August 2019

GLERA / Estate Office

INTRODUCTION

In June as a joint initiative the Estate Office and GLERA hosted the first of what will be a number of Community Conversations to discuss the contradictory private/ public nature of our estate and the resulting implications.

At GLERA’s drop in at the Christmas Market and at the Community Conversation about Anti Social Behaviour in February it was very clear that residents are concerned about public use of our open spaces. These concerns were raised by a resident at the annual wardmote in March, resulting in the following resolution:

“It was Resolved that the City of London Corporation commission a study reporting in no more than one year regarding pedestrian flows through the Golden Lane Estate ("GLE") resulting from current and anticipated property developments in the vicinity of the GLE and consult with GLE residents regarding the current "private" status of the GLE as a result of which residents pay for the maintenance of areas of the GLE that are in practice open to the public.”

This is a really important issue for us all who live and work on Golden Lane Estate and it’s important that as a community we understand what our options may be, the implications, the barriers, the burden of proof required to show that there are problems. Foot traffic will increase with new residential neighbours, Crossrail and Culture Mile and ultimately, we want to help shape this consultation.

We couldn’t hope to cover everything in one meeting so the plan for this first meeting was to hear (and document) people’s concerns and experiences with a view to creating a structured series of further Conversations. The conversation was attended by over 20 residents and four of our local Councillors: Cllr David Bradshaw and Cllr Mary Durcan, Cllr Mark Bostock and Cllr Barbara Newman.

This report aims to do the following:

 give an overview of the points and concerns that were raised at the Community Conversation  detail information required so residents can be better informed as we move towards some creative suggestions and solutions  outline what we can do as residents to make our lived experience of anti- social behaviour more visible ie embrace Big Data to record incidents of concern  report back on the City’s response to the resolution to date and the reaction of our Common Councillors

It also includes additional feedback from residents since the meeting and comments from the community website forums www.goldenlaneestate.org

The next Community Conversation will be in the Community Centre in September or early October, date to be confirmed.

1

THE CONVERSATION

The Community Conversation was held in the Community Centre as part of the regular Resident Drop In session on 11 June 2019. It was hosted by Michelle Warman, our Estate Manager, and resident Jacqueline Swanson, on behalf of GLERA. Dave Walker of Southwark Mediation was there to welcome residents and to ensure that there was a fair balance of speakers in the room. He will also be pro- active in liaising with the City to pull together information requested by residents.

Michelle also invited Robin Whitehouse from Environmental Health, James Gedney, Parkguard and PC Christine Phillips, our local City of London police officer.

Firstly it is worth listing our open spaces, some of which are used by the public more often than others, however all of them are paid for out of our service charge:

 underground car park  the podium and steps (in front of Great Arthur House)  Hatfield lawn  children’s playground  children’s ball play area  Basterfield lawn  rotunda  pond area  sunken gardens area along Fann Street (Cuthbert Harrowing and Bowater)  courtyard of Cuthbert Harrowing (until recently occupied by site offices)  forecourt in front of estate office/Community Centre  triangle on Baltic Street West

There were two quite clear themes that emerged during the session:

 firstly: public use of Golden Lane Estate, it’s impact (anti-social behaviour, additional costs for clearing up and maintenance) and likelihood of increased foot traffic and other public usage in the near future

 secondly: making sure all residents on the estate felt welcome to use the shared outdoor spaces; that they had priority ie children wanting to play football in the ball area over Fusion members and users.

It was felt that the anxieties caused by the first issue coloured the second, putting strain on neighbour interactions. Residents of Bayer who voluntarily attend to the pond area resented not being able to use the space themselves because of influx by non-residents including people using the area to exercise their dogs, smoke dope, make loud phone calls and have their lunch.

An additional impact on our community was expressed by one resident who reported that her son who was born on the estate would often be asked whether he lived here when hanging out in communal spaces.

As the Community Conversation was initially to discuss the resolution this report is going to separate out the two themes and focus on them separately with the

2

understanding that they are very much connected particularly in regard to neighbourliness across the estate.

