Notice Board 2003
All opinions expressed on this site are those of their respective authors.
They are not necessarily those of the organiser of this site.
To post your message fill in the form on the bottom of this page
Notes on the Augustus Close Blocks Meeting, Sunday 16th November 2003
We met in the Residents Clubroom at 11am. There were 11 present including me, representing 9 properties in all. This is not a formal minute, so I'm not recording who was there, apologies etc. but I will mention and welcome Tom Flavin and Valerie Smith, new neighbours at No 29.
We began with a brief review of actions from the previous meeting on June 16th. Most had been completed. We still await clarification of the very large rise in Admin expenditure shown in the annual accounts over the last 6 years.
Pinnacle Psg obtained a quote for painting the Block 10 (7-24 Augustus) roof with solar reflective paint. There appears to be a typo in the information I have. On the assumption that the figure of £320 should actually be £3200, I considered the estimate to be very reasonable and would like to have the work put in hand at some point next spring.
There had been general unhappiness in June about the state of the gardens. This roughly coincided with Pinnacle Psg taking on an additional staff member for the summer, an event which needs to be repeated next year, but in early April rather than mid-summer. I had reviewed the gardens aspect of the Pinnacle Psg contract. It is very short and non-specific but does include provision for local guidelines. Such guidelines were not in place. Consequently I have done work with the Board and with Pinnacle Psg such that we now have a formal policy... or nearly so. In fact the policy is presently in a sort of limbo where it is to some extent in effect, yet has not been formally endorsed at Board. Still, some real progress has been made.
Independent from the gardens policy, the Tree program has been going ahead well. There is now a full catalogue of the 262 trees on the Dock, with their state of health etc. The autumn program has just completed, with a lot of pruning and taking out of dead stock. A limited amount of re-planting is imminent. This leaves the question of how we manage excess growth and obscured views. Personally I'd like to see a good few trees be severely lopped or come down altogether. Several residents have asked for specific trees to be removed or severely cut back. I am not empowered to issue orders to Pinnacle Psg on this or indeed any other matter. What I will be doing is working with the Board to try to establish a set of ground rules which could enable some of these works to be done.
Ivy
There had been some correspondence about ivy growing up around the SE elevation of Block 11. Some of the growth at least is potentially damaging albeit visually attractive. Any eventual repairs would be a cost to the Block as a whole.
Action: Anthony to communicate with the relevant owners and try to agree some actions to contain/eliminate the problem.
Digital/Satellite TV
A document showing the costs and timescales for the TV upgrade was handed out. The unit cost quoted by SCCI is pretty high at approximately £450 per property. Mark Dibblin of Pinnacle Psg has tried in vain to obtain competitive quotes. I assume this is because any prospective supplier will have quickly realised the strength of SCCI as the incumbent operator, and drawn the obvious conclusion that an invitation to quote was really no more than a token gesture.
One shareholder had gone to some trouble to investigate options for private provision. In the end the situation was too complex and they had decided not to proceed. In addition, I had personally arranged a signal test and explored options for my own property. I would need a largish external aerial in plain view, and the cost, including both satellite and digital provision, was in fact not far short of the SCCI quote.
Really, there is no alternative to proceeding with the works. The Estate analogue system must sooner or later be shut down. The non-availability of satellite and digital services must in some cases be a barrier to prospective purchasers and depress property values. Besides which some shareholders are keen to have these services for themselves. Whereas the expenditure is budgeted within the current charges for Blocks 10 and 11, no thought appears has been given to the charging of Block 9, the Town Houses. I shall be taking this forward with the owners.
There was discussion of the proposed cable runs and the prospect of them being passed down through the garages. This met with strong disapproval from several of us. There was a strong preference that the cabling to be white and led down the plastic cladding and into the living rooms adjacent to the existing TV points.
There will be a Section 20 notice to all shareholders regarding these works. The works are budgeted for this year.
Action: Anthony to write to Pinnacle Psg insisting that a proper cabling plan is produced taking account of these concerns.
Web Site
Several people saw the web site proposal as an utter waste of money which offered no benefits to themselves. I supported the web site proposal. The system will help us improve communication with the ever increasing number of residents who are web enabled at very low marginal cost. The implementation will also be of great help to the running of BDL. Board records, company policies and so on are mostly held in paper form, and it can take days of sifting through mountains of paper to establish the facts about particular issues that come up at Board. I said I regarded the present situation as pre-historic!
Why we had not sought free or low-cost help from resident experts? Well, I had personally had dialogue with two such people. In the end neither of them came up with the sort of concrete proposal that was needed. There are issues beyond the initial. building of the site, such as hosting and content update. These need to be managed in a business-like way, and I consider the present deal is good value.
Why had we not used Pinnacle Psg? Because their offering was felt to be too restrictive and did not give us direct control over content and updating.
Repairs to Risers, Block 11
The risers are the step facings. A quote of £1151 for this work had been received. Pinnacle Psg are reluctant to put the work in hand due to the small remaining funds in this year's budget. I can see no reason why the work should not be charged against reserves and shall press for this to be done.
Action: Anthony to press Pinnacle Psg to act soon.
Marina Club
This year the Board have worked through the long and painful process of achieving agreement that the club should be opened to the public and let to a commercial operator. During the summer there was a realisation that we are sitting on a vast amount of un-utilised or under-utilised space which is deteriorating physically and eventually will suck up considerable funds. The Lockside warehouse and the Marina Warehouse are the two biggest and least used spaces. The Residents' Clubroom is under-used. The "Directors Room" (Estate Laundry on the Lease plan) obliquely across from the shop with the Company Archive behind it is another under-used space, as is the ground floor level under the Management Office, and a large area of the shop premises.
