Success!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mayor Pipe <Mayor.Pipe@hackney.gov.uk>
Date: Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Security Fence and Gates on Lockner Estate
To: lisa@gmail.com


Dear Ms Linpower

Re: Security Fence and Gates on Lockner Estate

Further to our previous correspondence on this matter in September, I
wanted to let you know that I have now been advised by Hackney Homes
that they have withdrawn their planning application. I understand that
this decision was taken in light of the concerns expressed by the TRA
and by residents such as yourself.

Hackney Homes have advised me that they will be discussing any current
security issues with residents via the TRA, and will work to find an
appropriate way to deal with any such concerns. They have also assured
me that it remains the case that, as mentioned in my previous response,
any future proposals for security measures will be subject to
consultation with residents.

If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to
contact Martin Weaver, Head of Planned Maintenance at Hackney Homes, on
020 8356 1658 or at martin.weaver@hackneyhomes.org.uk.

Yours sincerely

Jules Pipe
Mayor of Hackney

Success

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Martin Weaver <Martin.Weaver@hackneyhomes.org.uk>
Date: Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 1:50 PM
Subject: RE: Lockner Estate
To: Lisa Linpower <lisal@gmail.com>
Cc: Charlotte Graves <Charlotte.Graves@hackneyhomes.org.uk>, "Gulay Icoz (Cllr)" <Gulay.Icoz@hackney.gov.uk>, Cllr Rob Chapman <cllr.robert.chapman@gmail.com>, "Tom Ebbutt (Cllr)" <Tom.Ebbutt@hackney.gov.uk>, Francine Rump <fran@googlemail.com>, Carole Merrick <carole.merrick@hackneyhomes.org.uk>, James Roche <James.Roche@hackneyhomes.org.uk>, Richard Wiles <Richard.Wiles@hackneyhomes.org.uk>

Lisa

Just to clarify that we have asked for the application to be withdrawn. We have given you clear assurances that nothing will be imposed on residents so, whilst recognising we won't be able to please all the people all the time, there should be no issue of 'fighting battles'.

In order to take us forward we will need to convene a meeting with yourselves and this will need to include Housing Management representatives, Sean and ourselves at least. I don't personally know Ian but I am sure we can make contact. The issues you have raised with them are the issues we need to discuss, I believe, and the solutions may or may not involve some form of physical barrier[s], so the discussion has to be much wider than just with my team.  

I am on leave all next week so perhaps we can discuss a suitable date and venue when I am back.

 

Regards

 

 

Martin Weaver
BSc CEng MIMechE MCIBSE MAPM
Head of Planned Maintenance
Property Services
Hackney Homes
Tel: 020 8356 1658
Mob: 07903 970 650

Reply to Martin Weaver

Sent today, by post and email:

 

28^th October 2010

Dear Mr Weaver,

Many thanks for your letter dated 26^th October 2010.

We are very pleased to hear that you are taking residents views and opinions seriously and have halted the planning application to install security gates and fences on Lockner estate.

Please may we request confirmation that the scheme has been withdrawn, and not simply been put on hold. Residents and committee members are anxious that we should not have to fight this same battle again sometime in the near future.

Residents are still keen to discuss security issues, and we would like to work towards reaching a realistic proposal to tackle security issues on the estate. Please see my email, dated 8^th October to Ian Heward and Sean Whealan explaining our concerns and requesting some help in reaching a solution. We have not yet had a reply from them. It would be wonderful if you would be able to assist us in organising a meeting with them to discuss the issues below.

Again, many thanks for listening to our views. We also look forward to working constructively with you in the future.

Kind Regards,

Lisa Linpower

(Chair Lockner TRA)

200. Charlotte Graves
     Meg Hillier
     Robert Chapman
     Gulay Icoz
     Tom Ebbutt

---------------------------------

From: Lockner & Kingsgate TRA <locknerkingsgate@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 1:54 PM
Subject: Lockner Estate, N1
To: ian.heward@hackney.gov.uk, sean.whelan@hackneyhomes.org.uk
Cc: Jeff.R.Ellis@met.police.uk, ian.gallagher@met.police.uk, paul.tregent@met.police.uk, mohammed.gani@met.police.uk, DeBeauvoir.SNT@met.police.uk, Francine Rump <talktofran@googlemail.com>


Dear Sirs,
I am the chair of Lockner Residents Association.
We recently held our AGM, and security on the estate was discussed at length at the meeting.  I am writing as requested by residents at the meeting, to request your help with addressing, and hopefully solving these issues for our residents.

