Agenda item

Report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services

The Committee received a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services, in respect of the concrete repairs to the Barbican Estate.  The report provided a background to the required works and responded to a Resolution from the Ward of Cripplegate, Within and Without, to the Court of Common Council in 19 April 2012.

The Chairman invited each member to express their views.  During the discussion and debate the following items were raised/noted:

·      Members noted that 2 items of correspondence had arrived after the despatch of the agenda; they would be circulated to members as soon as possible.

·      Members welcomed a more comprehensive report and commended officers and the Chairman for their commitment to ensuring that members would be able to make a well-informed decision.

·      At the core of this issue was whether the concrete works would repair ‘a defect affecting the structure or a structural defect’.   A view was expressed in that the structure was probably adequate by 1960/70’s building standards.  Had it deteriorated since, it might not necessarily mean it was defective but just in need of running repairs. 

·      Whilst noting that only 11 out of a possible 300 leaseholders had withheld payment, members accepted that there was a high level of dissatisfaction amongst residents. It was also understood that, if the recommendation was agreed today, further challenge and discovery would follow.

·      There were mixed views expressed about the balance of the legal opinion.  Members noted that the Barbican Association’s lawyers had not met with the City Solicitor to date, as Counsel’s opinion had not been provided.  The City Solicitor confirmed that he had responded fully to all queries and been available for meetings.

·      Given there was no ‘sinking fund’, the charge would be particularly unfair on the newer lessees on the Estate.  However, it was also noted that, as an ex-local authority estate, the Barbican was prohibited from having a sinking fund but the City always sought to spread any charges over 2/3 financial years.  Members asked whether an alternative to a sinking fund might be considered but noted that a previous attempt to do so had failed. 

·       In respect of the Section 20 Notice; once the initial investigation had been undertaken and it became apparent that the costs would increase significantly, an LVT was granted and served on all residents.  An application for dispensation from further consultation was made to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, and for the retention of the preferred contractor, Structural Renovations. The Tribunal granted the application. However, the BA did not contest the application as it did not wish to delay the remedial works, nor engage a different contractor which might have impacted on continuity of workmanship etc.

It was moved by Mr Bain-Stewart, Seconded by Mr Hudson and agreed that the debate should close and a vote be taken. 

Of 12 possible voting members (which included a resident who was a tenant of the City of London Corporation and not a Leaseholder), 3 had submitted apologies and 3 abstained.

(Ex-Officio and Resident Members did not have a vote).

5 voted for (the Chairman did not exercise a casting vote)

1 voted against

It was therefore, RESOLVED, that:

Having considered the findings of the concrete investigation, the conclusion in response to the Resolution was agreed; i.e. that the works are not the rectification of a structural defect but rather general repairs and maintenance and that the lease stipulates such work is recoverable through the service charge.