Key communal areas that are being used by the public with negative impact on residents:

 Hatfield lawn  pond area  car park  Basterfield lawn  rotunda

However, almost all the shared spaces are being used by non-residents and groups of youths at times in anti-social ways: urinating, dope smoking, drinking in the children’s playground, including officer workers using the under 5 play area as a place to eat their lunch.

It should be noted that the rotunda was locked last summer and has only recently been unlocked. Last summer Basterfield lawn was also either locked or access limited because of concrete works; it is now unlocked but has a sign stating for resident use only.

Key Topics and Observations

Foot traffic: the original intent of Architects was for the estate to be permeable. Some residents were happy with the current levels of walk-through traffic but everyone was concerned about what the future may hold and wanted to know by just how much foot traffic was likely to increase. One resident was aware that Crossrail has used the estate in its pedestrian modelling as illustrated in a public document.

Non-pedestrian traffic: fast food deliveries riding their mopeds onto the estate along the walkways creating noise and additional wear and tear. One resident reported couriers hanging out and smoking dope, urinating in the bin shed area near Baltic Street. Despite signage, there is also an increasing number of cyclists riding through the estate, probably in a desire to avoid construction around Fann Street. Groups of teenagers from outside the estate riding through and sometimes stopping to ‘stake territory’ – call in food delivery, eat and then leave a huge amount of mess. Concerns were expressed about the impact on our younger residents.

Highways: why are Highways not paying for the walkways as they do in the Barbican? A Councillor contributed that the Highways position is that the walkways are in a state of disrepair and can’t be taken on until they are brought up to standard. Who should pay for this? The state of disrepair reflects the amount of non-resident use and perhaps the historic lack of general maintenance.

Filming: currently all official requests are refused. However, lots of filming takes place with no permission out of estate office hours. Whilst some residents recognised that the estate makes a fantastic background to photos, films etc there were serious concerns about some negative impacts. Attitudes of some of the film makers have been both rude and intimidating along the lines of, ‘This is a council estate - we don’t need permission, we can do what we like’. There were also reports of noise from audio playback and some anxiety provoking special effects – smoke flares etc

3

Littering: there was concern that there was an increased burden on Estate staff to clear up litter that is generated by visitors to the estate, particularly after lunch. Residents who live around the pond area reported regularly clearing up after ‘visitors’. The Estate Office explained the reasons behind removing the bins near to Hatfield lawn: once the office workers had dumped their food cartons, the crows would move in and empty the bin in seconds to locate any discarded food. It was felt that most ‘lunchers’ do take their rubbish with them, but a number do not.

Gates: there are gates to many of the entrances to the estate – why are they not in use? One resident reported that when the gates were first in place and used a court case was brought against the City to protect rights of way. Could specific areas within the estate, particularly the pond area be gated as per Basterfield lawn and the rotunda?

Respect: there was a general feeling that many visitors to the estate showed little respect or understanding that these open spaces are essentially our back gardens. It was generally felt that the current shabbiness of the estate contributed ie if the estate looked better cared for it would be better respected by non-residents and residents alike. There was a hope that bringing all the blocks up to the standard of GAH would be a big contributing factor. It was also felt that the signage was inadequate, looked old and needed a major rethink. However, it was felt unless there was some policing then any signs would continue to be ignored.

Vulnerability: a number of residents, particularly those on the ground floor expressed feeling vulnerable: one resident was keen that Basterfield should feel welcoming to all residents but was concerned about non-residents also using it and not having the same level of consideration, with additional concerns about private property going missing, or break ins. There were also reports that some residents felt unwilling to complain in case of repercussions along with concerns for safeguarding the children of the estate from drug related problems, county lines etc. This was also a stated concern at the February Community Conversation about anti-social behaviour.