The following issues were raised:

• Non residents loitering on the stairwells and upper levels smoking, eating and making noise. This was highlighted as a particular issue on Blandford Court, where residents have witnessed people urinating and defecating on the landings.
• Motorcycles and mopeds racing through the estate late at night (inside the estate parallel to St Peters Way).
  

Solutions suggested by residents included:

• Opening up the stairwells so people loitering are visible and residents can see ahead around the corners when going up the stairs.
• Improved lighting.
• Taking away the ceiling of the stairwells, so people can not use them to shelter in.
• Speed bumps or posts at either end of the estate to stop motorcycles and mopeds (ensuring disabled access is unaffected).
  

I am writing to ask if you would be able to discuss and assist us with these ideas. Residents at the AGM were very keen to arrange a meeting and a walkabout around the estate with you to discuss and highlight problems. Residents are opposed to the gates scheme which is currently being proposed for Lockner, however these issues are important to us and are affecting daily lives of some residents. We are keen to address these issues in collaboration with you, and see if an alternative solution is available and viable.

We would very much value and appreciate your expert opinions and input.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards,

Lisa Linpower

Eureka!

The Broadway Office. 2 Trederwen Road, Hackney, London, E8 4NB

26^th October 2010

Dear Lisa & Francine

I refer to Lisa’s letter and Francine’s email of 13^th October regarding the proposals for Security Fence and Gates on Lockner Estate.

Lisa’s letter was addressed to Charlotte Graves and I am replying on behalf of myself and Charlotte who has discussed this situation with me personally and who has also visited the estate to ensure that she is aware of the potential impact on residents.

Can I assure you that we genuinely want to listen to residents views and only carry out works of this nature to the estate if it is with the support of the residents.

Therefore in view of your correspondence and also taking into account the responses to the planning application we have halted the planning application in view of the feelings expressed by residents and the feedback from your TRA meeting.

I would like to be clear that the scheme was not in our programme for this year and the planning application was a precursory to any further activity on this project.

We completely agree that the appropriate approach is what Francine has proposed in her email; to discuss current security issues with residents and work to come together with realistic proposals.  If there is a solution which residents would like us to consider further we would then need to identify funding from other projects.

I hope that this communicates to residents that we have no intention of imposing a scheme which is not wanted and that we look forward to working constructively with you in the future.

If you would like to meet me with one of my colleagues from Hackney Homes, please contact me on 0208 356 1658.

Yours sincerely

Martin Weaver

Head of Planned Maintenance

Hackney Homes

martin.weaver@hackneyhomes.org,uk

Reply to Martin Weaver

On 13 October 2010 11:34, Francine Bennett <fran@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Martin,

Thanks for your letter, and apologies for my slow reply. Sam Lewis supplied a copy of the letter to residents at the TRA meeting, and it was discussed at the meeting. My reply here is on behalf of the TRA.

The issue which residents continue to have with this proposed scheme is that we do not feel it's the right scheme for our estate, and so we are frustrated that we are being presented with only one option. The initial consultation letter was poorly worded and unclear, and appeared to be written only in order to elicit a 'yes' answer; our local discussions indicate that most residents are in fact against this specific scheme, although many feel that there is scope for security and anti-ASB improvements. What we'd prefer is that Hackney Homes takes some time to discuss current security issues with residents, and that we work together to come up with several realistic alternative proposals, rather than going down a single predetermined route with the only other option being nothing at all.

I understand that the planning meeting for this proposal is on 3rd November; once that's complete, can we meet to discuss next steps? The ideal solution from residents' point of view, regardless of the planning outcome, would be to engage with someone with security and architectural expertise, as well as with PCSOs and residents who can speak to what ASB problems might need addressing, to come up with realistic proposals which are within Hackney Homes' budget and which would also be suitable for those of us who live on the estate.

