antoine [CA] Les Eldon [LE] Tom Madden [TM] Mary Nepstad [MN] Council Members Cllr Motin Uz-Zaman [MUZ] Independent Members Martin Young [MY] (Chair) Lesley Johnson [LJ] Tuuli Lindberg [TL] Neil McAree [NM] Maureen McEleney [MM] Amjad Rahi [AR] Janet Seward [JS] Apologies: Resident Members Council Members Cllr Helal Uddin Independent Members Jamir Chowdhury Officers Paul Bloss [PB] Chief Executive Steve Inkpen [SI] Director of Regeneration & Strategy John Henderson [JH] Director of Housing David Opoku [DO] Head of Finance In attendance Alex Bailey (Minutes) Oonah Lacey (TPAS) 1. Apologies for absence 1.1 Apologies were received from Councillor Helal Uddin. ACTION 1.2 Mary Nepstad, Tom Madden, John Henderson and David Opoku had sent apologies for anticipated lateness due to bad traffic on the evening. 2. Declarations of interest 2.1 None were made. 3. Minutes of the meeting held 19 th July 2011 The minutes were APPROVED as an accurate record.

2 3a. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair 3a.1 MY handed the chair to BC. NM proposed MY as Chair, and this was seconded by TL. There being no other nominations, MY was APPOINTED as Chair by the Board. 3a.2 MY resumed the Chair. AR proposed BC as Vice-Chair, and this was seconded by MUZ. There being no other nominations, BC was APPOINTED as Vice-Chair by the Board. 3a.3 MY emphasised that while he was happy to continue to serve, it was important for succession planning to take place. 4. Shops Policy 4.1 SI introduced this policy. EastendHomes has 80 shop units scattered across our estates. The policy aims to support parades to keep them vibrant and fully let. 10-year leases with break clauses are the norm. Limits are included on the opening of fast food takeaway establishments. There is also the aim of seeking to encourage doctors and dentists, as they are facilities which benefit the community. Roller shutters will not be permitted henceforth as these distract from the appearance of shop parades. Mary Nepstad joined the meeting. 4.2 BC asked where precisely the units were located. SI replied that although he could not give precise figures off-hand, at least half the shop units are on the Holland estate, with others spread across the borough. Tom Madden joined the meeting. 4.3 MUZ asked how EEH will approach shop units with existing shutters, where removal or replacement would be an additional cost burden to the shopkeepers. SI replied that the shutters clause would and could not be applied retrospectively, and would apply to new leases only. In response to a follow-up question SI confirmed that EEH will continue to consider the use of units in low-demand areas for community use, and in the right circumstances below market rent levels CA asked what consultation had taken place. SI replied that in general existing uses were continued, where a major change occurs e.g. the Bow Road Tesco a drop-in session took place. 4.5 MM suggested that monitoring take place of the impact on letting rates. It was noted that there are not many long-term voids at present. SI agreed to look to include this within performance monitoring information. John Henderson joined the meeting. 4.6 JS asked if the idea that the SRC should look at shop lettings and related matters had slipped. PB replied that this will be included, as per the Terms of Reference. BC asked for clarification on the former Commercial Properties and Facilities Committee. PB confirmed that the functions of this committee had been subsumed into the SRC. MM felt that this might SI / PB 2

3 be the right place, if the members of the SRC were happy with the workload. LE commented that the level of detail studied by the SRC has decreased since the introduction of the Resident Scrutiny Panel, and he and JS both felt that this was manageable. MY added that local boards will play a role in monitoring the impact on their communities. The Board APPROVED the adoption of the Shops Policy. 4.7 MUZ asked if a date could be set for review of this policy, to assess its impact. PB explained that EEH works on a cyclical three-year programme of policy review, and that this policy would be included as such. It was agreed to feature anticipated review dates on future reports. David Opoku joined the meeting. 5. Holland Estate Regeneration Scheme - Update 5.1 SI introduced this report and drew attention to the key achievements: The East End Community School (located to the rear of Denning Point) has been relocated to the Brunswick Community Centre, and demolition has taken place of the prefabs which existed there for at least 25 years. MY congratulated SI and his team on this project EEH has now completed the purchase of the freehold of Evershed House from LBTH. A fee of 120,000 was agreed. We now need to complete the site assembly by re-housing several commercial properties, some leaseholders and some tenants. LE commented that this will allow provision of a total of 68 additional affordable housing units. 5.2 LJ asked if plans for a new Head Office for EEH have been presented yet. SI replied that these are not yet drawn up. Completion is estimated at 3 to 3½ years time. PB said that work on the scheme is in three phases. As part of the process the current local housing office will need to be temporarily re-housed. 5.3 MM asked if EEH are working with Toynbee HA (the landlord of Evershed House) on the decant process, and whether we will be entitled to ground rent. SI confirmed that a contract is being drawn up with Toynbee which is intended to allow all current tenants, who wish to, to remain on the site, and also that EEH would be able to charge for ground rent. LE commented that he feels the tenants of Evershed House could be an asset to EEH. The Board NOTED the report. 6. Resident Involvement Impact Assessment 6.1 PB introduced this report which examines the effectiveness of different resident involvement activities. EastendHomes aim is to provide a menu of options to allow residents to become involved, and to provide training and support for this. PB ran through the key areas and discussed the use of evidence to substantiate the judgements made. He emphasised the introduction of the Tenant Voices scheme as a new method of engagement which should help in reaching a much wider range of residents. PB 3