Parkguard: James Gedney explained how he works across six estates in close communication with local police. He knows local youth and has established relationships. Many residents did not know that Parkguard is not a responsive service. It is patrolling only and hence why there is no universally available mobile number on which to contact James. One resident mentioned that Islington operates a responsive model. After the conversation one resident expressed welfare concerns – James usually works alone (occasionally with a dog). More info on Parkguard can be found on the website https://parkguard.co.uk/about/

Environmental Health: Robin Whitehouse explained that Environmental Health received between 10 and 20 noise complaints a year from Golden Lane Estate. They are generally noisy neighbour complaints and are investigated by street enforcement officers. After the meeting one resident questioned whether the number of reports cited included complaints about the noise from outside revellers at the Shakespeare pub and also noise from local construction. In general residents present felt the stated figures reflected a significant rate of under-reporting and all participants acknowledged that they themselves did not always report anti-social behaviour.

4

Moving Forward

Embracing Big Data There was a general consensus that residents could do more to report incidents of anti-social behaviour. Robin (Environmental Health), James (Parkguard), PC Phillips and Michelle (Estate Office) all stressed the importance of filing reports for each and every incident and to include the impact of the incident – anxiety, damage, litter etc.

Residents should not think of themselves as complainers or moaners but as data collectors. We are all now part of big data and the allocation of resources is often a number crunching exercise. Police officers are resourced to areas where there are regular reports of anti-social behaviour. All incidents serious or minor are useful to form the bigger picture, and hence influence allocation of police resources.

The Estate Office has created a new complaints form - hard copies can be picked up at the Estate Office or downloaded from the Golden Lane community website http://www.goldenlaneestate.org/page/estate-office

The Estate Office logs a daily report on the Streetwise ASB system which ‘is a web- based application that allows the City of London staff to monitor and track ASB and other breaches effectively. The system has been designed by frontline practitioners to ensure that Streetwise meets the needs of both residents and management in Housing. Streetwise is an important and effective way of tackling ASB as it ensures the steps of the Corporation’s ASB Policy is met and the application creates a trackable, system-generated and auditable timeline of actions completed.’

Next Community Conversation Participants agreed that there should be a further Community Conversation in September in the evening so as to include those with inflexible work commitments (this is now likely to be early/mid October). In order for this meeting to be productive residents would like the following information in advance:

 A legal definition of ‘private’ as it relates to the estate. Does it give the residents any rights?  Detailed breakdown of costs currently met by residents for the upkeep of the public accessible communal spaces and walkways  An explanation as to why the Highways department refuses to take over maintenance of the walkways?  Details of any pedestrian modelling for Colpai and Denizen. If none exists an explanation as to why modelling has not been undertaken.  Details of Crossrail pedestrian flow modelling. Should Crossrail be contributing to the cost of upkeep?  Details of any Crossrail risk assessment with regard prostitution, drugs etc?  Number of expected additional visitors to the area because of Culture Mile?  Background of the unused gates including original cost to residents. Details of any rights of access that we need to be aware of. If any, do they affect all access routes on to the estate? Does access need to be 24 hours?  What are the obstacles to internally gating particular parts of the estate like the pond area?  What are the current costs associated with Parkguard and what would be the cost implications of a responsive model as per Islington? What are the extent of Parkguard’s powers to deal with anti-social behaviour, what support is offered, details of working conditions etc?

5

PROGRESS OF RESOLUTION

The Resolution was discussed as agenda item 13b at the Community and Children’s Services Committee meeting Friday 12 July.

This is the initial response from the City to Members dated 1 July 2019:

 The City of London Corporation is investing over £25million in the maintenance and refurbishment of the homes on the Golden Lane Estate. Residents on the Golden Lane Estate have consistently told us that new windows and essential maintenance works are their top priority.  Previous investigations with the Department of Built Environment have estimated a cost of approximately 4.5 million in order to bring the walkways / pavements to a condition to allow them to transfer from the private to the public realm.  There is no funding identified to commission a study of pedestrian flows through the Golden Lane Estate.  If the works required to bring the walkways / pavements up to a standard to be adopted by the public realm are maintenance, then the costs will be service chargeable in the usual way.  If the works are enhancements, Members will need to identify additional funding or agree programmes to stop or delay to generate funding.  Members need to consider the costs and benefits of any proposals, inline line with agreed priorities.

At the meeting there was a general dissatisfaction expressed with the response.

Cllr Sue Pearson gave members a background to the wardmote resolution and why residents were so concerned, not just for now but for the future when we have 66 new families on the estate, the new school as a close neighbour and the Denizen with 99 new flats.