Regards,

Francine Bennett (Lockner TRA secretary)

What next...

Two residents have been elected by Lockner Residents Association to talk at the sub planning committee meeting.

At the Lockner AGM on Wednesday evening residents discussed security on the estate. Residents raised the following issues:

• Non residents loitering on the stairwells and upper levels smoking, eating and making noise. This was highlighted as a particular issue on Blandford Court, where residents have witnessed people urinating and defecating on the landings. 
• Motorcycles and mopeds racing through the estate late at night (inside the estate parallel to St Peters Way).

Residents who attended the meeting were all strongly opposed to the gates scheme, believing the gates will not solve these issues. We discussed alternative solutions to these problems. Solutions suggested include:

• Opening up the stairwells so people loitering are visible and residents can see ahead around the corners when going up the stairs.
• Taking away the ceiling of the stairwells, so people can not use them to shelter in.
• Speed bumps or posts at either end of the estate to stop motorcycles and mopeds (ensuring disabled access is unaffected).

Lockner Residents Association will request a walkabout with residents and a security representative from Hackney Homes to discuss and highlight these issues. These are important issues, affecting residents, and we would like to offer an alternative solution to the gates proposal.

Statement from Martin Weaver - Head of Planned Maintenance

From: Martin Weaver
Sent: 06 October 2010 16:47
To: Sam Lewis (TP); Ian Clark; 'Francine Bennett '
Cc: Clive Taber; Richard Wiles; James Roche; Denise Hill
Subject: Lockner Estate Controlled Access

Dear all

I understand that there is an AGM of the RTA tonight and that there was a request for us to attend regarding the concerns regarding the above.

Unfortunately I was only aware of this request yesterday and I am already committed to attend another meeting. Having discussed with colleagues I thought that it may be helpful if I provided a statement which will hopefully confirm the situation ahead of tonight's meeting.

I can confirm that there is no hidden agenda or driver other than ensuring that we fulfil our responsibilities with regard to security on the estate.

We are looking at the possibility of providing Controlled Access schemes for all Hackney Homes blocks that don't currently have this facility. However, schemes will only be progressed where a majority of residents are in favour.

Some time ago initial consultation took place on Lockner and this indicated that there was a majority in favour of pursuing a perimeter scheme. At that stage the scheme was dropped from the provisional programme because it was clear that consultation and planning issues would delay it and also that it could be an expensive scheme which would not be affordable that year.

I confirm that the scheme is not in our current programme. 

We are intending to consult further with residents once we know the results of the Planning Application. There would be no point in consulting on a scheme that was unacceptable to the planners, so the timing for further consultation is once the results of the Planning Application are known. This will be the appropriate time for us to meet with the TRA.

So if Planning Approval is granted we will consult all residents, and if the majority are against the scheme the proposal will be dropped and not pursued further. This has already occurred on a number of blocks.

If the majority of residents are in favour we will identify when the scheme could be included in future year's programmes. The earliest this could possibly occur would be in 2011/12 programme.

I realise that there is some scepticism around this but as the Head of Planned Maintenance I can assure you that this is the current position.

We will be contacting the TRA once we have the Planning outcome to discuss the next stages of the process or to confirm that it cannot go ahead in any case due to non approval by Planners. Finally can I re-emphasise that a scheme will only progressed if the majority of residents are in favour and that there are no other considerations that will impact that decision.

I hope this is helpful for your meeting.

Regards

Martin Weaver
BSc CEng MIMechE MCIBSE MAPM
Head of Planned Maintenance
Property Services
Hackney Homes
Tel: 020 8356 1658
Mob: 07903 970 650

Reply for Meg Hillier

(click on it to make it larger)

Still no reply from Charlotte Graves.

Next Meeting

In addition to the letters below to Charlotte Graves and Graham Loveland/Michael Garvey, we have updated local councillors requesting further assistance from them. The Kingsland Conservation Area Advisory Committee have also ensured us of their support. 

