Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bill Clifford on September 3, 2013 at 16:16

I think in principal the idea of reinstating original flat numbers is a good idea but I'm not sure that they are same font around the Estate. I live in Cuthbert Harrowing and although its one of the smaller blocks it retains all but 2 of the original numbers.

The 2 that are missing are on leasehold flats and I'm not sure how we would get them to change back.

As I said its a nice idea but I'd like to know how it would work logistically when my numbers are wooden set on post boxes and others may be metal (i just don't know) plus how do you take those residents with you who may have changed their numbers to underline that they've bought their flat.

Just some thoughts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maria Elizabeth Prior on September 3, 2013 at 20:00

I don't see the point.  Have raised the issue here as it seemed appropriate to do so since a post was put up concerning so called 'shed money'!  So, my suggestion is to return it to the residents!

Daniel Elson said:

Let's keep this thread for discussing how to use the shed money. If anyone wants to discuss the decision by CoL to charge for the sheds then please set up a separate discussion.

Nick - last year's eligible suggestions are copied here:

Day trips for elderly

Trestle tables (purchased)

Beehives

Planters around GAH forecourt

Increase tree population

Improve planting around Basterfield lawn 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Luke Johnson on September 4, 2013 at 10:30

Regardless if one agrees to the charge or not I think we all agree that the management of the sheds, their allocation and charges is a complete shambles. I would like the money to replace door numbers to the original design but I don't feel this would benefit residents as much as lighting! Original or otherwise the light fittings in the estate are cheap, ugly, insufficient, and a general insult to the architecture we inhabit. I vote to invest the money in lighting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maria Elizabeth Prior on September 4, 2013 at 23:35

It certainly is a shambles Luke.  And, to add 'insult to injury', I have just been billed £55 for the charge of the locks being changed, a decision taken by COL management, after forcefully throwing out my belongings.  I never asked them to change the locks!  Sorry guys, but you won't be getting an extra £55 added to the sum allocated!  Am not paying. 
Luke Johnson said:

Regardless if one agrees to the charge or not I think we all agree that the management of the sheds, their allocation and charges is a complete shambles. I would like the money to replace door numbers to the original design but I don't feel this would benefit residents as much as lighting! Original or otherwise the light fittings in the estate are cheap, ugly, insufficient, and a general insult to the architecture we inhabit. I vote to invest the money in lighting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Daszko on September 5, 2013 at 19:51

Yes, improved lighting would certainly help, as it`s very poor in certain areas of the estate at night.   At the end of the day, we need to spend this £10,000 plus eh!  I guess repainting the ceilings in the stairwells of CWH are a COL issue, not a "shed money" issue???

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maria Elizabeth Prior on September 5, 2013 at 23:42

Steve, all issues relating to the Estate should be COL issues, as we pay our service charges to them, for exactly that!  A service!!

Steve Daszko said:

Yes, improved lighting would certainly help, as it`s very poor in certain areas of the estate at night.   At the end of the day, we need to spend this £10,000 plus eh!  I guess repainting the ceilings in the stairwells of CWH are a COL issue, not a "shed money" issue???

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Daszko on September 7, 2013 at 18:10

Paint flakes hang down from the stairwells in CWH, as you get towards the top floor.   I guess not many people see it as they use the lifts, but as I always walk up and down I notice it all the time!  Tempted to get my stepladder and trusty paintbrush going!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JM on September 7, 2013 at 23:02

I agree Steve, it looks terrible!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maria Elizabeth Prior on September 8, 2013 at 0:39

You are right Jean.  That's what we pay our service charges for.  The upkeep of our Estate, amongst other things.  The money should never come again from the residents, for such maintainance, from so called shed charges, when we pay for this 'service' in the first place. Do we have to pay twice???  I sincerely hope not.
Jean McMeakin said:

I agree Steve, it looks terrible!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daniel Elson on September 8, 2013 at 13:58

It was agreed at a previous GLERA meeting that the money should not be spent on items for which the City are responsible, including painting and maintenance as set out in the Service Level Agreement or leases. The shed money should be used for community projects or other items that we don't pay service charges for.

The city do seem to have got behind with some of the painting works, which I think should be done every six years. Perhaps CWH is due/overdue for a repaint?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JM on September 8, 2013 at 14:39

Quite right, I don't think Steve or I were serious about using the money for repainting as that is absolutely what we pay service charges for, but Steve is right in that the painting in the common parts of CWH is in a shocking state - literally peeling off - and the Corp should be ashamed of itself/themselves  for letting it get so bad.  I see from the latest service charge note it's been deferred to 2013/14.

I note however, that several of the suggestions for use of the shed money are also for items which should properly be covered by the Corp and/or service charges*, e.g. door numbers and waste bins, which would leave on your list from last year day trips for elderly and beehives, either or both of which seem fine to me.

Every now and then I re-read the guidelines about the management of the estate and note how scathing EH were about the use of random unsympathetic planters and CoL waste bins around the estate - along with incorrect concrete flags etc. Given how old this document is (2007), it's disappointing to note nothing much has been done by the CoL to remedy things.

This one I mean:

As we've recently had the service charge schedule sent to us it's also interesting to note that we pay for the upkeep of the community centre, given the discussion elsewhere on here (that might just be my former ignorance/obliviousness of the charge of course).

J.

Daniel Elson said:

It was agreed at a previous GLERA meeting that the money should not be spent on items for which the City are responsible, including painting and maintenance as set out in the Service Level Agreement or leases. The shed money should be used for community projects or other items that we don't pay service charges for.

The city do seem to have got behind with some of the painting works, which I think should be done every six years. Perhaps CWH is due/overdue for a repaint?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JM on September 8, 2013 at 14:44

Zip of PDF now att (hopefully)

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page