4 6.2 MY commended the report for its use of presentation. 6.3 NM asked about the risk detailed in the covering report. PB and MY commented that it related to the need to ensure the involvement of residents in the executive. 6.4 MY raised a general point concerning checking of EEH documents for clarity and understanding. He felt that more documents could be sent to the Readers Panel. TM raised the issue of the recent letter regarding the removal of private satellite dishes he felt that there had not been enough consultation on this matter. MY noted that the policy had been agreed at a previous Board meeting. LE asked about the possible implications of a recent court case. PB acknowledged that this is an emotive issue but stressed that the installation of private satellite dishes is damaging to the fabric of the building, which is the responsibility of EEH, and that generally these installations were a breach of the tenancy agreement or lease. Tom Madden left the meeting. 6.5 Returning to the report, AR suggested that it may be nice to have more quotes from tenants and leaseholders. The Board NOTED the Resident Involvement Impact Assessment. 7. British Street Major Works Recharges 7.1 PB introduced this report, noting that the British estate is the first to have Major Works charges issued. It is important for leaseholders to understand why charges have varied through original estimates (S20), second estimates in 2009 (S20b) to the final charges. The overall contract sum had gone down but the amount which was recharged to leaseholders went up, partly due to the time period meaning that more works fell outside restriction periods. 7.2 NM commented that he felt the report could be clearer. LJ agreed and stated that a few worked examples were missing. She also felt more details on payment options could have been included, and explanations given by leaseholders who have said that they are struggling to meet the payments. 7.3 DO stated that part of the reason for the increase in the rechargeable amount was that the length of the contract meant that some works fell outside of the Section 125 limitations. 7.4 PB agreed that the report could have been clearer. However, he felt it important to provide some information sooner rather than later, conscious that the next meeting was not scheduled until January. 7.5 MUZ added that the differences between some of the original estimates and the final bills were quite significant. 7.6 MY commented that EEH will need to be prepared the defend the charges in cases of dispute, including to LVTs if necessary, and so will need to prepare the necessary information. It is also important that this information is provided to local boards. PB / SI / JH 4

5 7.7 SI estimated that around 60% of properties received final bills which were higher than the initial estimate, while the remaining 40% received lower bills. He noted that of a total estate (i.e. non-internal works to properties) spend of around 17.3million, approximately 1.2million is being recharged to leaseholders. 7.8 CA felt that there had been an issue with communication, as at local board meetings, EEH had been saying that costs had been kept within the estimates. JH replied that spend was actually kept within contract targets, and ended up slightly less than had been budgeted; the difference arose because the rechargeable element had increased. 7.9 SI offered to produce some anonymised examples of estimates at different stages of the process MM noted that with very long schemes, there will always be the potential for change. She proposed periodic reviews of the estimates on future schemes to keep leaseholders informed of likely costs BC commented that the feedback he has received is that the communication for the reasons for the charges could have been better. Leaseholders need to know the reasons so that they can comprehend and dispute them if they wish PB said that he will ensure that a further report is produced on this issue. PB The Board NOTED the report. 8. Minutes of the Service Review Committee 14 th September This had not been tabled due to administration staff shortages. JS summarised the agenda of items which had been discussed. 9. Minutes of the Resident Scrutiny Panel 5 th September 2011 The Board NOTED these minutes. The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 31 st January The meeting closed at 8.45pm. SI 5