RVRA

Keeping You Informed

May News 2007

May 2007

 

29th May 2007

 

It has been admitted by a VRA Committee Member (by email) that the VRA Meeting held on Friday 25th May 2007 had been covertly recorded.

 

After investigations we find the following:

 

Covert recordings are those that are made without the knowledge of the subject .

Covert recordings that do not comply with the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 maybe unlawful and may breach an individual's human rights.

 

Why would they do this? The reasons behind the recording may well be totally innocent, however, the attendees authorisation and/or objections should have been sought first.  By not seeking the attendees permission the VRA Committee have shown gross disrespect to all attendees of the meeting (in our opinion).

 

RVRA have advised that they dispose/delete this tape due to the complaints that they may receive and/or the legal action that attendees of the above meeting may take.  Unfortunately none of the Committee have seen fit to respond.

 

We hope that they can find the courtesy to apologise to those who attended their meeting.

 

25th May 2007

 

Tonight the VRA held a meeting at the Nimrod Community Centre at 19.30.

 

Below are notes taken at this meeting.

 

Present:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approximately 60 other residents were present.

 

Residents appeared very confused as to why the VRA Committee felt the need to have a Security Guard on the door.

 

There was no agenda available for residents to follow.

 

SV began by saying that she had received apologies from Mark Latham (Vice Chairman) who incidentally had called this meeting as he was held up in Kazakhstan.

 

No apologies had been made by Committee Member Martin Walsh, also a Director of White Mid Sloan.

 

SV said that the Committee had asked for residents to raise their questions prior to tonight’s meeting, but unfortunately only two questions were raised.

 

SV invited resident James Grant to join the Committee at the table and said that Mr Grant would like to join the Committee and that she proposed him and informed the floor that GS had seconded him and requested that residents cast their vote of for or against.  Residents objected to this as it seemed to be a done deal and that he had been invited to the top table prior to a residents vote.  One resident said she didn’t even know him, so why would she vote him on? Another resident agreed that not many people were aware of who he was and it was unfair of him to be sitting at the top table without a vote.  Another residents stated that this was unconstitutional and was not the proper way to vote on a member of the Committee.

 

GS asked Mr Grant to return to his seat with the residents.

 

Veronica Jessop politely asked the Chairman as to what qualities does Mr Grant think he can offer the Committee and the residents.  There was a long pause before Mr Grant stuttered and rudely barked along the lines of—at least Labyrinth weren't his best friends and he wouldn’t be in their pockets.  This appeared to infuriate the residents.  RVRA would like to point out at this stage that SV admitted that she also attends meetings with Labyrinth Properties Ltd along with members of the RVRA.

 

SV held her head in her hands before aborting taking a further vote on whether Mr Grant could join the VRA Committee.

 

SV tried to swiftly move on but unfortunately the meeting went from bad to worse.

 

A large number of residents were seen to leave the building.

 

SV said only questions received in advance were due to be addressed at the meeting.  A total number of 2 had been received and unfortunately ML would have answered these questions as they were quite complex, but he was unable to attend

 

One resident asked exactly what the meeting was about and would it just be covering the subject of Purchasing the Freehold, because not everybody was in agreement with that.  GS said that if he was not here to discuss the Right To Manage or the Purchase of the Freehold then he should go home.

 

This further enraged the residents who rightly thought that this statement was extremely rude and uncalled for by a Member of the VRA Committee who claim to be working on behalf of the residents.

 

KJ apologised for GS as the remark had come out sounding wrong!

 

SV went on to say that everyone should have received the recent Newsletters.  Unfortunately a number of residents including all of the RVRA stated that they had not received the “Spring” Newsletter.  SV said she couldn't explain why this was but was aware of the fact and would in future deliver these ones personally.  KJ said that there is obviously a fault in the organisation of the delivery of Newsletters and would work to rectify the problem.

 

KJ wondered if in future Newsletters could be put in a public place in case someone was missed out.  SV said no because they were private and for Lessees only, not to be read by anyone else!  Why then are they known as the Village Residents Association and not the Village Lessee Association?

 

SV began with the latest letter that someone had delivered to residents.  SV said that none of the Committee knew who had sent it as there was no name on the paper.  This letter was not sent out by any of the RVRA Team.

 

When asked about whether it made a difference to Compulsory Purchase whether landlord or lessee owned, the reply was no they would have to pay whoever.

 

When asked where the figure for the Freehold came from, SV said it came from schedule six, copy available.

 

The Committee were asked whether they were discussing the Purchase of the Freehold or the Right to Manage or both?  The answer was if the Freehold was purchased you would receive automatic Right to Manage.  If you buy, all decisions will be in your hands (shareholders).

 

Question:  Which Freehold would residents be purchasing?  SV said that there is only one Freehold which is laid out in the map of your lease.  All six acres inclusive as there is no deed of variation.  This requires confirmation!!!!!