The next Lockner TRA meeting will be held on the 6th October 2010 at the Lockner Community Flat - starting at 7pm. This is our Annual General Meeting. Officer positions and committee member positions will be elected and voted for, there will be general updates about works on Lockner, and the gates issue will be discussed and updates provided. We have invited a Hackney Homes representative and will invite local councillors to attend.

Hope to see you there. Please spread the word to neighbours.

Letter to Charlotte Graves, Chief Executive, Hackney Homes

Charlotte Graves

Chief Executive

Hackney Homes

Christopher Addison House

72 Wilton Way

London

E8 1BJ

15 September 2010

Planning Application 2010/1577

Dear Ms Graves,

I wrote to you on 19 August regarding Hackney Homes' planning application to install security gates and fences on the Lockner Estate (application number 2010/1577) enclosing a petition of objection from residents on the estate. I regret that I have not yet received a reply.

I am writing again because I was alarmed to hear last week from Michael Garvey, Hackney Council planning officer, that he feels, given Hackney Homes' strong support for the proposal, that he has no choice but to recommend it for approval by the planning sub-committee on 3 November 2010. This is despite a commitment made by a spokesperson for Hackney Homes just last week that "if residents are not in favour of this option, it will not be further considered" (Hackney Gazette, 9 September p.17, enclosed).

I would be grateful if you could let me know what, in addition to our recent petition and the many letters and forms the planning office has received in opposition to the proposal, we need to do as a Tenants and Residents Association (TRA) to make the opinions of residents clear to Hackney Homes?

The main grounds for opposition are (1) aesthetic: our estate is in a conservation area and the gates will do nothing to enhance or preserve its open plan design, nor will they enhance the look of De Beauvoir Square which is a statutorily protected London Square; (2) practical: disabled access will be reduced, it will be more difficult for visitors/deliveries, and the gate are liable to break; and (3) social: most residents prefer the estate as an open friendly space rather than being fenced off, they are concerned about the nuisance caused by door intercom buzzers going off at night; gates will make the area feel less welcoming and could lead to the estate seeming more dangerous rather than safer, and, by not integrating with the area, the gates may further stigmatise residents on the estate and reduce, rather than improve, social cohesion.

We are aware that a survey was carried out by Hackney Homes in 2008 that received 74 responses, with two thirds being in favour. We believe, however, that this consultation was badly worded and, as a result, poorly understood. Indeed, I am aware of residents who supported the proposal in 2008 but who are now very strongly opposed. In addition, the numbers in opposition to the scheme today outweigh the number of original positive responses in 2008. Furthermore, the spokesperson for Hackney Homes quoted in the Hackney Gazette said that "there is no intention of putting up security gates on the estate" and urged residents to get in contact to discuss how they would like to see the estate improved. In light of this, I would like to request a meeting with you to discuss this issue further.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards, 

cc.        M. Garvey, Planning Officer, Hackney Council

Cllrs. R. Chapmen, T. Ebutt, G. Icoz

M. Hillier, MP

F. Derbyshire, Chairperson, De Beauvoir Association

J. Pipe, Mayor of Hackney

Letter to Graham Loveland/Michael Garvey - Hackney Homes Planning offcer/Assistant Director

Planning Application: 2010/1577 – Lockner Estate gates and fences

14 September 2010

Dear Mr Loveland,

In a telephone conversation on Friday 10 September, Mr Garvey, planning officer, informed me that he has “no choice” but to recommend planning application 2010/1577 for approval by the Planning Sub-Committee on 3 November 2010.

I regret this decision but accept that perhaps you are powerless, procedurally, to reach an alternative conclusion. Our members, however, are likely to be upset and confused by Mr Garvey’s recommendation that the proposal is approved. As you know, many residents have lodged objections and signed a petition protesting the proposal; indeed, an article outlining their objections recently appeared in the Hackney Gazette 9 September p.17.