Cllr Fletcher said that planners now seemed to like permeability as they were asking for this when Mansell Street is redeveloped.

Cllr Harrower said that the content of the report was ‘variously irrelevant (what has replacing windows after years of neglect got to do with the status of the walkways?); doubtful (how was the figure for the upgrade arrived at?); and consists of several ways of saying that we don't have funds for any project and aren’t going to look for any. The tone is dismissive. This is not acceptable. In a democracy the Corporation should seek to implement the will of the electorate, not do what it thinks is good for them.’

Finally Alderman Graves said that he thought the report was inadequate and drew attention to the fact that had the estate been better maintained the costs and expenditure on the buildings may well have been less. He asked whether the high costs suggested by the Highways department also highlighted the lack of historic maintenance.

6

At this point Cllr Pearson put forward a motion

“The Director of Community and Children’s Services is asked to investigate the options, costs and impediments in relation to creating a more ‘private’ estate and the cost and implications of converting the major walkways through the estate into public pedestrian highways adopted and maintained by the highways department. This is to enable the residents of the estate make a reasoned choice on the way non-resident pedestrians are able to use the estate.”

It was agreed that the officers would report back, hopefully for the September meeting.

Legals  Rights of Way Act 1932  Byelaws made under section 12 of the City of London (various powers) Act 1967 – with respect to the City Walkways  1990 Environmental Act

A copy of the Rights of Way Act and the Byelaws can be viewed on the community website: http://www.goldenlaneestate.org/page/estate-office

7

NEIGHBOURLINESS

The second theme which surfaced initially centred around making our spaces more welcoming to all residents, particularly Basterfield lawn, but developed to also include ideas and thoughts on what we all could do to make our estate a better place to live and work, along with questions for future discussion.

Bastefield Lawn Earlier in July, ISG (contractor on the COLPAI development) donated some railway sleepers from the site. Basterfield residents were consulted with a view to putting the sleepers under the tree to offer a place to sit in shade as a pilot, being non- permanent and cost free. A concern was expressed about the possibility of the sleepers having been treated with creosote and the idea has been shelved.

Some other ideas have been proposed on creating a more inviting and friendly environment for neighbours to meet and enjoy, bearing in mind the concerns expressed by some Basterfield residents around privacy and potential noise, including a picnic / sports day in September.

1989: sports day on Basterfield lawn

Activities for Young People How do we provide additional activities for young people? How do we encourage and support resident volunteers to take the lead on arranging events for children and young adults? Possibly opportunities for time credits to be earned and used for resident led trips.

Reporting Incidents As well as making sure we report incidents ourselves we can encourage and help our neighbours to do same. There is also the potential for setting up a Neighbourhood Watch scheme on WhatsApp as per Middlesex Street estate.

There are very few reported incidents which implies the anti-social behaviour, noise nuisance is very low. Residents have a range of reporting options, including using the Noise App, reporting to the Estate Office (see form attached), Environmental Health or Police. Increasing reporting will evidence the need for more patrols by City Police and Parkguard.

8

Deliveries Some residents are adversely affected by late night / early morning deliveries on Fann Street. This is not something that can be dealt with by Environmental Health as businesses will have permission to deliver at these times. In a spirit of neighbourliness rather than policing, it was proposed that a Resident Charter be created alerting residents to certain activities that can negatively impact on neighbours in the hope we will take it upon ourselves to be more considerate.

Resident Responsibilities As mentioned earlier there were concerns about the additional work for Porters clearing up after visitors to the estate. The Estate Office has also suggested that improvements could be made within our own resident community by taking more ownership of our space:

 avoid out of hours noisy DIY work. Consented times are Monday to Saturday 8am - 6pm  keep communal areas clear of personal items/bikes/toys & excessive plants  individual Fire Escapes to be kept clear  avoid blocking chutes; take big items of rubbish down to the bin stores  leave recycling out on collection days only (Monday and Thursday)  no fly tipping  remind ourselves of resident responsibilities outlined in the leaflet available in the estate office be downloaded from www.goldenlaneestate.org/page/estate- office. It’s comprehensive and covers windows; common areas; balconies and fire escapes; estate grounds; conduct; recycling; rubbish; refuse chutes; noise; DIY and renovations; pets and lifts.