The Marina club will therefore remain closed whilst we make a serious effort to explore options for re-allocating functions to different spaces, and producing some high-quality facilities funded by a capital gain from the re-development of part of the premises possibly as flats. This will not take forever. We are committed to an early resolution of the issues and putting a concrete plan before the shareholders in a scale of months, not years. We are having lots of extra Board Meetings to push this forward. We may not be able to come up with a plan, and in that case I shall be pressing for the existing premises to be let on the basis earlier agreed.
Residents have made loads of suggestions about gyms, swimming pools etc. I am told the results of a survey a couple of years back showed that the interest in anyone of these ideas was very low. So we move on.
Survey on Directorships
The belated issue of the survey promised for April had brought no joy to those present. There was dissatisfaction at the fact that anonymity was not visibly guaranteed because the return process involved the Management Office. Doubts were expressed about the possible value of the survey given its cost, and about the likely response levels. We await the results.
Block 10: Front Triangles
I raised this just to inform myself. From what I gathered at the meeting, the front triangles are actually the property of the downstairs maisonette in each pair and any gardening in the triangle is the responsibility of the owner. Please correct me if I've got this wrong.
AGM/Board
The AGM will again be in January rather than sooner. Initially I was urging that the accounts be published by August, and indeed we had draft accounts by that time. I just do not yet understand why the audit process takes so long, this being my first year on the Board. I nevertheless feel very frustrated by the delays. I do understand that the current delay revolves around the BDLS accounts. We expect the Accountant to be at the December Board meeting.
There was a feeling that it was important the budget meeting be held before the budget is set. I pointed out that we discussed the 10 year program in June, and would do so again. This is the major "optional" input to the budget. The day-to-day operating budget is fixed by the Pinnacle Psg contract which has another full year to run. That contract contains costs within levels of inflation. As a matter of history, I believe the budget meetings were always presentations of, rather than consultations about, the budget.
Other Matters
We discussed staffing levels and concerns that there is currently only one maintenance man and no security man during office hours. The fact is that Pinnacle Psg are contracted to provide a service, not a number of heads. If there is no maintenance man available the work must be subcontracted, at no cost to BDL. If Pinnacle Psg can run the daytime security services using office staff we should not be too worried. Pinnacle Psg do report to the Board monthly against a wide range of key performance indicators (KPIs) so there is some effective monitoring.
[A2]Harry the window cleaner is retiring. BDL do not have a formerly recommend alternative. However, Norma Nathan has found a good man through the recommendation of one of the office staff. He may be willing to take on more properties locally.
It was suggested BDL issue parking tickets for residents and their guests. This could help identify car dealers operating (probably illegally) on the streets.
It was suggested that pollarding, if done properly, can be an attractive way of limiting the size of trees while protecting their health.
The meeting ended about 1215.
Anthony Warren
3 Augustus Close
020 8568 6230
Augustus Close
Proposal for Communal Digital Integrated Reception System
A quotation has been received from SCCI to provide Sky digital, Freeview & analogue television and radio channels to 3-6, 7-24 & 25-38 Augustus Close — (another company declined to quote).
Reception Equipment
It is proposed to site the terrestrial aerial and satellite dish on the roof of block 7 - 24.
Electrical Supply
The system will require a new electrical supply. We are currently awaiting an inspection from Scottish & Southern to site and quote for a new electrical source. It is envisaged that cabling between blocks will be run under paving.
Individual Cabling
This is likely to be routed up and through garage areas. However feedback on preferred options is requested which will be followed by a further site inspection with the proposed contractor.
Budget
The initial quotation from SCCI inclusive of VAT is £14,041 (allowing for a provisional estimate of £2,000 for the electrical supply) this equates to an approximate charge of £450 per property.
Within the 2003/4 budget the following provisions have been made:
Block 10: (7 - 24) £7,000
Block 11: (25 - 38) £5,445
Outline timescales
2 weeks - Quotation for Electrical supply
5 weeks - Section 20 consultation notice
4 weeks - Lead in period
4 weeks - Works and commissioning
Mark Dibblin
Pinnacle Psg.
14.11.03
"New residents' website?" I think not. We already have a fully comprehensive website, run and maintained without motive (or charge) by Neil O`Dwyer. This is another ploy to wrest the voice from residents, methinks.
Talk of £5000 plus maintenance cost is absurd. Neil has built a great website and, more importantly, is an independant operator who cannot be dictated to.
The only "transparency" the board refers to is being able to see through their every scheme to wrest any kind of unity from the residents. Keep up the good work, Neil, it is appreciated!
Alan Cornish, Galba Court. Email: brentfordduck AT hotmail DOT com
Click Back to return.
IT / WiFi / Communications Expert Wanted
Steve Bullman, Romulus Court, wants someone to help him to get his two laptops to (wirelessly) talk to each other and the internet (broadband connection). He says he has tried for months, succeeded once - but doesn't know how - and can't repeat it. He will pay the going rate for help and guidance. email: bully AT newbully DOT plus DOT com
Click Back to return.
Lost Budgie
5 months old male, bald patch on back under wings, a little 'hair' on back of head (hence his name 'Mullet'). Blue/seagreen body, white and black head and wings, yellow face with yellow wing tips. Has a purple band which should note avairy in Wraysbury. Much loved and missed. If any information, email: clarelwillis AT msn DOT com
Click Back to return.