 

Question:  As a director of White Mid Sloan, didn’t SV have a conflict of interest.    SV said that we maximise investments isn’t that what you want?  She said that there are three Directors of White Mid Sloan and not two as claimed by residents - RVRA have a copy of the Annual Return for White Mid Sloan issued by Companies House and only two Directors (Suzan Veale and Martin Richard Walsh) and one Company Secretary (Andrew Louis Howard Needleman) appear on the document, the document being printed in January 07.

 

Question:  If I buy, who received the money?  SV said that we will negotiate with the current Freeholder.  If you buy as a shareholder the money raised will pay the Freeholder, however thereafter it’s yours.  If non shareholder, money raised into Company will be spent as decided by the shareholders.  SV, White Mid Sloan and associates being the major shareholders! 

 

More residents left the meeting.

 

Question:  Will there still be a Service Charge and how much will it be? SV said yes and the amount would have to be decided by the shareholders, but there will be no Ground Rent for shareholders only non shareholders.

 

Question:  Who will manage the estate?  SV the shareholders would decide this.

 

George Fernie highlighted, at 2005 LVT, the 2 proposed managers were asked how they would cope with the financial aspect (the debt) and couldn’t answer, can you?  SV said ML would need to answer this question.  Veronica asked if the Committee cannot answer these questions, only Mark Latham, why wasn’t the meeting postponed until he could attend?  No answer was given.

 

Veronica Jessop asked if the Committee had a constitution as we had been informed by Labyrinth Properties that the Committee had asked for recognition but they required to view the Constitution and list of members prior to authorising recognition but unfortunately the Committee had not supplied this to Labyrinth Properties Ltd.  SV said that yes the Committee have a constitution and yes they have recognition.  This requires confirmation!!!!!

 

Veronica Jessop then enquired as to why she had not received a copy as she had requested one from Suzan in October 06 prior to joining and SV had said that she would instruct her legal body to issue one.  Unfortunately this also was not forthcoming.

 

SV was asked how many have actually been invited to join the VRA because most residents have never seen or received a form?  There was no reply and the meeting moved on.

 

SV said that the Committee had sent a letter to the current Freeholder and were optimistic he would reply.  The content of such a letter has not been divulged to residents.

 

Question:  What pitfalls could there be to redevelopment?  SV said that the issues were very complex but the information on the flyers and newsletters that residents have received from Gosport Borough Council and the Regeneration Committee were not quite truthful and that a large number of residents wish to oppose RRP but no firm number was given!

 

Question:  Shouldn’t we wait to hear proposals before committing to anything?  SV said that you could buy the Freehold and still at a later date go with RRP although SV said that she has a Court judgment where residents overturned a compulsory purchase order.  Why would you at this stage purchase the freehold without first waiting to hear all your options and inform residents about overturning a compulsory purchase order?  Unless this is the intention?

 

Question:  Who is the Freeholder of the land in question, Caseacre or Rowner Estates Ltd and would we be entitled to revenue from aerials etc?  SV said that that by buying the freehold you would receive the revenue from the aerials but did not comment on who owns the Freehold.

 

Question:  Would a local legal rep be dealing with everything?  SV said no, her firm has offered to do it pro-bono (unless you really want to pay, in which case you could go elsewhere.

 

Question:  Are you aware there are already plans for building on/usage of part of the Grange car park (extensions for the Nimrod Centre)?  If we buy then any bad situation can be reversed.  SV enquired as to where the plans were, she was informed “in the foyer area of the Nimrod Centre where we were”.  SV said that she is aware that Taylor Woodrow have already paid for land to enable them to build 50 houses.

 

Question:  How much will the Freehold cost?  Answer:  Don’t know yet.

 

Question:  Will landlord sell to us?  Answer:  He has to.

 

Question:  If we buy, who will hold the purse strings?  Answer:  The shareholders!

 

Question:  When it comes to some people owing more than others etc, who would decide who has to pay what?  Answer:  Solicitors and if we buy the Freehold we will be free of any dept!  This requires confirmation!!!!!

 

SV and GS went on to be extremely derogatory of the previous VRA Committee Members (Mr Vic Burt, Mrs Sandra Burt, Mr Andrew Dodds, Mrs Joan Hussey, Mr Brian Hussey, Mr Brian Young, Ms Linda Bell, Mrs Maggie Hammond etc, if we have forgotten anyone then we apologise).  The floor erupted with Mrs Hussey explaining that the previous VRA Committee worked extremely hard for the residents and did not deserved to be castigated in this manner.  All the other residents agreed.  SV looked to Veronica Jessop, George Fernie and Kim McDonald for confirmation of the castigations but they said regardless of past history with the previous VRA Committee the new Committee were out of order to publicly castigate those ex Committee Members in this manner.  The entire RVRA Team are in total disgust.  Mrs Hussey then left the room.

 

The meeting was in total chaos and there was no control what so ever.

 

Veronica Jessop said that the Committee should have had all their facts and figures ready to inform the residents prior to calling this meeting and before asking residents to commit to anything.

