Issues old and new
| Past issues | Major current issues |
| Old material, often outdated, is here
for reference |
This provides an additional link to some current hot topics |
| Residents' meeting rooms | Cherry Tree Walk - letter from the Association to Islington |
| Water Charges | Licensing see specific page |
| CrossRail | |
| The Garchey System | |
Supervision and management
Since the basis for the calculation of supervision and management charges was changed in 1999 (resulting in a substantial increase in the cost) a dispute has existed which the BA has carried forward ever since. After much negotiation over several years, the dispute has now been resolved and a payment of £400,000 is to be shared out between the Long Leaseholders (and freeholders in Wallside). The credit back to the payers will occur in the September 2007 service charge invoices and will vary depending on the proportion of the service charge that the flats concerned have been responsible for, so as a general principle the larger the flat, the larger the refund, which is fair as the larger flats will have paid more by way of supervision and management
The outcome of the ballot on the provision of resident meeting rooms has now been revealed. There were 384 responses. 97 were in favour, 284 were against and 3 don't knows. The proposal in the ballot to create the space for 2 conference rooms and to charge the fitting out costs and then to charge rent for the space to the service charge of Long Lessees was accordingly decisively rejected by a ratio of 3 to 1. The City's commitment to provide meeting space for the Barbican Association, House Groups and Social Clubs will accordingly have to be met in some other way, and we will await further developments with interest
Latest Update posted 29 August
It is now 99% certain that the crossover cavern under Defoe will not be needed, along with the Aldersgate St worksite for constructing the cavern. However, a crossover cavern is still needed and will almost certainly be east of Gilbert House, under the lake and Willoughby House. Spoil will come up at Finsbury Circus, but two small shafts will be needed just east of Willoughby House. Aldersgate St/Beech St will still be dug up, possibly for years, due to the need to redirect utilities and sewers. In the meantime, the Select Committee hearings have started and we won’t know for sure that the Defoe crossover is dead until late February, as the change has to be blessed by ministers who should be ready to decide by then. The BA has to date spent approximately £8,000 on professional fees in dealing with this on behalf of residents.
------------------------
The Hybrid Crossrail Bill had its second reading in the House of Commons on Tuesday 19th July 2005 and was passed by a majority of 394 – 24.
Speaking in the debate Mark Field referred to the “dozens of letters” that he had received expressing the concerns of Barbican residents regarding “the effect on the structural integrity of the estate due to the proposed tunnelling works and particularly from the proposed construction of the cross-over cavern under the estate”. He also noted residents concerns in the short term about “the environmental impact of the noise, dust, vibration and traffic congestion … which are inevitable in any Crossrail development work” He proposed that the “Bill should contain rules that will constrain construction activities to offer no less protection than those that apply to other contractors working in the City of London”.
Following the second reading the Bill now passes to the Select Committee stage and we have to submit our petition by 16th September. The matters which will be addressed in our petition were outlined in the last newsletter and there has not been any substantial change over the last few weeks.
We have raised a number of questions with Crossrail about the Crossover Cavern and related environmental issues. In their response they have confirmed that they are still evaluating the alternative crossover layout and location which may replace the cavern plan but that it will be some weeks until they are able to assess this work and make a decision on this alternative. There are still a number of questions relating to noise, air quality and vibration issues which they have not yet answered.
We hope to arrange a further meeting with Crossrail before the petitioning deadline to address these issues and then to amend our draft petition if necessary. Once the petition has been finalised it will be made available to all interested residents – probably in a special newsletter in September. The Corporation will also be petitioning on the Crossrail Bill and many of our concerns are reflected in the points that they will raise. However we have expressed concerns to the Corporation that they have not supported our opposition to the Crossover Cavern. Their petition will object to the Concrete batching plant which is proposed for Aldersgate Street but not to the cavern itself. We are grateful that the Barbican Residential Committee addressed the issue of the Crossover Cavern at its recent meeting and will be pressing the Planning Dept to amend the Corporation’s petition.