Bouquet For Ivan Topping, Pinnacle PSG
Ivan "Top Gun" Topping ... So, The Kelvin ... bird, man, star and babbling brook, is history. The rain has been delegated to the gardens, so we, and I, can shut up about Pinnacle's aversion to hosepipes ...
When it comes to life or screaming abdab situations, Pinnacle's Ivan Topping is our man. This week, what started as an annoying blocked sink, turned into a nightmare for this writer ... surrounded by plumbers telling me that my [very expensive] kitchen would have to be pulled apart to get to the main stack pipe, that it was "people like me" having "fancy" kitchens installed and installed "badly" that were causing all of the Dock's past and present plumbing/ad infinitum problems, that I, basically, was a piece of dirt, so Ivan Topping took complete charge, stopped them in their tracks, and ordered them to the roof ... where there was not, sadly, a plank.
The problem, after a great deal of noise from drilling down my [enamel/v.expensive] sink - which has suffered some damage - and down the stack pipe from the roof, which must have put the entire estate's teeth on edge ... was the stack pipe that was blocked from the top of the roof downwards ... with unidentifiable, thick black stuff - nothing, but nothing, to do with me or my "fancy" kitchen ... saved by Ivan, who was, I have to say, very kind and nothing short of heroic.
Ted, of 1st Call, deserves a mention in dispatches, for being not only one of our brave boys from the recent Wars, who could well be recalled - and I do hope not - but for being the leading "good" plumber! A very nice, clever lad. As for Ivan, he is, as he said, simply, to this blushing, guilty garden-obsessed resident, "there to help". I hope my sincere thanks to him were enough.
Kay F, Otho Court. Email: Kay F AT brentford-dock DOT net
Click Back to return.
Let The Kelvin Flow
Looking on the bright side, maybe The Kelvin will water our neglected,
dying gardens. Residents, themselves, are watering small areas and tubs with
cans and buckets - as we are obviously not paying Pinnacle PSG enough to bother
with even our hosepipes - let alone our sprinklers, not seen since the year
dot. So let The Kelvin flow...
Then with all our walls lined in Bacofoil to prevent hackers and crackers listening in to our computers, the rising water will make the Bacofoil short everything, taking the weeds, certain residents' rubbish-dump-gardens, and the pavements with it.
Then we can all have one big fat insurance pay-out party which should also cover the cost of a new hose-pipe, or, dare I say, a sprinkler, and even more daringly, the cost of one minute of staff's time to switch them on, and, of course, a second minute or two to switch them off.
Just keep rollin' along, Kelvin,
just keep rollin'.
Kay F, Otho Court. Email: Kay F AT brentford-dock DOT net
Click Back to return.
You are right to some extent that Wireless networks are not secure in that somebody within range of the transmitter (wireless router) can "eavesdrop" or even "piggy-back" (i.e., use the communication channel without paying for it). This is by design (has its advantages and disadvantages) in that multiple "legal and authorised" users can access the network from a single "wireless router".
To overcome this, "firewalls" are required to secure the network access so that only authorised users can use it. There are a number of products available, some freeware, others you pay for. Search for "firewalls" using any decent search engines. Also the ISP should be able to recommend the "firewall" software that is compatible with their system. I have used "Sygate" which is available as freeware as well as licensed. (Another one is Symantec Norton Firewall). The freeware is "use at your own risk" with no support or maintenance typically - which means that if your computer stops working after installing then "Tough" basically.
Another way is to ensure that the user (thorugh router configuration - ask the
ISP supplying the service) limits the number of "IP addresses" and
this get allocated and assigned in a "static" mode rather than "dynamic."
Another point that needs to be addressed with "wireless" is Virus protection as unless you install "firewall" protection someone could "hack" into your systems and do "naughty" things like downloading computer virus code onto your computer.
On the same note, there is a community of "wireless users" who freely make their networks connections available. They secure their personal computers using a "firewall" so that other "travelling wireless" users can use the service but can only get access to "open and unsecured" areas which are typically controlled by the ISP (and this means the WWW internet sites).
I am not making any recommendations and use the guidance above for informational purpose only as every computer configuration is different (e.g. Windows 98, Windows NT/2000/XP, Linux, Apple Mac etc) and requires different products and configurations to make it work properly.
Hope this helps. Regards, Raj Vara. raj underscore vara AT hotmail DOT com
Click Back to return.
Sue's Helpful Tip to Thwart Worm Viruses
If a worm virus gets into your computer, it sends itself to everyone in your email address book, thus infecting all your friends and associates. This tip won't keep the virus from getting into your computer, but it will stop it from using your address book to spread itself further - and it will alert you to the fact that a worm virus has invaded your computer. Here's what to do:
- Open your Address Book and click New Contact just as you would
do if you were adding someone new to your list of email addresses.
- In the box where you would type your contact's first name, type !000
(that's an exclamation mark followed by 3 zeros). Leave the other name boxes
blank.
- In the box where you would enter your contact's email address, type WormAlert
- Click Add. You may see a message telling you that WormAlert
is not a valid email address and asking you if you still want to add this
address. If so, click Yes
- Click OK.
Here's what you've done and why it works:
The name !000 now appears at the top of your email address list. This is the first address a worm virus would find when it tried to send virus-infected emails to all of your friends. But because this (first) email address is invalid, it will be undeliverable, and the worm virus stops any further attempts to access your address book.
