ACTION:

1. Apologies

2. Minutes of 21st August - accuracy

a)

Item 5 b), New Build at Nuttall Street: Add "Arthur Ringrose asked that it be minuted that the EDMC was meant to represent the residents and not Canalside".

b)

Item 3 d), Draft Budget for EDMC: - 2nd line, sentence should read: "Cash of £2000 for the year derives from £1460 from Canalside and £6000 payment by film company, £1460 allows for 2 extra hours of Tenant Support worker time per week for the year".

c)

Item 3 b)iv, Site Inspections: - 4th line, sentence should read "Nick Strauss asked for source reports."

d)

Minutes agreed with the above amendments.

3. Minutes of 21st August - Matters Arising

a)

Item 3 c)ii, Declarations of Interest: Ivy Matkin has not supplied a list of committees and organisations that she is a member of to the minute-taker.

Ivy Matkin

b)

Item 3 b)iii, Site Safety: - Members reported that bricks were still being left on sites at Whitmore Estate, that children were pulling them up, that the children needed a playground. Members asked why the loose bricks were not being dealt with under the regular monitoring of sites procedure.

Tim Goodwin stated that the sites are being inspected regularly and Canalside are ensuring the "herringbone" fencing has been put up. There are specific problem areas on the LEB site, there is a continuing supply of bricks, some work has been done to try and improve matters, they have cemented over one part adjacent to LEB site which was a particular problem.

Tim Goodwin

c)

Item 3 d), Draft Budget for EDMC: Nusret Sen stated that the bank account has not been opened yet, signatories need to visit the bank during working hours, Nusret Sen had to arrange this. It was noted that Jerry Piper worked during the day.

Nusret Sen

d)

Item 4 d), Newsletter: Nusret had received articles from Nick Strauss, Paul Sprenger, Arthur Ringrose. Rose Hayes stated she had hand written 5 pages but did not have them with her. Nusret to arrange meeting with Jerry Piper, Paul Sprenger and Ivy Matkin. Meeting will have to be in the evening.

JP, Paul Sprenger, Ivy Matkin

e)

Item 3 h), Parking Permits: Tim Goodwin stated that Linbrooks were to pay £50 per annum per permit. This will generate £450 for the EDMC budget. Members asked why the shopkeepers were paying more, Tim Goodwin stated that ultimately the increased charge to Linbrooks would be charged back to Canalside. Members acknowledged the increase in the EDMC budget but noted that it was like "robbing Peter to pay Paul".

f)

Item 6, Canalside Policy on Decants and Transfers: Tim Goodwin stated that the recommendations from the EDMC were agreed at Board meeting.

g)

Item 7 a), 17 Strale House: Paul Sprenger reported that someone had re-occupied the flat, he did not know if it was the previous tenant. Tim Goodwin will ask Canalside to investigate.

Canalside

h)

Item 7c), Questionnaire on Works to Orme House: Rose Hayes stated that the reduction in works had been discussed at the last Design Sub Group meeting. Tim Goodwin reported that no questionnaire had been prepared.

4. Site Safety

a)

Tim Goodwin suggested that the item had been included because the last minutes showed that a report was due (these had now been corrected).

b)

Tim Goodwin showed a sample of his site safety report forms showing maps and items needing attention related to map locations. He stated that the maintenance surveyor did not use the forms but listed items and raised works orders from the list. Additionally caretakers/cleaners were reporting items. Tim Goodwin is holding an internal review to try and get an agreed format which would draw all reports together.

c)

Paul Sprenger stated that a dangerous number of landing lights in Scorton House had failed. He had written a letter and the lights were repaired the same day but still required some attention. Paul Sprenger asked that Canalside turn the lights on during working hours at least once per week and check for faults.

d)

Nick Strauss was concerned it had taken so long to sort out the site inspection reports and asked how often site inspections were being done. Tim Goodwin stated it was about twice per week. Nick Strauss pointed out that if someone asked for these documents and it took 4 weeks to produce them then there was the suspicion that staff were trying to manufacture reports after the event.