It would be helpful, therefore, if you could supply me with a copy of the document detailing the grounds on which this decision to approve the application has been made. I can then pass this on, and explain your position, to our members and people concerned in the wider community. In particular, I assume this document, which must already exist, addresses the following three areas of concern:

1. Objections lodged: the number of objections lodged; the grounds on which these objections have been dismissed; and, how these objections will be presented to the members of the Planning Sub-Committee.
2. Issues relating to the Conservation Area and Protected London Square: how the proposal preserves and enhances the area, in particular how it will enhance the appearance of De Beauvoir Square (according to Hackney Local Plan Policies, the Council will ensure that any development of areas adjacent to the square will enhance its appearance: www.hackney.gov.uk/ep-conservation-design-trees-ls.htm); the response from the Hackney Council Conservation and Urban Design Team to the proposal or, if they have not responded, a copy of Mr Garvey’s letter to them requesting their input; the response of the local Conservation Area Advisory Committee to the proposal or, if they have not responded, a copy of your letter to them requesting their input; and, the response from English Heritage regarding Conservation Area consent since the proposal affects the appearance of an area greater than 1,000m² or, if they have not responded, a copy of your letter to them requesting their input (see p.43 Statement of Community Involvement, Nov 2006).
3. the Consultation process: the basis for determining that the consultation for this proposal has been adequate despite consisting of a single survey carried out over three years ago and in the face of current widespread objections; and, in connection with this, a copy of the consultation report Hackney Homes should have provided the Council (see s.5.31, p.15 Statement of Community Involvement Nov 2006).

I would grateful if you could send me the paperwork by the end of September because we have a Tenants and Residents’ Association (TRA) meeting on 6 October 2010 and I will need to copy and circulate the information. You would, of course, be most welcome to attend the meeting which will take place at the Lockner community Flat, 23 Blandford Court at 7pm.

Yours sincerely,

cc. M. Garvey, Planning Officer, Hackney Council

C. Graves, Chief Executive, Hackney Homes

Cllrs. R. Chapmen, T. Ebutt, G. Icoz

M. Hillier, MP

F. Derbyshire, Chairperson De Beauvoir Association

Where to go now...

• How do you want to move things forward?
• Update local councillors?
• Have another meeting?
• Request a meeting with Charlotte Graves (Chief Executive of Hackney Homes), our fight seems to be arising from Hackney Homes?

Email: locknerkingsgate@googlemail.com

Phone Conversation with Michael Garvey:

Mr Garvey suggested there was no need for a meeting, suggesting that we should talk on the telephone instead. This email was sent following the conversation:

Dear Mr Garvey,

Further to our telephone conversation today, please see my notes that I will be updating our residents with:

16.15, 10 Sept 2010:

• Mr Garvey has been told that Hackney Homes carried out a consultation and residents wanted gates and fences. He is not sure when this happened and knows no more about a consultation with residents. (I am guessing this was the consultation in 2008 which demonstrated 74 responses, with two thirds being in favour. The consultation was badly worded and poorly understood. Our recent petition had 74 signatures, and he has received additional forms/letters and emails in opposition to the scheme).
  
• Mr Garvey has received a lot of objections/forms/emails and letters from residents opposing the plans. He has not counted, but guesses the number to be 50+ in addition to our petition. He's surprised that based on this opposition Hackney Homes are requesting planning permission. However seeing as Hackney Homes are the applicants for the planning, not the council, "residents opinions are of no concern".
• Consultation with residents is not of concern to the planning office - this is under the remit of Hackney Homes. From what he has been told, Hackney Homes have consulted - and wish to proceed.
• The police and designers are also pushing to proceed.
• Based on the above he has no choice to recommend the proposal for approval - it will go to committee on 3rd November 2010, 6.30pm at the Town Hall. To register to speak at this committee meeting we need to contact Emma Terry 020 8356 3338 emma.terry@hackney.gov.uk - there will be no more than a few people allowed to speak, as the information is "likely to be repetitive anyway".

I hope that I have recorded our conversation accurately and have a good understanding of the situation.

I look forward to seing you at the committee meeting on 3rd November.