The Internet normally notifies you if an email cannot be delivered because of an invalid email address. The second advantage of this tip is that if you are notified that your email to "WormAlert" could not be delivered, you'll know immediately that your computer is infected by a worm virus.
You can then take the appropriate steps to get rid of it. Just knowing that you even have a virus is half the battle. This is a very helpful tip, so pass it on.
Sue Dickinson
Click Back
to return.
On Thursday 17th July 2003, Bob Hill received the following letter from the Management Office, dated 19th June 2003, in reply to his letter of 5th June 2003.
|
Mr Robert Hill 19/06/2003
Dear Mr Hill
Your letter 5 June 2003
Thank-you for your letter of June 5th detailing a number of issues. I am sorry for the delay in replying to you.
With regard to the tree-pruning programme, this has already taken place and twelve trees were pruned recently along Augustus Close opposite Galba Court. Nine were lifted to the regulation 5.2M. Further work is planned for these trees in the late Autumn (November).
I am sorry but I cannot accept your reasoning for withholding your Service Charge for the parking bay and must remind you that the charge is to be made in accordance with your lease.
I can confirm that Sue Green and I have looked at the area where you
park your car and we will arrange for chevrons to be painted in the access
area to help prevent unauthorised parking. Sue is currently in communication
with
I hope that this response answers your questions. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Ivan Topping Deputy Manager |
Bob Hill replied:
|
July 17 2003. Galba Court,
Ivan Topping,
Dear Mr Topping,
I am in receipt of a letter from you dated June 19 2003 which was delivered by hand today. It purports to be in answer to a letter I sent to Sue Green on June 5. Either the member of staff who delivered it had kept it in his pocket for four weeks or you have lost all account of time?
As the date at the top of my letter indicates, today is JULY 17. Is Ms Green unable to answer letters written to her? In answer to your plea that your letter answers my questions, of course it doesn't.
Why were 12 trees pruned along Augustus Close opposite Galba Court and none outside Galba Court as you and I discussed? Why are you planning further work for these trees this Autumn with no mention of cutting back the trees outside our windows?
I'm not asking you to accept my reasoning for withholding my service charge for my parking bay. It has nothing to do with you which is why I didn't write to you in the first place.
So at last you propose taking some action to discourage illegal parking in front of our parking bays. Painting chevrons might help, but when? If it takes four weeks to answer a letter how many will it take to Act?
Yours sincerely, Robert Hill |
More on The Marina Club Proposal
I have lived on the estate since 1979 and during this time the Clubhouse in
various guises has always been a problem. A five year lease is far too short
for any interested parties to invest the substantial capital to make the restaurant
a viable proposition able to attract the general public and estate residents.
The standard of the new Brentford restaurants is quite high and the Marina Club
will have to be exceptional to attract people to its out-of-the-way location.
Tony Moore, Numa Court. email: mrsmoore@BDRWmac.com
[Editor's Note: When replying by e-mail, remove the letters
BDRW from the address.]
Dear all,
This is the third message plus a leaflet in two days. Nothing wrong with that except that it is indicative of how difficult it is for people to make a sensible choice. Martin Stone's undated write-up has been circulated inviting the shareholders' views by 14 July. Not everyone knows that Mr Stone is a director and entitled to convey this recommendation - particularly given the fact that his ad hoc committee is now known to have disbanded itself over six months ago under not quite amicable feelings - or whether the usual and proper way would have been for this to be sent out by the chairman indicating that all this was based on a majority consensus within the board.
Given the long history of failures of the Marina operations - all based upon similar assurances that it will work this time, has naturally made people sceptic. Mr Stone's report doesn't really make much of case and naturally people want to ask questions or seek facts and clarification. Instead of waiting and letting people express their opinions or providing the information or reassurance that they quite rightly seek, they are being patronisingly told that "you really should take that as read", or being berated as nimbys, for living under the flight path and not liking everything else that may be thrown at them, or for worrying about the sleeve-less yobs and broken glass and the rest of it because one of the people they elected as director doesn't quite object to it.
What has to be recognised - and I say this in sincerity and without being a nimby, and the Marina is not really quite in my backyard - that it is not the fault of the people (who said: abolish the people since they are the ones who always make things difficult? ) if they are first asked to express their opinion on the basis of Mr Stone's recommendation presented as a consensus by the board, and then, soon after, sent so many contradictory views circulated by other directors, particularly by those who were themselves part of the ad hoc committee itself. Who or what should they believe?
Finally, I didn't really want to get into this as I have already sent in my comments to the office, but hope it helps. Yes it will be good to have an excellent residents' facility which works and adds value to life and property, but it seems doubtful whether the right conclusion will emerge from the exercise being now conducted.
Regards, Ayyub Malik, Julius Court
Malik@BDRWyyub.freeserve.co.uk
[Editor's Note: When replying by e-mail, remove the letters BDRW from the address.]
Ayyub Malik
Dip Arch ARIBA. Dip TP (PNL) Architect+Planner
Comments on Martin Stone's Note on the Marina Club Proposal
On the whole, no hard facts are given to make a convincing case or to enable the residents make an informed decision. The Report abounds in phrases such as:
Very careful consideration has been given to minimise the possibility of such disturbance: What does it really mean? Shouldn't the residents be told what these considerations were and what decision have been taken on their behalf and what impact these will have? How many visitors' cars / delivery vans etc will be expected and where will they park? How could sensible decisions be made without these facts?
… and will also impose a closing time no later than 11 pm (in normal circumstances): In practice 11 pm closing will mean that the restaurant staff will depart well past the midnight - has this been made clear to those who will be most effected? Have normal/abnormal circumstances been clearly defined, what are these and what times will apply?