All of the above has an impact on the workload of the Porters and time which could be more proactively spent on their cleaning schedules as well as the additional time spent by the Estate team following up on those issues.

Thoughts and comments from the Community Conversation

9

USEFUL INFO AND REFERENCES

Contacting the Estate Office Open Monday to Friday 8am to 4pm (excluding bank holidays): 0207 253 2556.

Michelle Warman, Estate Manager: 07718 422476 [email protected]

Ian Dowsett, Estate Office [email protected]

Reporting Anti-Social Behaviour Police Contact Centre: 020 7601 2222 8am to 6pm. Outside these hours will automatically revert to Control Room (24 hrs)

Bishopsgate Police: 0207 601 2606 This is the front office number and depending on staffing levels calls will be answered 7am - 11pm. Otherwise will revert to Control Room

Community Police: 0207 601 2452 7am – 9 pm. This is an operational unit so depends on staffing levels in office, whether officers are out on calls. If not answered answer machine will direct you to call Control Rom

City of London Noise Nuisance (Environmental Health): 020 7606 3030 24 hour response

Also see form attached to end of this document or download from website http://www.goldenlaneestate.org/page/estate-office https://bit.ly/2YUTvB0

Southwark Mediation The City of London have commissioned Southwark Mediation Centres services as a resource for residents related to working with Neighbour disputes, community consultations, and facilitating meetings with residents, community groups and The City of London. They can also be used as an alternative to the complaints’ procedure. You can contact the service directly in complete confidence or via your housing office if you prefer. Dave Walker, Director of Mediation: 07932 76 2001 / 020 7708 4959 [email protected]

Any thoughts? If you have anything you would like to add to the Conversation before the next meeting please email Michelle in the Estate office or Jacqueline on: [email protected] [email protected]

10

Previous GLERA Community Conversations Below the reports from the most recent GLERA conversations as can be found on the community website. Many of the discussions, ideas and insights (but not all) are relevant to the current conversation about our open spaces and the public/ private nature of our estate.

Future Ideas: 1 December 2018 Thank you to everyone who participated in the GLERA conversation downstairs at the Community Centre on Saturday. As a follow up we would like more ideas so please post them below. We are looking for ideas for the future of the Estate in the next ten years. Below are some possible topics but we would like to hear anything that you can think of 1. Estate Management Should the Estate be managed by the Housing Department as at present, by a Tenant Management Organisation where Residents would have more control or become part of the Barbican Estate? 2. Open Spaces. Should the walkways continue to be called private or should they become public highways like the Barbican? The Estate is shown as a route on Crossrail pedestrian plans and when it opens we can expect a big rise in footfall. Should this be controlled? Barbican walkways are classed as public highways and are maintained by the City Highways Department. Is this good or bad? 3. Green Spaces. Are there enough? Are they well maintained? Any ideas for improvements? 4. Estate Renovations. Are you happy with the works so far? Is there anything else that needs doing? 5. There are big developments going on around the Estate. Do you think that: The new Richard Cloudesly development should become part of the Estate?

Tim Godsmark Chair of GLERA

Community Safety and Anti-Social Behaviour: 27 February 2019

Notes from the GLERA ‘Community Conversation’ This is a new format for the Golden Lane Estate Resident’s Association where we will be discussing matters that concern residents living on the Estate. The first of these conversations was centred around community safety and anti social behaviour in and around the local area. We live in an area where at different times of the day we have people coming in from all other areas for different reasons and this creates opportunities for uncertainty and every now and then we encounter crime and anti social behaviour which can leave us feeling unsafe and at times intimidated and vulnerable.

This evening’s guest speakers were Inspector Pete Lucas of the City of London Police, standing in for Christine Phillips our community officer and David Mackintosh, Head of Community Safety at the City of London Corporation. Jason Pritchard, who is a Common Councillor for the Portsoken Ward and a resident of Middlesex Street, came along to tell us about some of their experiences and to talk about the

11

neighbourhood watch scheme they are piloting over on his Estate. Also present were two of Cripplegate’s Common Councillors, Mary Duncan and Will Pimlott.

