Committee Changes
Since the Annual General Meeting there have been a number of changes to the Committee. Mike Hurst, our administrative and technological lead has decided to step down from the Committee, although, I am very pleased to say, he has agreed that he will continue to be provide the essential technical support required by the CWRA. I would like to thank him for his time on the Committee and, personally, to me, for the support and advice that he provided to me after I took up the role of Chair. I am really glad that he will continue to provide support to us.
Norma Rees has decided to step down from her role as landscape lead for the CWRA Committee although she will continue to be a valued member of the CWRA Committee. Norma worked really hard on behalf of us all to try and gain control of the issues relating to the grounds and we all owe her a debt and our gratitude. I look forward to her continuing input into the Committee.
We have three new Committee members:
Jane Leach stepped forward and has agreed to become Secretary to the Committee, a role for which she has significant past experience. Sally Clough has agreed to join the Committee and to take up the role of Landscape Lead, a role for which she previously expressed interest. David Jenkins is also joining the Committee.
To all three a hearty thank you and I look forward to working with you on issues relating to the Chocolate Works.
Key post holders are, therefore:
- Chair: Gavin McBurnie
- Vice-chair: Peter Lees
- Treasurer: Geoff Parker
- Secretary: Jane Leach
- Landscape Lead: Sally Clough
We tried to hold an AGM on 16 April but, unfortunately, not enough members attended to make it possible to go ahead. However, as a number of members did attend, we briefly discussed the AGM agenda on an informal basis. The planned open meeting for that date did go ahead. The reconvened AGM was held on 7 May.
Notes of the members discussion on 16 April together with notes from the open meeting that was held immediately after the members discussion have been sent to members. Also the draft minutes for the formal AGM held on 7 May 2024 have been sent. If anyone wants to follow up on the discussions or the AGM, please let me know.
We also held an open meeting for all Chocolate Works Residents on 11 June to which Joe Langan from Watson PM was our guest and answered questions put to him by residents.
Following discussions at the AGM and open meetings, the Committee has agreed the following five priority areas:
- Landscaping: As I have previously reported, there have been longstanding problems with maintaining the estate’s grounds to the standard that they should be kept. With the appointment of All Aspects, following a tendering exercise and negotiation, the Committee has confidence that the grounds will now be maintained to the appropriate standard, albeit at an extra cost. There is work required to remedy the deficiencies in the landscaping that have built up in previous years in order that the proscribed standard at handover is met. There is funding within the budget which will enable us to begin this remedial work. Our new landscape lead will be asked to produce a phased costed delivery plan within the budget to enable this work to be completed, albeit probably over a number of years. We will share and discuss this plan with residents when prepared.
- Snagging: When I assumed role as Chair, I was handed an outstanding list of snagging issues that needed to be resolved. Work on those issues had been ongoing but more work needs to be undertaken to ensure that they are resolved before David Wilson Homes formally hands over the remaining parts of the site not yet been handed over.
- Parking: this issue was raised several times in the meetings. To me, there are two issues: the regulations that are in place and with which we must comply, and, secondly, the manner of the enforcement of the regulations. On the first issue, there is a need to consult with residents on what problems residents have with the existing parking regulations to identify common themes and issues and to look at good practice elsewhere which may inform any changes that we may propose. The position of the Committee is that the TP1 and leaseholders’ agreements are the starting point for the development of our parking regulations.
The second issue relates to the enforcement of the parking regulations. Currently it is with Bay Sentry but many residents have voiced their unhappiness at the way that Bay Sentry operates. Therefore, we shall be seeking a meeting with Bay sentry to voice these concerns and to see whether or not Bay Sentry is willing to work with our community. - Involvement of residents: To me, the Committee and its work is quite distant from residents. There needs to be greater work undertaken by the Committee to ensure that all residents are aware of our work and to involve residents in key decision making. Part of this is to expand the CWRA membership so that it becomes more representative of all residents. Currently, just over half of properties are members of the CWRA. To start, therefore, Peter Lees is taking a lead on this to inform non-members of the CWRA and inviting them to join. The Committee will want to make sure that it has processes and policies in place to inform and involve residents. Please look out for more information on this issue. In this regard, we will send to members minutes of all committee meetings once they have been approved. In addition, the Committee would benefit from more residents who live in either Orange or Devon House. If you do, and would like to be involved please contact admin@cwra.co.uk.
- Governance: Linked to the above, the manner by which the Committee operates needs to be improved. There needs to be clarity about the power and limits placed upon the Committee and its members. In addition, there also needs to be clarity about when the Committee needs to consult with members and on what issues. At the moment there is ambiguity on those issues and as we move closer to the establishment of the Management Company we should address these issues now so that good practice is in place. Sorting this issue was part of the feedback at the AGM and open meeting. Again, look out for proposals in this area.
Peter Lees and I had a very constructive meeting with Ian Omant, the MD of Watson PM, and Dan Spencer from his team. We discussed how the CWRA and Watson PM may work more collegiately in future, the funding and calculation of service charges, the adoption process and Watson PM’s role in it, and the establishment of the new Management Company. It was agreed that we would meet with Joe and Watson’s account manager for the Chocolate Works to gain an understanding of how Watson calculates our service charges and formally manage the monies involved. This is going to be very helpful going forward.
