Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Graves (your Alderman) on October 30, 2013 at 1:22

The answer is that there was a hearing before the City's Licensing Panel on 4 October and the decision was to continue the Licence but to replace the existing conditions with new conditions, of particular relevance that all doors and windows are to remain closed after 8.00pm (except for entry or exit) and that the north door of the lower ground floor not be allowed as an entrance or exit except for limited circumstances (eg in case of emergency or deliveries). The decision notice encouraged greater steps to create a cohesive community on Golden Lane, as opposed to a perceived divide between Leaseholders and Tenants as reflected in the Review application. For example, all residents were encouraged to join and become involved in the Community Association which runs the Hall and the bar below the Hall.   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Graves (your Alderman) on November 1, 2013 at 22:19

Tim - I broadly agree with you, there is great strength in the diversity of the Golden Lane Estate, however, as I understand it, the arguments on the review application were not confined by those seeking the review to the side door issue but extended to a broader "attack" on how the Community Hall was being used, entirely separate from the bar operation in the basement. I think most residents relate to each other as residents (not as tenants or long leaseholders) and for me as an elected Member representing Golden Lane residents, I have no interest in knowing whether someone is a Long Leaseholder or a tenant - everybody is a resident as far as I am concerned and I have no interest in asking beyond that point if approached regarding any issue. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Daszko on November 1, 2013 at 23:50

Good to hear both points of view. I actually found the Licensing Board review letter to be completely detached, and condescending, from the real issues of the community bar, mainly because it's not used by the GL residents, so by definition it is not a community facility. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roberto on November 2, 2013 at 10:09

I was at the hearing and my impression was that the committee missed the point. The application to remove the licence did not certainly originate from a divide between long leaseholders and tenants but from years of disturbance and antisocial behaviour by customers of the bar (the majority of whom seems to be from other estates anyway) and of complaints that fell on deaf ears. 

The use of the community hall is a separate issue. Most residents do not understand why the COL allows a community space to be exploited commercially (apparently it is now also rented to the Conti Italian School as rehearsal studio!) for the exclusive benefit of few.

Perhaps it is time to carry out an estate wide survey so that residents can have their say in how the premises might be used.

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Graves (your Alderman) on November 2, 2013 at 11:09

I think the Panel got the point that the reason for the Review was frustration with noise nuisance issues. It imposed conditions to address these, so I think to that extent got the point and responded to it. I have been told that some objectors at the hearing referred in negative terms to the use of the Community Hall above the bar as well as the bar operation. Exactly as you say, the two are completely different issues, but it was the objectors that "muddied the waters" by bringing the use of the Community Hall into the forum of the hearing. That I think is what lead the Panel to make the perception it did - recorded as follows in the Decision Notice:

"It became clear during the course of the proceedings that a cultural divide exists between the Applicant and his supporters, the majority of whom appeared to be younger professional people who had purchased their properties on the Estate as Leaseholders, and the members of the Association, the majority of whom appeared to be older, more traditional, council tenants. This led to a clear divergence of view regarding the purpose and nature of the premises and was a source of tension on the Estate." 

You may or may not agree that characterisation of the hearing from the Panel, but Roberto's comment focussing on the Community Hall perhaps illustrates to Panel's point - and support its comment that

"[We] would encourage the Association to seek to recruit more members who live on the Estate and we would encourage all residents to join and become active members of their community association."

If Golden Lane residents decide not to join the GLCA and leave the management of the hall as a result to a small "clique" we will end up where we are today. If those who care about these things actually join up in sufficient numbers you will be able to change how the hall is used. The income from "commercial" activities is used to pay the overheads of the space so it can be provided for events like the "apple day" celebration. Also, if you join, you will be entitled, as a member, to see the accounts so you will see the income and how it is spent. Getting involved will be much more effective than a survey, although I would have no difficulty if this was covered in a survey. I assume there is an annual survey via the Estate Office regarding general Estate issues - if there isn't I think there should be one. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roberto on November 3, 2013 at 18:06

..........the north door is open there are people standing outside and cycling in the courtyard.........

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Graves (your Alderman) on November 6, 2013 at 0:28

Roland - can you let me know what the service charge is per year re the Community Hall? From the City point of view it has left the running of the facility in the hands of the community - which in principle I think is generous and far-sighted. Would you prefer City Officers to run the Hall - and for the cost to be on the service charge? 

I appreciate your point which seems to be that the wrong community is in charge - but what I can't understand is why if that is the case and there is general dissatisfaction, the situation goes on un-remedied by the presumed 'silent majority'.

