
	Minutes of London Yard Management Company ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 7:30pm, 31 January 2002 at The Pier Tavern, Manchester Road, London E14 Directors present: Simon Arnold (chairman) Mina Bowater Clive Hawkes Christoph Nôebel David Thompson (co-opted director) In attendance: Jonathan Channing (DGA) 1. Minutes of AGM held 23 November 2000 The chairman invited comments from the minutes of the previous AGM. Simon Hollingworth objected to the matter in which the minutes were recorded for both the November 2000 AGM and the January 2002 AGM. The chairman stated that the matter to which Mr Hollingworth was referring was subject to a court case and should not be discussed at this AGM. It was commented that, although the minutes of the previous AGM were produced quickly, they should be produced even quicker. A request for normal, full-size typeface for the minutes was noted. Although there were no available copies of the November 2000 AGM minutes, it was pointed out that two copies had already been posted to each owner (one after the 2000 AGM and one in the 2002 AGM notice pack). The November 2000 AGM minutes were proposed by Simon Arnold and seconded by Clive Hawkes. One vote against their adoption, therefore minutes were agreed. 2. Directors’ Report and approval of the Audited Accounts year ending 31st March 2001. Simon Arnold, chairman, gave a verbal report to the meeting, stating that the company was in good shape and debtors are relatively low, with most owners paying their service charges promptly. The chairman pointed out that strictly those in debt of service charge could not vote at the AGM. The gardening was thought to be going in the right direction, as now the basic maintenance items were being carried out well. New planting would take place (a report of recommendations regarding new planting had been received from the gardening contractors recently). The chairman reiterated that there was not a bottomless pit of money for the gardening but it was the intention of the Board to make improvements. As far as Security Guards were concerned, the chairman reported that he was not totally confident that the right personnel were in place. Additional security measures such as CCTV and 24-hour surveillance cost money and although there was frequently support for such items, when it came to asking for money, the response was not quite as enthusiastic. The caretaker was widely considered to be doing a good job. Lighting improvements had been carried out — new lampposts and bollard lights. There was still some improvements planned. The carpeting of internal common parts had been completed, however there was still snagging and a retention was being held. External and internal painting was nearing completion, with snagging still on the agenda. As far as refuse disposal was concerned, the chairman was pleased with the thoughtful manner in which people were using the bin stores. The Audited Accounts for 2001 year-end were put before the shareholders. Matters arising from the floor concerning the report and accounts concerned: (i) Gardening: Mixed views on gardening were expressed, from residents who thought the pond area was messy and that the ivy and weeds were choking existing plants, and those who considered there to be a tremendous improvement in the gardening. Christoph Noebel spoke of separate gardening committees in the past which could be revived. One resident spoke of her willingness to pay more service charge to see more improvement with the gardening, raising the standard of the development. Jonathan Channing invited residents to approach him concerning areas of the gardens that could do with more attention. (I) Employing security and caretaking staff: It was mooted that perhaps staff could be employed directly by the Management Company in order to save money. A handful of reasons was given by the Board as to why this does not occur. (ii) Refuse expenses: An increase in refuse expenses was party due to increased amounts charged by the council and the large amount of bulky items (e.g. kitchen units) that have to be removed. (iii) Legal Fees: The appearance of legal fees on the accounts was attributed to items such rectification of leases, debtor chasing etc. (iv) Printing costs: Postage/stationery costs on the accounts were largely due to printing costs, for parking stickers and permits etc. (v) TV Aerial Maintenance: The previous year’s accounts reflected a substantial sum spent on upgrading communal tv aerials for On Digital reception. Problems with terrestrial reception were reported and would be dealt with by Jonathan Channing. Simon Arnold confirmed that private satellite dishes were still not allowed, as they were against the terms of the Leases and code of conduct. Cable tv was unfortunately not around the corner; the chairman reported that all the progress of a few years ago amounted to nothing as the cable company pulled out at the last minute. Jonathan Channing reported that he is investigating the installation of communal satellite dishes that each flat or house would link into. This news was well received and Mr Channing was encouraged to take this further. Cenotaph Noebel added a caveat. When the Board had considered such a proposal in the past, the majority of owners rejected the idea as they did not want to spend more money on additional tv channels. It was considered from the floor that it was definitely worth proceeding further with the communal satellite ideas. (vi) Lift Maintenance: Although the lift maintenance company were proving to be very quick to respond to maintenance calls, Vermeer Court residents complained of erratic operation of one of the lifts. Ron Coverson was pleased to report that the reliability of the lift in the block had improved markedly since the new company was awarded the contract. It was pointed out that the newly installed autodial units in each of the 5 lifts at London Yard were dialing the