Issues that arose which were put to the conversation by residents included safely on the Estate and how it is monitored and managed, rough sleepers in particular around Barbican Station which then lead into our vicinity, the impact it has on youngsters living on the Estate having to witness drug taking and paraphernalia left behind, the upcoming new build of the YMCA and how that will be managed, filming on the Estate in large groups and the aesthetics of the Estate and why it is important for the Corporation to maintain the upkeep and presentation.

Inspector Pete Lucas discussed the importance of reporting crimes to the police no matter how small either by dialling 101 or in more extreme cases calling 999. The view from the police is that they need to be made aware of certain undertakings then they are in a better position to allocate officers in these areas or at these particular times. If unreported then the provision of staff will be positioned in areas where they have had reports. He was also able to confirm that knife crime generally was not an issue in this area but was well aware of the borough boundaries in close proximity. He confirmed that nationally moped crimes had gone down dramatically in the last six months.

David Mackintosh gave some useful feedback on the work he does around co- ordinating the different bodies involved in creating a safer community. He spoke about the need for drug rehabilitation programmes and wider drug education.

Jason Pritchard spoke about the high levels of drug use around the Middlesex Street Estate and how residents were tackling ways to keep themselves safe and the need for the Corporation to be quicker in responding to ‘fixing’ communal areas where, say, a door entry system may have broken. They have started up a neighbourhood watch scheme which is the first of its kind on any Corporation Estate. And in particular communication is done via a WatsApp group where residents can share information if they have spotted something that has taken place or need information on what to do. It also acts as a look out for their neighbours particularly those that are vulnerable or in need of support. Whilst WattsApp is not available to all residents as you need to have a smart phone to download the App, it is one way of communicating and keeping in touch as well as holding regular get togethers for those that prefer to do so.

Everyone who attended found the session useful and liked the new format. Some suggestions which came from the session going forward are communication with the Corporation regarding community outreach especially with regard to youth provision, children and youth services, use of the communal areas by members of the public, crime prevention - root causes, the Estate Office, repairs and a follow up on what was discussed on this occasion. We would of course welcome any additional ideas. These can be sent to [email protected]

12

GOLDEN LANE ESTATE REPORTING ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Name: Address:

Phone/Email: Date (of incident): Incident:

Impact:

Time(of incident):

Contact Numbers to Report Anti-Social Behaviour: Golden Lane Estate Office: 0207 253 2556 Bishopsgate Police: 0207 601 2606 Community Police: 0207 601 2452 City of London Noise Nuisance: 020 7606 3030

*Please note: Any disclosed information will be treated as confidential, information provided will be logged onto the Streetwise ASB system. We may contact you in the future if more information is required.

About Streetwise:

Streetwise ASB is a web-based application that allows City of London staff to

monitor and track ASB and other breaches effectively. The system has been designed by frontline practitioners to ensure that Streetwise meets the needs of both residents and management in Housing. Streetwise is an important and

effective way of tackling ASB as it ensures the steps of the Corporation’s ASB Policy is met and the application creates a trackable, system- generated and auditable timeline of actions completed.

Further information and s upporting photos as evidence of ASB can be sent to [email protected]

Please return the completed form to the Estate Office. An officer will then be assigned to the case.

STANDARD ASB PROCEDURE FLOWCHART

Report of ASB received

High Risk Moderate Risk Low or No Risk within 3 within 5 same day working days working days

Notify Estate Manager, Open case and Open case and open case and acknowledge acknowledge acknowledge

within 1 working day

Interview complainant, Interview complainant, Interview complainant, review risk assessment and review risk assessment and review risk assessment and action plan action plan action plan

within 10 within 5 within 10 working days working days working days

Interview perpetrator and Interview perpetrator and Interview perpetrator and witnesses witnesses witnesses

Gather further evidence, e.g. photos

Continue to resolve without legal action

Attend court as witness Legal action required? ? (Optional) ? Close case and send closure letter