Regarding the north door being open, there is a condition to keep it closed (except in 3 specific instances) so if it was open outside those exceptions, that is a breach of the condition. One breach will not forfeit the licence, but if it is repeated, and management are informed, and still the problem recurs, and this is evidenced in writing, then the licence could be revoked, if for some that is the desired end result. So, if you are smart you will tell the management about the breaches, (so they can remedy them) and complain to the designated person to receive complaints and copy every letter or e-mail to the City's Licensing team. Either the management will comply with the conditions (thus reducing the nuisance) or if they can't then ultimately the licence will be revoked. 

I hope my comments provoke a discussion, because unless the community engages about this in a co-operative manner the current unsatisfactory situation may drag on. If the licence were revoked who from the community will step up to run the facilities the way they prefer - or because some prefer to socialise elsewhere or in their flats, is the idea to close it all down permanently (leaving the City to redevelop the site as it sees fit, within the constraints of the Listing). 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roberto on November 6, 2013 at 15:18

No matter what the COL's good intention were when granting the lease, in reality the community centre is run as a commercial enterprise by a handful of people with no wider benefit for the residents and very little regard for their needs. If so, why should the residents pay service charges for the up keeping of a building they have virtually no access to/use of? Incidentally, I was quite shocked when I was told that apparently the lease provides for the use of one flat by the steward of the community bar, for which the residents presumably pay for through the service charges. Can this be checked?

The onus of reclaiming the community centre for community use should not rest solely on the residents but principally on the COL who, by simply waiting for the residents to act, effectively allows this abnormal situation to remain unchallenged.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nathan on November 7, 2013 at 1:38

I have only been in Golden Lane Unsocial oh I mean Social Club once, definitely a clique of lovely old gentlemen, showing London hospitality to the nth degree, so welcoming that half the people in there don't live on the Estate.

I thought Golden Lane Masonic Lodge would be a fantastic idea, I hear they don't discriminate on the grounds of race religion or gender anymore and welcome anyobody regardless of Antecedents,  I would be first in line to sign up, and maybe I could get my leaking roof fixed, and not have to go on the merry go round of the corporation sending up the same roofer at least four times to repair the leak, not to mention the number of times Waste of Space oops I did it again, I meant to say Inspace tried to repair it, only to ring up the repairs department to start the whole process all over again at the next deluge of rain.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roberto on November 7, 2013 at 12:39

Christine-We do pay service charges for the up keeping of the community centre. I have checked my invoices and in the year 2012-2013 my share was £64.43. Therefore, any money the committee makes from the commercial exploitation of the building is in addition to the revenue generated through the service charges. No wonder residents have concerns about the current situation: they pay for a facility, which they can make virtually no use of!

I think the point people are trying to make here is that it is apparent that the committee has been allowed to use/run the community building as they please disregarding the needs of other residents but, above all, not as a community space as it was always intended to be. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JM on November 13, 2013 at 17:39

Excellent questions Tim.  It puzzles me when the Corp says the community centre must be run as a business.  It would not cost the Corp much to keep it going as a community service (given we also contribute to its upkeep through our service charges, and no doubt rents).  They subsidise many other things without having to have a profit motive (Hampstead Heath, Epping Forest, the Barbican Centre, etc. etc.).  I think some Corp assumptions about the way our estate is run and managed need to be challenged form time to time, rather than us just accepting things because "it's how it's always been".  David Graves (our Alderman) does seem to take an interest and does respond to concerns expressed on here, so it may be worth asking him.

Tim Chapple said:

Following on from Christine’s comments, I was looking through our service charges the other day: as residents we are required to pay approx. £60 a year to the Corporation for the community centre. If you think that half the estate, say 250 households, are paying say, an average of £50 each, this amounts to a payment of say, £12,500 per year. What's it for? 

After a few rather circular calls to the Corporation, it turns out that this money is being spent on ‘repairs & maintenance, some of the utilities and business building rates’. I asked how much the business rates were: costs for 2012/13 amounted to approx. £21,800.

Some questions then:

(1)   It looks as though the majority of our ‘community centre’ service charges are going towards business rates – is this true?

(2)   If the community centre is a community centre, why is the Corporation charging business rates?

(3)   If the community centre is run as a business, which is what is implied by business rates, why are residents effectively subsidising a commercial operation?

(4)   And if its clientele is drawn from beyond the boundary of the Golden Lane Estate, are other estates subsidising the rates too, or is it just us?

I wonder if this is something David our Alderman could look into …….?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 15 storeys high on November 27, 2013 at 15:11

servicw charge

Attachments:

• servie charge.JPG, 61 KB

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page