The expectations is that the emphasis will be on the restaurant facility rather than the bar: Again not really clear: will there be a bar for residents and for how many, as this will effect the number of seats available for dining and the restaurant's profitability.
It is hoped that it will be a serious competitor to a limited range of restaurants in Brentford …: With so many developments under construction, many new restaurants are planned including in the shopping development across the pedestrian bridge near the residents club. There is a large new restaurant in the Waterman's Center with much better access and parking and equally good river views.
A 5 year lease will be carefully worded to ensure that our interest are taken into account without unnecessarily restricting the freedom of the new operator …: Who has decided 'our interest' and what are these, should not the residents be consulted and told?
… also there will be some form of take/away/home delivery/home catering provision: What will this mean in term of additional traffic, noisy and often dangerously driven scooters and security?
… the delay reflects very careful detailed considerations of all issues involved: What are these issues, and shouldn't these be made available to the residents?
And further:
1. Ad hoc Committee: It will be helpful to spell out the composition of the ad hoc committee (which it seems was dissolved as early as January this year!) and the experience/qualification of its members to make this recommendation, particularly in view of the long history of failures of the Marina Club operations. Are their people in the committee who live in the blocks adjacent to the Marina?
2. Feasibility: Are the proposals based on any market research and feasibility: how much will be spent to create the 'attractive bar/restaurant'; what is proposed internally and externally and for the uninviting back-of-no-where entrance at the rear; how many minimum covers will be needed and what size of bar this will leave for the residents; will the operation include breakfasts/coffees in the morning? No commercial viability decisions are ever made without these facts.
It is clear that the very location of the Marina Club and its access through the housing estate and the depressing entrance in the rear poses serious drawbacks for its operation as a public restaurant. Regardless of what conditions are imposed, the operation of such a restaurant in this location is bound to create serious problems not only for the operator itself but also for the residents in terms parking, noise and general security on the estate. It is therefore vital that before the lease is signed, hard facts are obtained from the operators(s) and in some form made available to the residents - perhaps through a general meeting.
Given the fact that despite many efforts over the years to run the Marina - and every time the residents have been assured that it will work this time - it has not even attracted sufficient numbers from 600 flats on the state to make it economically viable. It is still not too late to step back and have a fresh think.
What about, for instance, converting the present residents' club and the adjacent flat in to the restaurant/bar? The location here will be able to draw trade from the shopping development across the Brent River soon to become the new center of commercial gravity in Brentford. The restaurant itself will have far greater visibility and outside customers will be able to park in the new development and walk across the pedestrian bridge. There is ample opportunity for seating outside and adjacent to water. There will be less noise and security problems as all servicing and traffic will stop at the entrance end thus cause far less disturbance. And given the already existing services in the club, it shouldn't cost any more. There is much more opportunity to run a successful restaurant in this location than anything that can reasonably be done with the Marina and its surroundings environment.
The activities which take place in the present club room can be moved over and enhanced in the vacated Marina space thus providing the residents' facilities in the middle of the estate and the restaurant with public access at the edge of it - so very practical and commercially much more viable!
On the whole such an approach not only makes eminent business sense for the success of the restaurant, it also removes many of the residents' concerns on the subject. If all this doesn't make sense to those thinking about saving the residents' facility, nothing will.
Ayyub Malik, Julius Court
Email: Malik@BDRWyyub.freeserve.co.uk
[Editor's Note: When replying by e-mail, remove the letters BDRW from the address.]
It is very interesting to read that two directors on the Board of Brentford Dock Ltd have stated that the alternative to a public restaurant at the Marina Clubhouse is a block of flats! Beware. Stupid ideas often become viable realities. How sad, a Board with no restaurant entreprenurial skills deciding our Estates future. A previous Board proposed making it a waterside motel! Who rememembers that fiasco? Tony Moore, Numa Court email: BDRWmrsmoore@mac.com
[Editor's Note: When replying by e-mail, remove the letters BDRW from the address.]
Marina Club - Letter from N Blady
Dear Numa Resident
The Marina Club
I had not intended to write round to all of you concerning the Marina club proposal in the hope that the circular was more or less self-explanatory, but two of you have taken the trouble to voice concerns to me personally and I have come to the conclusion that a note from me to all of you might not come amiss.
I would like to make it clear at the outset that I am very much in favour of the proposal. As I mentioned to you before, I chaired the ad hoc committee that was formed last November to look into the various alternatives. The present proposal represents, in our view, the best possible alternative available. Not only the ad hoc committee but also the board have spent a considerable amount of time discussing the various alternative possibilities and considering the advantages and disadvantages of all them so far as the residents are concerned.
You can be sure that a variety of views are represented on the board and every single board member is committed to looking after the interests of not only the residents of his own block but also the residents as a whole. I hope that all of you will also readily be able to see the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal but I thought I should write to let you know my views concerning the two principal concerns, namely those of noise and parking.
It is the definite intention of the board, and the prospective lessee of the premises has been selected accordingly, that the primary function of the premises will be that of a restaurant. It is not the intention that it will be a bar with food served as an afterthought. It is the intention that it be primarily a restaurant with a facility to enable people to have a drink without eating. To a large extent this is likely to be market-driven in that there is a considerably higher profit margin in food than there is in alcohol sales.