Meanwhile we will continue our efforts to persuade Crossrail and the Corporation to drop the proposal for the Crossover Cavern and the attendant worksite in Aldersgate Street which is the major part of our opposition. Many of the environmental issues of concern to us are also being raised by many other parties who will petition against the Bill, and it will be interesting to see how all of this develops during the Summer.
Many thanks to the residents who wrote, as requested, to our representatives and who provided copies of the replies they received. We will keep you informed of any major developments, and will let you know should we need to call on you for further support.
Richard J D Morrison Saturday, 23 July 2005
At its meeting on Jan. 30, the RCC (the formal consultation committee between residents and the City on the running of the Estate) agreed that residents should be balloted on the removal of the garchey units from our kitchens. The rest of the garchey system would remain (it provides rainwater drainage from our roofs, for example). The garchey system could work effectively for many years to come, but it costs nearly £200,000 per year to maintain. Removing the garchey units from kitchens would save nearly all of this sum, and over a number of years ‘pay back’ the costs of removal. Many have already been removed by residents as part of kitchen projects or just to release the space the garchey occupies. A working party spent many months assessing the project, but it is clear that much more work needs to be done to provide transparency and certainty regarding the cost implications, dealing with practical issues and legal issues. While many people would shed no tears if the garchey units were removed, and some would cheer, not many people would support removing the remaining units at any price. The costs on which we are asked to vote should either be firm figures, or there should be a second ballot once firm cost figures and other information is available to confirm that the majority of residents are still in favour.
GARCHEY VOTE – PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING
The distribution of ballot papers around the Estate at the beginning of August took many by surprise, including the BA Chairman, as the fact this was about to happen had not been confirmed at the RCC meeting on 31 July. Following immediate complaints that the ballot was initially to close at the end of August, and thus coincide with the holiday season, the closing date was extended to the end of September. However, the information provided can be criticised as being either too much information (if the intention is just to test how people feel about retaining the garchey irrespective of cost etc issues) or not enough information if the intention was to come to a decision on retention of the system or removal after assessing fully the cost and all other relevant issues. This flaw makes it highly likely that the ballot vote will merely mark a stage in assessment of options rather than represent any form of final conclusion. Whether the Garchey Working Party has any appetite to go back to the drawing board is another matter altogether.
● The final form of the garchey papers was not approved by the RCC or by the BA.
● If you have questions you are invited to ask your House Officer. Please copy your questions and replies to the BA Chairman, contact details below. We can post these on the BA website: www.barbicanassociation.com
● If you vote “yes” for removal of the garchey units this might be taken to mean that you consent to pay for the removal.
● There are legal issues as to the recoverability of the cost from Long Leaseholders under the Lease. There are also legal issues over the compulsory removal of garchey units. Although the City Corporation has taken legal advice this has not been disclosed.
● If you wish to vote, however you vote, we recommend that you err on the side of caution by adding on the voting paper “without prejudice to the issue of who pays for removal”.
David Graves
209 Seddon House, Barbican, London EC2Y 8BX
E-mail: bachair1@aol.com
In the flyer we distributed around the Estate during the week commencing 7 August, we suggested that those with questions of the City should copy them to the BA Chairman, so the questions (and the answers) could be published here for all residents to read. The first set of questions and answers appears below
1. Who has to have a WDU, everyone or only those who still have a Garchey now?
It is not possible to know how many residents have a WDU installed, as it is not done by the Corporation and it is a private, individual choice by each resident if they would like to have one installed
BA Chair comment: There are two issues. Firstly, if the garchey is decommissioned, will it be mandatory to replace the garchey WDU with a macerator WDU. This needs to be clearly answered. Secondly, at least for garcheys removed with Estate Office consent, it is rumoured that the consent required the resident to fit a macerator. This also needs to be confirmed.
5. Has a study been made of how flats without a Garchey are coping with their waste now?
There has been a survey of the tonnage of waste removed by the Garchey at the moment, but not of how residents with out Garcheys are coping now
6. Will there be any public consultation meetings?
If the general vote is to have the Garchey removed there will be public consultation meetings.