 

When Mrs Hussey returned a few minutes later, SV apologised profusely but it looked like it was too little too late.  Veronica Jessop asked why SV was apologising for GS - the question went unanswered.  Mrs Hussey did not accept the apology.  SV said that she thought the Committee were “sinking” with all the arguments that were going on!

 

Question:  How many residents in each block had signed for Purchase of Freehold?  Answer:  100% Hillary 80% of another……...A Hillary Court residents said that how can you have 100% when I have not signed?  Answer:  100% of what was needed.  This requires confirmation!!!!!

 

Question:  How many for Darwin Way?  Answer:  Not many!!!

 

More arguments and bickering went on before SV swiftly closed the meeting before answering many residents questions.

 

The RVRA Team are appalled at the way the VRA Committee conducted themselves and also had no control over their own meeting.  The manners and the competence of the Committee leave something to be desired.  In our opinion the whole meeting was an absolute shambles.

 

If you would like to discuss matters further or join the RVRA (as many residents have done now), please contact us by email via our contacts page or call us on the RVRA number advertised on our Home page.

 

3rd May 2007

 

Today we have received yet another Press Release from The Rowner Renewal Partnership.

 

For those residents who have not received a copy, the release is as follows:

 

Progress and Commitment of The Rowner Renewal Partnership

 

The Rowner Renewal Partnership—English Partnerships, Gosport Borough Council, Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth Housing Association (PHA) and Taylor Woodrow—has made excellent progress since its establishment in March 2007.  It has worked to identify potential funding and carry out initial surveys on the estate.

 

In addition, consultants have been appointed for architecture, environmental impact, retail, planning, landscape and transport issues and further work has been identified.  Formal consultation with residents on the project design and discussion events will start in June and follow on through July.  Here the residents of Rowner will have the fullest of opportunities to meet with all concerned to shape the future of their estate.

 

The Rowner Enquiry Lin (Tel 08450 343317) has been kept busy and as a result, the Partnership has listened and is talking to many of the local residents.  Some have decided to move now and PHA has been approached to buy some of the flats in the precinct area.

 

PHA on behalf of the Partnership, has also worked with Gosport Voluntary Action (GVA) to put forward plans for the important extension to the existing Nimrod Community Centre.  In addition, PHA, Gosport Borough Council and Hampshire County Council have helped to continue the funding of the highly successful Rowner Access Point to ensure that it continues its good work in the area.

 

Just last week Hampshire County Council celebrated the opening of its vibrant new Youth Centre in Rowner to provide fun activities, workshops, help and guidance for young people.

 

John Butler, Chief Executive of PHA and spokesperson for the Partnership explains:

 

“The Rowner Renewal Partnership’s initial work has concentrated on ensuring that the consultants and funding are in place before we start to talk directly with local residents, groups and businesses in June.

 

PHA has begun to purchase some flats from those who wish to move and by buying the flats we are ensuring long term security for the estate during this transitional period.  Anyone else who is unsure what to do in the short-term should phone the Rowner Enquiry Line.  Options should be kept open until we are able to consult in June.

 

So much has already been achieved in the last few weeks.  The Partnership’s high level of commitment to the long term success of regenerating Rowner is clearly evident.  We look forward to formally engaging with the residents in June.”

 

Gosport Borough Council will be considering the Collaboration Agreement with the Partnership in May and a further update on the work of the Partnership and a timetable of community events will be available later in the month.

 

The Rowner Enquiry Line is open from Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.  Tel:  08450 343317

 

Anyone wishing to discuss the matter further can contact RVRA via our contacts page.

 

1st May 2007

 

We have now received a reply from LPL with regards to our meeting with them on 29th March 2007.

 

Account:  2006 accounts are being thoroughly investigated.

 

LPL’s Meetings with Rowner Vision:  LPL will be unavailable to attend the next Rowner Vision Meeting due to prior appointments.

 

Debts:  The debts to date are £789,482.36.

 

Regeneration:  LPL are arranging a meeting with all parties.

 

Cleaning & Landscaping:  LPL are to meet with FEM in May 07.

 

1 Hillary Court:  Ongoing.

 

Other Issues

 

1. Council are being approached to see if they will assist in the removal of white goods, gas bottles etc.

2. LPL to liaise with residents prior to allowing any students back on site after the previous fiasco in Feb/March 07.

3. The electrician will be on site shortly to attend to blown bulbs etc.

4. Paving slabs to be dealt with when funds are available.

5. The crumbling walkways are being patched rather than being renewed due to insufficient funds.

6. Flats that have broken windows etc are being dealt with via LPL who will be in touch with the lessees who are being requested that they be attended to.

7. Broken asbestolux panels will be attended to once funds become available.

8. Blocked drains will be assessed this week.

9. Confirmation that the wooden bin chute covers have not been paid for.

10. Cleaning of staircases will be discussed with FEM.

11. 2005 Accounts are still to be prepared.

12. Night vision cameras to capture fly tippers will be discussed with M.Q.D. Securities Ltd.

 

We will receive information on other matters when they become available.

 

For Information on the Right To Manage, residents may find the link below helpful.

 

 

http://www.lease-advice.org/rtmframe.htm