security guard at London Yard instead of the lift company, when the emergency button was pressed. Jonathan Channing to investigate this, as well as status of lift examinations and taking further cosmetic/refurbishment changes to the lift interiors. (vii) Interest Earned & Assets: Clive Hawkes was happy to report that interest received to year end 2001 had increased compared to the year before, despite a trend of falling base rates. Mr Hawkes also pointed out the Management Company had some £270,000 of assets and therefore was in a healthy position. (viii) Important Telephone Numbers: A request was made to provide important telephone numbers of the security guard and caretaker, for instance, on notice boards in the flat blocks and in a newsletter. The directors report was accepted and the Annual Accounts were proposed by Clive Hawkes and Seconded by Simon Arnold. The vote was unanimously in favour of their acceptance. 3. To appoint Auditors and authorise Directors to fix their remuneration. Simon Arnold proposed the reappointment of the auditor, N R Pulver & Co Chartered Accountants, and Mina Bowater seconded the proposal. The vote was unanimous. 4. Appointment of Directors Simon Arnold reported that he and Mina Bowater would be retiring by rotation and offering themselves for re-election. David Thompson, co-opted following the previous AGM, would be offering himself for full election. Mr Arnold announced that he would be retiring as chairman, but wishes to remain on the Board of Directors, and explained the Board initiative to see new blood on the Board had seen a handful of applicants put their names forward, which was especially good news as three directors had retired in the last year or so. Each applicant would be approached with a view to meeting the existing Board members and co-option as appropriate. The ‘new’ Board would begin to chose the next Chairman. A question from the floor concerning number of Board members was answered in as much as the intention was to seek a harmonious atmosphere where decisions could be made for the broadest good. It was thought that 8-10 members of the Board would be the most efficient and effective complement. Simon Arnold, Mina Bowater and David Thompson gave a brief talk about themselves and their role as Board members. The voting proceeded as follows: SIMON ARNOLD: Proposed by: Mina Bowater Seconded by: Clive Hawkes Vote: Unanimously in favour MINA BOWATER: Proposed by: Simon Arnold Seconded by: Chnstoph Noebel Vote: Unanimously in favour DAVID THOMPSON: Proposed by: Simon Arnold Seconded by: Mina Bowater Vote: Unanimously in favour (i) Security: There were some recent criminal incidents on the development, and it was widely considered that general crime on the Isle of Dogs had been increasing. Although it was thought that the current security arrangements were not necessarily what the development needed, it was noted that the most recent criminal incidents occurred during the middle of the night. More variety in terms of the hours that the security guard works was discussed, in order that an all-night shift could be covered. The fact that the development was almost ‘empty’ during the day [most people being at work], also highlighted the need for security during daylight hours (which the caretaker assisted with whilst he was on duty). Improved lighting was discussed. Jonathan Channing confirmed that the 30-odd globe light covers and lamps on the development would be replaced during the year (subject to quotations received), which would improve illumination of the development. Certain parts of the development such as the dark corner of Vermeer Court, would have to be looked at in isolation, using movement-sensitive lighting where appropriate. The practicalities and advantages of entry barriers to the development were debated, as was wireless CCTV. It was decided that the Board should look into employing the services of a specialist security expert to provide a full survey with the aim of improving security of the development and its residents. Feedback from the police concerning latest crime statistics was thought to be very important. Ron Coverson pointed out the a crime report from a representative of the Metropolitan Police [Brian Mitchell, who coordinates London Borough of Tower Hamlets Neighbours Watch Schemes, including overseeing the scheme at London Yard] was currently on the website (www.londonvard.com). To make the security guard work harder, it was considered that more check-points were needed around the development. It was thought that the security guard spends too much time in the security hut and not enough time patrolling. Christoph Noebel explained that the Board were keen for the security guard to be a local man, who knew the area well, and had some knowledge of the types of crime and criminal on the Isle. Mina Bowater promised to take the problem of rising crime to the Association of Island Communities regarding lack of police on the Isle of Dogs. Jonathan Channing announced a code change of the three large apartment blocks during the month of February and advance notice would be given approximately 3 weeks in advance Some of those present would be keen to see a consultative/feedback meeting of the directors and the residents concerning the outcome of the specialist security survey. (ii) Pond: Some measure to prevent members of the public from ‘straying’ into the vicinity of the pond was requested. (iii) Website: Ron Coverson was congratulated on the good job he was doing with the website. It was thought to be a very good communication and discussion tool. Those without internet access were to be considered too. (iv) Speed: Although the 15mph speed signs had helped to reduce the speed at which vehicles were driving through the development, many drivers were still speeding well in excess of 15mph and this issue should be covered on the website or newsletter. With no other matters raised, the meeting closed at 10pm.