This year we held two meetings with Joe Langan on the proposed service charges from Watson PM for the estate for this year. The first meeting was principally us asking for clarification on certain issues. Subsequently, the Committee gave its view on the proposals from Watson PM. In reality there is limited leeway to challenge the charges. Insurance costs and energy costs and usage are what they are, for example.
In addition, this year will see an increase in the costs for the landscaping. As this follows a tendering exercise and negotiation, I am not convinced that the work could be done to the standard required at a lower cost. There were a few areas where there was room for debate. There was discussion within the Committee on the cost of the remedial work that is required to be undertaken and it was agreed to recommend to the Management Company that a modest increase on the budget for this area of £2,000 for this year should be made. This equates to about £6 per property for the year. (For those in YHA housing it is not clear whether YHA will absorb this or pass it on to its tenants.)
With these budgets now set at reasonable rates, all other things being equal, it is unlikely that there will be a significant increase in these budget areas in future years. The budget is now with the Management Company for sign off as it is the decision maker on budgets and takes its advice from Watson PM.
Hopefully we will be meeting with Watson PM in the next fortnight to discuss the outstanding snagging list.
Meeting with David Wilson Homes
I met with Ian Wormwell from DWH, along with the vice-chair. We discussed those elements of the snagging list relevant to DWH. Most of these have been actioned now and Ian Wormwell committed to work on completing the rest. Of particular interest is the lamppost at the north end of Robert Street. Ian explained the process that needs to be undertaken and it is an example of British bureaucracy. One company has to dig a hole, another to make a connection, the first company has to return to fill the hole and a third company is needed to finalise the connection! However, work is ongoing although Ian indicated that it may take two months to complete!
We discussed with Ian the possibility of establishing the Management Company prior to formal hand over and adoption of the roads. Ian explained the challenges involved in delivering this, so instead we asked Ian to ask the Management Company to consider extending its number of directors to include CWRA representatives now. Ian agreed to do so but the decision is not in his hands. However, if agreed, it would be a welcome transitional arrangement, and allow residents to have a real say in final decisions relating to the Chocolate Works estate.
We did receive clarification from Ian about one issue that has been raised by residents – the removal of the zig-zag fence at the north end of the alley between the north end of Robert Street and Campleshon Road. It appears that this path will be adopted by the Council and therefore they have the final say on the street furniture and they wanted it to be removed. This does seem an unnecessary safety risk to children and the Committee will discuss how this situation may be addressed.
One of the many positive things about this estate is the social activities that have taken place over the year, including events like the jazz nights or the Christmas concerts. We have been very lucky that Clare Skardon has taken on significant responsibility to make these events happen. Thanks very much to Clare. In addition, there are other groups like the knitting group that have been established. I wonder if there is more that can be done. I can remember an easter egg hunt and summer fayre that happened previously. It would be great to see what can be done to strengthen the social side of the Chocolate Works community. Any ideas or volunteers for this work please let me know.
Finally, a favour to ask, particularly those in Orange and Devon House or in other Yorkshire Housing properties. If you are not a member of the CWRA you will not receive our newsletter or other material. Joe Langan from Watson PM has agreed to send our material to people for which they have emails which is great. But Watson PM does not have the email addresses for residents in YHA properties. It depends upon YHA forwarding information and it is clear that many YHA residents do not receive our material. The best answer is for them to join the CWRA! It is free and you will get to know about, and be involved in, developments within your community. So, the favour is, if you reside in Orange or Devon House, or if you have a YHA resident as your neighbour, can you encourage your neighbours to join. We will be making some contact with them shortly to introduce the CWRA but if you can help then thanks.
By now you should have received information from the City of York Council (CYC) regarding the collection of garden waste. In summary, CYC is introducing a subscription service for the collection of waste, with an introductory cost of £46.50 per year. The cost will be halved if you are in receipt of Council Tax Support. Alternatives are to use a home composter or to take the garden waste to a recycling centre. For residents in apartments with no gardens and, therefore, no garden waste, this will not be an issue. Many residents with gardens have removed their grass and replaced it with hard ground materials or with artificial grass. As a result, they may generate very small amounts of garden waste and believe that there is no benefit from registering with the scheme. However, there will remain a significant minority of residents who will have garden waste that they wish collected. However, given the size of our gardens, in most cases waste collection will be necessary on an infrequent basis.
There is nothing within the rules which states that residents cannot share a bin and the associated costs. This may be something that those residents with courtyard parking may wish to explore with their neighbours. For example, one house assumes responsibility for registering with the scheme and agrees with participating neighbours both the funding and how you will operate the scheme together (who will host the bin, who is responsible for taking the bin out to, and returning the bin from, the bin collection point). Members with properties on streets but no courtyard parking (such as the even side of Clock Tower Way) can do similar although I suspect it will be logistically more difficult.
Finally, again, please encourage residents who are not members of the CWRA to join by visiting our website (www.cwra.co.uk) and clicking on Join Us. If you want to raise any questions or issues please let us know via admin@cwra.co.uk.