Good restaurants are invariably quiet places. If you walk past almost any modern bar/restaurant you will find that you simply cannot hear what is going on inside from the street outside. There may be some gentle background music inside but it will naturally be limited to a level which enables people eating to talk to each other without raising their voices. This effect will be reinforced by covenants in the lease restricting amplified live music and prohibiting amplified music on the terrace altogether, apart perhaps from on very occasional special occasions which may be permitted by the board.
Opening hours will also be restricted. Anyone wanting to set up a noisy bar/restaurant is unlikely to choose Brentford Dock as a venue for the very simple reason that it is a residential neighbourhood and all the neighbours would be hostile. Most clubs and pubs that have loud music use it as a specific attraction for young people to whom eating is a low priority. The club premises and its location would be most unsuitable for any such enterprise. Again, for that reason, it is commercially highly unlikely that, having regard to the restrictions proposed in the lease, it could possibly degenerate into a noisy establishment with a rowdy clientele. For these reasons I feel very confident that noise will not be a problem.
It cannot be denied that parking on the Dock as a whole is a considerable problem. The simple fact is that it is almost impossible to get a parking space on street in the Dock after 6 pm. There are often parking spaces available at lunchtime, so that will not be a problem, but equally it is not going to make it any more difficult to park for any resident who gets here after about 6 pm because that is virtually impossible already. People would be unlikely to drive here to eat in the evening before 7.30 pm. Restaurants generate business by reputation. There can be no doubt that the proposed restaurant will immediately acquire a reputation for parking being an impossibility. No one in their right mind will try to drive here in the hope of being able to park here and go to the restaurant.
It is thought likely, and certainly the proposed operator thinks it likely that the principle clientele will come not only from the Dock but also from the new residential developments nearby such as Ferry Quays and Brentford Lock. Those developments lack the superb landscaping and river walks of the Dock and it is thought likely that many residents will like to walk round here to have a meal overlooking the Marina and the river. If anyone does want to drive from further away then it is perhaps likely that they will swiftly learn that it is possible to park in Somerfield's car park and walk across Dock road. For these reasons we feel that it is unlikely that a new parking problem will be generated, or the existing problem materially exacerbated by the proposed restaurant/bar.
I feel very strongly that we need to look at the positive benefits to be derived. The simple fact is that large residential developments these days are invariably planned and built with a number of bars and restaurants to provide an amenity to the residents. I believe that a good restaurant/bar is a considerable amenity and that to have such an amenity on the Dock is in the interests of the residents as a whole. Many flats on the Dock are small and sitting more than four people down to eat is not easy. In an increasingly affluent society, people like to be able to go out to eat more these days and given the drink/driving laws it is highly desirable to be able to walk to a good restaurant.
The importance of a restaurant/bar as a social meeting place should also not be underestimated. The existence of a facility where residents can hold wedding receptions, birthday parties and other such special occasions is a considerable advantage. I think it would be folly for this community to voluntary lose this type of social facility. I firmly believe that without such an amenity, Brentford Dock will come to be regarded as lacking in such amenities, certainly compared to almost every other modem residential development, which may have a seriously adverse effect on our property values.
The only alternatives are, in truth, unpalatable. There is simply no prospect of reviving it as a members club. It is not viable. It makes no sense to use premises with such good views as a fitness club/gym. I personally doubt whether such an enterprise would be financially viable anyway but it remains a possibility that the board will be considering for the Marina workshop building, which is at present seriously underused. The only sensible alternative, in my view, would be to redevelop the whole building, probably by knocking it down and building the biggest block of flats possible on the site in order to generate the maximum return for shareholders. I question whether we in Numa would prefer that alternative, for visual reasons.
In summary I feel that that the perceived objections lack real substance and, on the contrary, the potential benefits are substantial. It may be that you will have received circulars from vociferous objectors. I consider that all the other issues they have raised are unnecessarily alarmist, and I trust that you will perceive them as such. They suggest no viable alternatives. Nevertheless, if there is any other issue that you would like me to discuss with you, please do not hesitate to contact me.
I strongly urge you to return the form giving your approval to the proposal. I have a very nasty feeling that the very small group of objectors has made an effort to get as many people as possible to return their forms. Unless the rest of us make our voices heard there may be a serious risk that this proposal will die of apathy. In my view that would be a tragedy for the Dock. Please return your form giving your approval.
Yours truly
N Blady, Numa Court
Marina Club - Letter from Martin Stone
From Martin Stone,
84, Otho Court, Augustus Close, Brentford, TW8 8PZ
Tel 020 8847 2948. Email; martinistone@BDRWonetel.net.
uk
MARINA CLUB QUESTIONNAIRE
To all Otho Court residents who have not yet returned their green slips to
the office
I am writing to you to answer some of the questions and concerns, which other residents have expressed about the Boards proposals to set up the Marina Club premises as a bar/restaurant.
We don't want outsiders on our estate. They could
cause trouble and be noisy thus disturbing Dock residents.
From past experience, it is clear that anyone running the Club needs off-Dock
customers to create a viable business. Any promotion of the bar/restaurant is
likely to be directed at the new neighbouring estates; Brentford Lock and Ferry
quays. Even this amount of promotion will not start until the new operator has
established his business among Dock residents. There is no reason to believe
that customers from these new developments will be any rowdier than any of our
own residents.
There are plenty of local bars. Why do we need
one on the Dock? This could encourage drunkenness and vandalism.
This new facility in the former Marina Club premises is essentially a place
to eat. It is definitely not a pub. Like at many quality restaurants there will
be a bar on the same premises Those people not wanting a full meal will be able
to order snacks to eat at bar tables. However, the facility is also intended
as a place where Dock residents can meet their friends for a drink.