5. Newsletter

a)

Some members were concerned that the articles were not restricted to propaganda for the EDMC and Canalside. Members who were present stated that the articles they contributed were not propaganda. Nick Strauss felt that there should be a principle that articles are included in the newsletter unless they are sexist, racist or libellous. Nusret Sen said that the editorial board will be able to select the articles, the main problem is lack of articles. Tim Goodwin suggested that the EDMC write a disclaimer in the newsletter.

b)

Nick Strauss raised concern that hand delivery of the newsletter to all estates would take about 7 hours of TSW time. Proposed to pay someone £50 to do the work. Ivy Matkin asked that this arrangement was reviewed when the next edition was due and hopefully more people were involved.

Agreed to pay £50 to get the newsletter first issue of the newsletter delivered.

c)

Arthur Ringrose asked about the notice boards that had been promised to residents. Tim Goodwin stated that the notice boards had now been arranged, they would cost about £1,000 each. They were approximately 1.2 meters by 0.9 meters and were covered in "unbreakable glass". They were being located in 3 sites for Whitmore estate and 2 sites for Haggerston East. The sites were a compromise. To have securely mounted free standing notice boards would add an additional £1,000 cost to each board which Canalside did not want to spend.

d)

There was a discussion about Canalside’s proposed sitings of the boards and the need to take into consideration the position of entrances, the restricted number of notice boards, which sites were most used by residents, placement near to services such as Caretakers flat and the need to avoid creating obstructions. Tim Goodwin agreed to reconsider sitings at Whitmore.

Tim Goodwin

e)

Nusret Sen asked if cheap boards could be put up at the entrances where residents could put up their own notices. Tim Goodwin to look into this.

Tim Goodwin

Ziya Musaoglulari left the meeting.

6. Plans for Development of LEB Site on Nuttall Street

a)

New report was circulated to members the previous Friday. Tim Goodwin went through the main points in his report which he said was an addendum to the previous report.

b)

Arthur Ringrose asked if plan was "rubber stamped" by LBH before the ballot had taken place. Tim Goodwin stated that the plan had been agreed by LBH senior planning officers along with approval by LBH officers of all the proposals for the estates that had been put forward. The proposals were also agreed by the DETR. The planning officers were involved as Canalside needed to know that what they were proposing to residents would be approved if the scheme went ahead and assumed that formal approval would be a mere formality.

d)

Arthur Ringrose stated that Canalside were delivering a scheme that earned them money and not delivering promises that cost money such as sound insulation to residents flats. Arthur Ringrose asked why Canalside didn’t do its homework on costs before the ballot. Tim Goodwin stated that Canalside would maintain the standards promised in the offer document, the sound insulation was the only thing promised that was under review, the millennium construction boom had pushed prices up by over 10% and more thorough surveys done subsequently to the ballot had increased the figure. Nick Strauss stated that Robin Hawkes had again undertaken that the sound insulation would be kept so this discussion was not necessary. Residents could choose if they wanted a more cost effective alternative and less cuts somewhere else.

d)

Paul Sprenger raised concern that Community Board members at an inquorate board meeting. were being presented with the plans for a 3 storey flat and residents objections were being dismissed as "not in my back yard" - when there are in fact 70 back yards. Tim Goodwin stated that item 7.2 of the report recommends that Canalside consult further with residents. Nick Strauss stated that item was being raised at the HAWK TRA AGM and could be raised in other ways that the Canalside board might listen to, Nick Strauss felt that the EDMC had taken a vote at the last meeting and they should move on.

Tim Goodwin

e)

Paul Sprenger stated that the primary duty of resident members of the EDMC and the Board is to represent the residents and not Canalside, this is not always being done. There was new legislation from the EU which affected this matter due to come into force in October and he had taken informal Counsel on the legislation.

7. Orme House - Consultation on Reduction in Works

a)

Tim Goodwin has listed savings but the budget is still 50% over the business plan figure. Parent companies board have refused the figure and asked for further savings.

b)

Points made by members: Residents need to send a clear signal back to Canalside’s parent organisations that further cuts should not be made; could the government be approached for more money?; Residents had been led to believe before the ballot that the parent companies had lots of reserve cash and could cover unforeseen costs, they should now be using that cash; Canalside needs to be reminded of its promise, Board members were not told that the costs would be referred back to the parent companies; why did design group not inform EDMC of problems in May when they were first known?; Would change of roofs lead to delay on start of Nightingale house?; Orme house not affected by flat roof replacement proposals; concern that the residents were not faced with further cuts in the following years; the value of Canalside’s properties was increasing all the time, why can’t the parent companies spend some of this money on the project?