Kind Regards,

Lisa Linpower

Email from the Mayor of Hackney

Dear Ms Linpower

Re: Security Fence and Gates on Lockner Estate

Thank you for your email regarding the above matter, which was received in my office on 14th August 2010.  Thank you also for your letter on behalf of the Lockner & Kingsgate Resident Association.  I am sorry to hear of your concerns.

Hackney Homes have advised me that in response to concerns about safety and security on the estate, they consulted residents on a proposal for a security fence in 2008. I have been advised that the results of this consultation were that 74 responses were received, with two-thirds being in favour of the proposal. I understand that at that time residents were advised that Hackney Homes were seeking an opinion from the Planning department in order to proceed to outline design stage, and that as soon as the Planning department had provided their observations, Hackney Homes would hold a public drop-in session on the estate. This would allow residents to see the outline drawings and afford them the opportunity of making their own contribution to any specific areas of concern. I understand that, after this, any agreed changes could be incorporated and detailed designs submitted in order to obtain full planning approval. I understand that the application to Planning was not submitted at that time, and it is only now that approval is being sought.

The Council's Planning service have assured me that when the planning application for the installation of security fences and gates on the Lockner Estate is processed, they will carefully consider the implications for both community safety and for the appearance of the estate.  They will also take into account the numerous objections that have been received from local residents. I have been assured that your concerns and those of the Lockner & Kingsgate Resident Associaion have been passed to the Planning service for their consideration. If the application is to be recommended for approval then it will be decided by the Planning Sub-Committee.  If you have any further queries regarding the current application please contact Micheal Garvey, Planning Officer, on 020 8356 8053, or at micheal.garvey@hackney.gov.uk.

However, despite the submission of a planning application, Hackney Homes have advised me that the security fence and gates at Lockner Estate do not form part of this year's works programme, and that it will not be in any future programme until they have consulted again with both the TRA and residents. Hackney Homes have assured me that this project will not be carried out unless and until they have established a clear mandate from residents to proceed. Hackney Homes have explained that because they would require planning approval if they were to decide to proceed at some point in the future, they decided to proceed with a planning application now.

I do acknowledge your concerns about the application. However, as Mayor I have no control or influence over planning decisions. The planning process is a quasi-judicial one involving councillors making decisions within a quite rigid framework, and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to become involved in the decisions taken in individual cases.  I hope you will be reassured, however, that Hackney Homes have no immediate plans to proceed with this work and have committed to further consultation in the future.

Yours sincerely

Jules Pipe
Mayor of Hackney

Hackney Gazette

Email chasing Planning Officers Superior:

From: Lockner & Kingsgate TRA <locknerkingsgate@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 5:23 PM
Subject: Fwd: Planning application 2010/1577 Gates and Fences - Lockner Estate
To: Graham.Loveland@hackney.gov.uk


Dear Mr Lovelend,

I am writing from the Lockner Tenants and Residents Association.

We have still not managed to secure a meeting with Mr Garvey, despite his promise to arrange a meeting. My last email (see below) bounced back advising he was on holiday. In his absence, please could we arrange a meeting with yourself to discuss residents opposition to the installation of gates and fences on Lockner.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards,

Lisa Linpower
Chair - Lockner TRA


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lockner & Kingsgate TRA <locknerkingsgate@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Planning application 2010/1577 Gates and Fences - Lockner Estate
To: Micheal Garvey <Micheal.Garvey@hackney.gov.uk

>
Cc: Francine Rump Graham.Loveland@hackney.gov.uk


Hi Mr Garvey,

I still haven't heard from you regarding a meeting.

Please could you contact me at your earliest convenience. My mobile is: 07879 630 6*6.

Kind Regards,

Lisa Linpower

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Micheal Garvey <Micheal.Garvey@hackney.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear lisa

I will contact you shortly to arrange a meeting

Regards Micheal

-----Original Message-----
From: Lockner & Kingsgate TRA
Sent: 16 August 2010 14:05
To: Micheal Garvey
Cc: Francine Rump
Subject: Planning application 2010/1577 Gates and Fences - Lockner Estate

Dear Mr. Garvey,

I hope you have had a pleasant holiday and are settled back to work.

