Agenda item

To discuss the operation of the RCC over the previous 12 months

To discuss paper prepared by the Barbican Estate Office

RESIDENTS’ CONSULTATION COMMITTEE

2013/14

 

ANNUAL REVIEW UPDATE

 

1. Communication – what improvements could be made to the way the BEO communicates with residents, for example, newsletter, notice boards, emails (to RCC/BA Chairs, House Group Chairs, House Group representatives), website (new COL website is due to be launched in the summer), reception? What do you think of the new email broadcast service?

 

1. More than one channel of communication is important; residents find the website particularly convenient.  New COL website launched in July 2012 & communicated via newsletter

 

COMMENTS FROM AGM 15 APRIL 2013

 

Minutes of the Barbican Occupiers User Group and Working Parties should be available on the web site with clear links.

 

Search engines could be more efficient, particularly for questions and answers.

 

 

2. When the City’s website is updated this year, could there be a clearer link to the BEO and various representatives. Link is: services – Housing & Council  Tax – Barbican Estate & link to Residents Representation & Consultation 

 

COMMENTS FROM AGM 15 APRIL 2013

 

Could the URL appear at the bottom of emails for those residents who have signed up for alerts.

 

The good practice on the Planning site was noted; ie offering other areas of interest similar to Amazon.

 

 

3. There is low awareness of the differences between the BA and RCC – residents suggested an annual letter from the Chairman, setting out the scope and differences.  Could this also appear on the website? There is a link to Residents Representation, Consultation & Committee Papers – Barbican Association information – section on the difference between BA/RCC

 

Publicise the election of the new Chairman – (15 April 2013)

 

 

4. Could the link to RCC/BRC public papers be clearer?  Particularly the most recent set of minutes from the RCC, which appear on the BRC agenda.   Could residents also receive these via email, once they have been approved by the Chairman? There is a link to Residents Representation, Consultation & Committee Papers – link from RCC/BRC information to RCC/BRC minutes/reports & sent via link on email broadcast service

 

 

5. The BEO newsletters are not always noticed, could they be more prominent?  It can be difficult to find information in respect of emergency services.  Could they be kept together, either at the beginning or end of the Newsletter?   Could the emergency numbers be easily accessible on the web page?  Emergency services in middle/front of newsletter & there is a link on the website from Resident Information – Emergency Services

 

 

6. Could the BA newsletter receive a regular ‘update from the RCC’ from the Chairman? BA newsletters now include an update from the RCC Chairman

 

COMMENTS FROM AGM 15 APRIL 2013

 

Could BEO Broadcasts advise when the RCC papers have been published.

 

RCC representatives’ personal contact details should not be available on the public site. 

 

 

7. Could the BA newsletter also contain an article on forming house groups, clarifying procedures in respect of ‘opt out’ memberships and constitutions?  Could this also appear on the web page?  Being reviewed by BA. New section on RTAs being added to website including sample RTA letter & checklist from Town Clerks, draft constitution & last RTA annual audit.

 

The BA has noted the action for the newsletter.

 

 

8. Could there be an Annual ‘BEO meets the residents’ meeting? Summer & Christmas meet the residents events

 

COMMENTS FROM AGM 15 APRIL 2013

 

It was suggested that a more formal Q&A annual meeting take place, possibly in the Girls’ School.  Members were reminded of regular ward meetings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. Could noticeboards be kept free from non-relevant Guildhall publications? Cleaning Supervisors monitor

 

 

2. Reporting – would you like to see any changes or improvements to the reports that are presented to your committee?

 

1.  Could there be a report on fringe developments – i.e. Frobisher House?

It was suggested this be the subject of a report to the March Committee.

Updates in City Surveyors report to RCC

 

Mark Bostock asked the following question (15/4/2013):

 

‘I have never understood why previous City Surveyor 's reports to the RCC includes Frobisher Crescent under this fringe item!