There are few parking spaces available in the evening.
Where would visitors park?
There are few restaurants that have their own car parks. However both Brentford
Lock and Ferry Quays are within easy walking distance of the new restaurant.
Customers who insist on coming by car will soon realize that there are no empty
spaces to park a car here. They will be encouraged to park elsewhere in the
town.
We don't need any kind of social facility on the
Dock. Residents wanting to eat out will have several restaurants they can visit
in Brentford.
This is a narrow point of view. However, even those people who oppose such
a facility and don't see a need for a social focus for our community may recognize
that it adds value to our homes. To many intending purchasers, it is an added
attraction. For many people mooring their boats in the Marina, it is one of
the main attractions of renting here. To be able to eat and drink and to have
a clean-up in an attractive and welcoming place close to your boat puts our
Marina close to the head of competition.
Why should a restaurant here be successful against
local competition?
Many of the nearby restaurants have ethnic cuisines. Ours is likely to be
English/European. How many local restaurants can offer anything remotely comparable
to the views from our premises (trees, boats and the River Thames)?
You say that the preferred operator will offer
home catering and take-sways. Is there any demand for this?
From observation, it is clear that a number of Dock residents do order home-delivery
meals regularly. Many people living here lead busy working lives and have little
time for cooking when they return from work. For those people, the option of
having a freshly cooked meal delivered to their homes direct from the Marina
Club kitchen, would be a very useful facility. They may, occasionally like to
eat in the Club thus adding to the "buzz" of the atmosphere there.
We rarely went there in the old days. Apart from
the usual clique of drinkers, few people patronized the place. We like to go
to restaurants, which are popular and professionally run. What will be different
now?
The preferred operator has run and set up a number of restaurants. He has
£30,000 available to invest in refurbishment. This will not be his private
hobby but his "bread and butter". He will want it to succeed and we
should support the venture in our own interests.
If the Marina Club is not reconstituted as a bar/restaurant,
what other options are there? Could the premises be converted into a gym or
swimming pool or private housing?
There is no money available from Brentford Dock Ltd. for any such schemes.
The site could be sold to a developer who would (naturally) seek to maximize
his profit with a scheme such as building private flats. A leisure facility
would not be viable as an investment. We would make a quick and one-off gain
and lose forever the existing premises, which, at present, constitute the physical
"heart" of our "village". At present, with the premises
lying idle, we are spending a large sum on outgoings such as Business Rates
(over £350 a month), water, electricity, insurance and maintenance. It
is imperative that the premises are let a.s.a.p. Thereafter the new proprietor
will pay all the outgoings as well as pay us about £8,000 rent a year.
You may like to know that the Board of B.D.E.L. are actively considering options for the Marina warehouse, and there will be full consultation with residents and shareholders on possible developments of this vacant building.
I urge you to complete your official green form now in support of the Board's proposals and deliver it to the office by Monday. (Pink forms that you may have received have not come from the Company and have no validity). Lets not let this exciting project die of apathy, defeated by pessimists and negativism.
Yours sincerely
Martin Stone
Marina Club - Re Letters from Anthony Warren and Nick Blandy
Regarding the recent online letter to residents from Anthony Warren:
- He refers to those who have expressed concerns about opening a restaurant-bar
as NIMBYs; this reference is an undignified (or perhaps unconscious) attempt
to characterize them as hysterical, unreasonable and unworthy of consideration.
- He refers to their description of the potential problems as "Tabloid
Journal Pictures"; again, a trick used by spin doctors to veil the value
of the concerns. He again refers to their justifiable concern that unacceptable
elements may be attracted to Brentford Dock as "Public Invasion".
NO, these are real concerns and need to be addressed, not denigrated.
- He says that concerns about noise is undermined by being already under the
flight path, as if to say that if we still live here with that abuse, then
we have no right to object to more, and finally,
- He says their concerns are "Absurd and Scaremongering". I have read the concerns of those who oppose or may yet oppose the restaurant-bar, and I have only seen thoughtful, mature and measured arguments that we all should take seriously.
Regarding the written letter distributed to residents by N Blady on July 11:
Mr Blady's letter was a definite improvement, offering a more persuasive argument in favor of a restaurant-bar, but even so, much of his argument is liberally sprinkled with expectations that he cannot guarantee will become reality.
After all, this is my home, and for that I want guarantees; nothing less will do.
And finally, his referral to "the very small group of objectors" is, I would venture to say, impossible to prove without a public meeting....the final public meeting!
Respectfully, Jeff Birnberg, July 2003. email: pearmtn@BDRWyahoo.com
[Editor's Note: When replying by e-mail, remove the letters BDRW from the address.]
These are my personal opinions.
Well, the Not-in-My-Back-Yarders (NIMBYs) are certainly out in force. Meanwhile
one of the candidates for tenure of the Marina Restaurant is conducting a public
campaign to get support for his application for the premises carried by popular
acclaim. As part of this he is disparaging BDL writing publicly "I have
been messed around by this ad hoc, fast dwindling committee for seven months
now, and have just about lost patience". Not a happy start.
In drafting his letter opening the survey, Martin Stone was faced with the conflicting
needs of keeping his communication short, and conveying the core information.
Apart from the NIMBY fringe (more about them later) this has left a good few
people simply wanting to know more about the proposed lessee. They have very
legitimate worries which are shared by all BDL Board members. We have not brought
forward this proposal lightly, nor without thought.