I am the chair of the Tenants and Residents Association on Lockner Estate. I am writing to request a meeting with you to discuss the proposed plans for security gates and fences on the Lockner Estate (Ref: 2010/1577).

I would appreciate it if you could contact me at your earliest convenience to arrange a time and date.

Kind Regards,

Lisa Linpower
Chair - Lockner and Kingsgate TRA

Letter from Michael Garvey

Models Needed!

One of our residents, Jenny, has managed to get a piece in the Hackney Gazette about our fight against the fence.

They are sending a photographer around this SATURDAY, 28th August at 10am, to get pictures of the residents opposing the gates scheme to go alongside the article.

So round up everyone you can think of! If you have the time or inclination, make a banner or two, and meet us outside the community flat at 09.50am this Saturday.

See you there!

Email from James Roche

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Roche <James.Roche@hackneyhomes.org.uk>
Date: 18 August 2010 09:32
Subject: RE: New gates proposal?
To: Francine Rump (TRA Secretary)

Fran – I have just returned from leave so apologies for late response. The current position is that Lockner Estate is not in this years programme and as such there is no plan to progress,

 It will not be in any future programme until we have consulted with both the TRA and Residents again and have a clear mandate from Residents to proceed,. however we will require a Planning Approval if we are to at proceed at some point. It is most unfortunate that we have taken so long to progress with the outline Planning Approval but this is a formality and does not imply that we are to carry matters any further, without all of the proper consultation occurring and indeed subject to financial availability which is certainly not the case at this time.

Although interesting, this is not the solution we are looking for. There's nothing to say this issue wont raise its ugly head again next year (as it has done already). So, we're going to stick to Plan A and keep going until we get in writing, from the top people that the plans have been indefinitely shelved.

Letter Sent.

We have written and sent the letter below (by post) to the following people:

List of recipients below:

• Charlotte Graves, Chief Executive, Hackney Homes
• Michael Garvey, Planning Officer, Hackney Homes
• Graham Loveland, Interim Assistant Director, Hackney Homes
• Jules Pipe, Mayor of Hackney
• Cllr Rob Chapman  

Dear XXX,

We were surprised and disappointed to see that Hackney Homes have submitted a planning application to gate and fence-in our estate without any consultation or notification of the Residents’ Association or residents in general. As a Residents’ Association, we strongly object to this scheme, for the following principal reasons:

1. 
   
   They create a sense of being ‘caged in’ and will look ugly and out of place. Because our estate was originally designed as a set of blocks with open space between, any gate scheme has to be a ‘cage’ around all open walkways and staircases. This will have a significant negative impact on the look and feel of our surroundings, as well as being inappropriate for the conservation area where we are located.
2. 
   
   They will create access problems for us and our neighbours.

• 
  
  General access: Lockner was designed with a very open layout, with multiple routes between the blocks and across the open spaces of the estate. Putting locked gates around the estate will prevent free movement around the estate and break up our community.
• 
  
  Disabled access: Many residents here are registered disabled and have mobility problems, for example using mobility scooters or using sticks to get around. The estate’s current open layout makes it easy for them; any introduction of gates will make it much more difficult for them to come and go. The exact accessibility details of the proposal are unclear in the drawings, but we know from previous attempts by Hackney Council to design gate schemes for the estate that there is no possible scheme which is fully accessible within a reasonable cost.

3. 
   
   They are unlikely to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour. Lockner is not a high-crime estate; it is an estate full of young families and has a thriving local community. We work hard to create a sense of community cohesion. We know from police crime statistics that the most common crime type on the estate is domestic, which would not be prevented by gates; we also know from other Hackney estate residents that they have not in general found gates to be effective in reducing crime/ASB, since gates are easily bypassed by ‘tailgating’ or by being let in by residents.

To summarise: we believe that this proposed scheme would be very bad for us both as individuals and as a community. We are told by Hackney Homes that there is no budget available to make the estate a nicer place through painting, landscaping, etc; we would get far more benefit as a community from spending on making the estate a nicer environment than from spending on this scheme which provides no positive benefit to us.

We have put together a petition against this scheme, which is enclosed.

Kind Regards,