The Frobisher Crescent House Committee understands that after nearly three years of occupancy United House has handed over to the City the Development with the exception of the hot water and heating system.  The Landlord has advised UH that they will not accept the hot water/heating system until they are satisfied that it is fit for purpose for the 69 flats and thatthis will not be contemplated until after the 2013 winter.  In these circumstances the House Committee requests that the City Surveyor gives a full report on this issue in his RCC papers until this matter has been properly resolved.  From the residents' point of view the unsatisfactory performance of the system continues to be a worry which fortunately seems to us to be reflected in the City's position.  

We assume that the BRC is fully aware of this issue but we have no evidence of this’.

The Chairman commented that this was currently a live City Surveyor issue and not generally estate business.  There was a general agreement to keep updates on Frobisher on the agenda. 

 

2.  Late or ‘to follow’ reports should be avoided as far as possible, particularly for controversial/complex matters.   Chairman of the RCC to speak to the Chairman of the BRC, to share concerns and seek a common standard. Agreed with BRC Chairman & actioned as much as possible

 

Members commented on improvements in this area

 

3.  Can the RCC receive a list of all working parties, to review annually, with a rota to look at each in detail?  Could the RCC receive the Working Party Minutes?  Annual list of Working Parties presented to RCC/BRC 2012 (proposed for June 2013). Minutes/reports/updates of Working Parties to RCC/BRC

 

The RCC welcomed the regular meetings between the BA and Street Scene and didn’t wish to duplicate the business of the BA/RCC.

 

There was some concern expressed about ‘grey areas’ about the remit of the Occupiers Users Group and a perceived lack of communication about Virgin Active. 

 

 

3. Service improvements – what services would you like the BEO to prioritise in its review of services.  Would you like to see any changes to services? Are there additional services you would you like the BEO to offer?

 

1.  Is a ‘review of services’ pending?  Will any services be ceased? Annual cleaning review of schedules during winter each year. Review of Technical Services Structure - anticipated new structure in place by April 2013

 

2.  It was noted that the on-going issues with car parking/agency staff was pending. Car Park Charging report January 2013

 

3.  There were some concerns about the security and safety at the Eastern end of the Estate.  Could the issue of cameras be revisited on the high walks and access points, particularly when the escalators are out of action?    Residents noted that this was frequently discussed at the BA Security Working Party, which is attended by the Police and BEO staff.  Could the RCC receive an update in March?  BA Security Working Party report to November 2012 committee

 

4.  Is litter picking by Gilbert Bridge Ballustrate deteriorating?  It was suggested that use of bins on the estate be revisited but noted that foxes have been sighted.  Residents asked how rigorously services are being challenged and could RCC be provided with examples?  Schedules for podium cleaning reviewed March 2012. Services reviewed by House Officers

 

COMMENTS FROM AGM 15 APRIL 2013

 

The amount of litter/presence of foxes is still an issue, particularly around Gilbert House. 

 

Officers smoking outside the curved wall at the Barbican Centre are unsightly.

 

Mr Tomlinson (Chairman of Port Health) noted the above concerns. 

 

 

 

4. Costs – which areas of service would you like the BEO to prioritise in its review of service charge costs to residents or which areas of service could be provided in a different way that could possibly reduce costs?

 

1.  It was noted that the car park had been signed off at the last meeting but residents would like the opportunity to revisit this after a year, as set out in the report. Car Park Charging report January 2013

 

2.  Will Roman House generate car park revenue? On-going discussions

 

3.  Have charges been signed off for the area which the cinema will take over? Financial agreement in place 

      

COMMENTS FROM AGM 15 APRIL 2013

 

Residents would like to see more detail about service charges in relation to general repairs.

 

There was a general agreement that residents would not resist a moderate increase in charges for repairs, if the estate was being maintained at a high standard.

 

Early consultation was essential on major schemes, particularly on quality and more supervision on works in progress.

 

The white tiles on the steps had not been repaired and residents would like an update on the recharges for engineers/tilers.

 

A resident commented that, of late, there had been less discussion on the outturn reports and suggested that the next reports be more intuitive?  It was noted that a high proportion of charges were fixed but residents asked if more optional services could be available.

 

It was suggested that new members coming onto the RCC have an induction.

 

Could the regular update reports include an action list, with target dates, in a summary format?   Residents felt this would make it easier to track progress.