c)

Tim Goodwin stated that the funding had been "up front"; there were many similar projects facing similar building cost increases; Canalside’s parent companies have indicated that savings could be made by changing proposals for roofs of post war flat roof blocks back from metal to tiled roofs and also using cheaper taps; there had been a delay in getting costs for the Design Sub-Group as the cost consultant had difficulty in getting prices from the contractor; delay on the start date for post war flat roof blocks would depend on planners giving permission and possible changes to pitch of proposed tiled roofs; contractor could be asked to give a price which included them taking any risks; Canalside would have to get back any further money from the parent companies by increasing rent, this had been fixed at RPI plus 1%; the 50% cost increase was not sustainable for the rest of the blocks.

d)

Nick Strauss proposed 2 motions:

1. "That the Bryant Court residents be included in the Haggerston East consultation and the forthcoming open day"
2. "That the Secretary and Chair of the EDMC write a joint letter to Canalside’s parent companies, MHT and CHA expressing concern at any further reduction in the budget for the works".

l)

Nick Strauss stated that residents have accepted cuts in works to reach the present budget for Orme House and now the parent companies should make their contribution as well, this should be included in the letter.

m)

Nick Strauss moved that motion was voted on, Rose Hayes agreed. Members sought to clarify that the price agreed with the contractors would be fixed and would not raise further in the future, Tim Goodwin appeared to agree but did not give a categorical statement to that effect.

Motions 1&2 agreed unanimously.

Paul Sprenger, Rose Hayes

8. Any Other Business

a)

Parking Control (Paul Sprenger): -

i)

Clamped car left for 3 weeks outside Scorton House. Resident had tried to remove clamp with an angle grinder in the early hours. No point in clamping unless further action taken afterwards. Canalside to report on action taken following clamping..

Canalside

ii)

The parking enforcement employees need to allow for people delivering items. Canalside to look into this. Sarah Cunningham has stated that a period of time would be allowed, but not necessarily long enough for people to have a cup of tea.

Canalside

b)

Items for next agenda (Nick Strauss): -

i)

Need more design sub group members, no criticism of existing members but there are not enough.

ii)

Ascent 21 have agreed to attend EDMC meetings regularly. Suggest they are invited to the next one.

Agreed.

Rose Hayes/Paul Sprenger

iii)

Suggest a complaints session at start of each meeting. This would especially benefit new people who don’t know where to take issues.

Agreed to have complaints session for 10 minutes before each meeting.

All

c)

Horner House meeting room (Nick Strauss):

Could be made to look nicer with posters, lampshades, cleanup. Tim Goodwin stated that he had arranged for the carpet to be cleaned. He had managed to get lampshades at reasonable cost before (couple of pounds each).

Agreed to buy lampshades.

Nusret Sen

d)

MHO Marketing (Tim Goodwin):

MHO are to attend the next meeting to discuss marketing of Whitmore House flats with EDMC. They are opening a new scheme at St Mary’s Village (Hackney Wick) and Tim Goodwin circulated the literature to people present.

MHO, Riz Aziz

e)

Keys found (Rose Hayes):

Someone had found a set of keys in their bag after the Open Day. No one knows who they belong to.

Agreed to put item in the newsletter and for Nusret to look after them.

f)

Rides (Rose Hayes):

Piece of paper given out at meeting by Rose Hayes?

g)

Sequencing of Works (Tim Goodwin):

Paper has been circulated on sequencing of works to blocks. Board has asked EDMC to comment. Agreed to ask design sub group to make comments and bring them back to next EDMC meeting.

h)

Need to Publicise Meetings (Paul Sprenger):

Need to have posters up to tell residents about the meetings. Nusret Sen stated that the AGM had agreed that the minutes should be out 2 weeks after the meeting. Agenda’s could be put up on stairs. Discussion around setting of agenda and meeting to do this. Nusret Sen stated the agenda needed to be agreed at least 10 days before each meeting.

Agreed that Secretary and Chair will set the agenda. Suggested that Paul Sprenger to talk to Nusret and draft agenda then give to Rose Hayes for comment.

i)

Contact List (Paul Sprenger):

Paul Sprenger asked that members be given a committee contact list so they could communicate with each other outside of meetings.