To put it simply, the BDL Board has all along had its attention focussed on
all of the issues which respondents have raised as serious concerns. In this
we all agree. The many applications have been sifted and interviews held. Much
weight has been given to the candidates' statements about what sort of ambience
they planned to create, how they would control the undesirables, how they would
manage noise and car-parking etc etc. You really should take that as read. Whatever
lessee we end up with will certainly 1) have made all the right noises on these
core issues, but more importantly 2) will have a lease set about with many restrictions.
A few more facts and my personal opinions to put into the equation. First, the
Marina Club has never (as far as I know) been run as a proper member's club.
In 20 years of sporadic (sometime frequent) attendance I have never seen a tenant
turn away a well-mannered client with cash in hand... and there have been a
good few! The original commercial lease held effect until BDL took over the
premises about 5 years ago. That lease allowed for up to 600 members, who could
be drawn from off-dock if numbers were not filled by on-dock. In reality that
would likely have meant 450 off-dockers, if only the club had been run more
successfully.... so, we're not really making much of a change in practice, just
acknowledging some commercial realities... in particular the fact that the not-really-a-club
club has never been very successful, and recently has been a serious loss-maker.
Be they users or not, all Shareholders have a right to expect some income from
this facility.
Second, and this re-iterates what I said above, the opening to the public does
not imply we are going to have a yobbos pub. Quite the reverse: we want a decent
establishment where decent people, mostly dockers, will want to go and enjoy
themselves. That is what BDL is trying very hard to achieve.
A couple of people are calling for public meetings. There was a public meeting
late last year, in which all views were sought. All-comers were free to attend,
or write in with their views. If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance...sorry,
you were asleep.
Now for the NIMBYs. I can write with authority here as I am the leading IMBY,
whether n or not. My back garden is adjacent to the Marina Club Patio (properly
called the Boat House Roof..... have a look at your lease.). The reality is
that I have much more to lose from the BDL proposal than any upper-floor Otho
balcony-sitter, or Nero resident. So I shall be vigilant about prospective tenants.
Do I like yobbos in sleeveless tee shirts swearing and drunken on my summer
evenings and weekend afternoons in the garden? No, I do not.
Do I like after hours carousers keeping me awake? No I do not.
Do I like finding broken glass in the grass behind my house? No I do not.
Do I like having a sad, run down, under-invested and under-used building next
door to me? No, I do not.
The NIMBYs use words like "quiet" about the Dock. They have chosen
to live directly under a main flight path into LHR. Perhaps what they mean is
lifeless.
The NIMBYs paint tabloid-journal pictures of criminal... or still worse, public..
invasion. This is absurd and naked scaremongering.
I will use my very best efforts to see the Marina Restaurant established as
a flourishing, profitable, and above all lively enhancement to our estate. It
ought to become the focal point of a seriously over-subscribed Marina. The Marina
can generate serious revenue, and the whole Estate can be transformed into something
for which the slogan "West London's Premier Riverside Development"
will be truth, not wishful thinking.
Anthony Warren,
July 2003.
BDL Director, Section 11 (what's this?? There's no such thing as a Block Director!)
I agree wholeheartedly with Elaine Rowe's concern and observations. Brentford Dock is a residential area and a damn fine one.
By allowing outsiders to control a significant aspect of our estate will lead to nothing but dire consequences. By allowing the public to "trespass" into Brentford Dock will lead to not only noise and disturbances, but to more crime - as there will be no way to tell who are residents and who are not.
The "bad elements" of society will find it easy to prowl around the estate looking for easy opportunities to commit car and house break-ins. Also, and without meaning any disrect to our mature residents, the older residents will suffer the most and will be most vulnerable to "undesirables frequenting our estate".
I think the Marina Club should be turned into our "community center". There is enough space to combine a gym and coffee / cafe /bar / restaurant - this is what most top fitness clubs have. The large patio area could be converted to have a roof to provide several other amenities for Dock residents.
This means that all sections of the Brentford Dock society can be catered for
(mums and kids, pensioners, teenagers, young adults, middle aged, etc.) and
can only lead to a stronger unified neighbourhood within our dock, and this
will ensure that Brentford Dock is where everyone wants to move to and live
- just as it is now!
Raj Vara, Numa Court, July 2003. email: raj_vara@BDRWhotmail.com
[Editor's Note: When replying by e-mail, remove the letters BDRW from the address.]
Marina Club Candidate Will Answer Any Questions
|
I am the only firm financial offer left in the running for the Marina Club. My name is Alan Cornish. I have been a resident and shareholder on the Dock for almost ten years.
I proposed to make the Marina Club for Dock residents and their guests only, with a tight door maintained by issuing free membership cards.
I put together the Riverside Brasserie at Bray Marina and have been in catering management for twenty seven years. The people on the Dock who know me will tell you that I'm not some fly-by-night, but a resident who has the know-how to produce something of which the residents of Brentford Dock can be proud.
Enough rhetoric. I have been messed around by this ad hoc, fast dwindling committee for seven months now, and have just about lost patience. I will be happy to answer any questions you have on this subject.
Email: grosvenor9@BDRWhotmail.com
or call 0786 7983094. |
[Editor's Note: When replying by e-mail, remove the letters BDRW from the address.]
Open Meeting to Discuss Marina Club
I recently received the proposal from Martin Stone regarding the Marina Club. I believe that no matter how well intentioned it may be, to open the Marina Club to the public will result in the unavoidable abuse of our privacy and the quiet enjoyment we presently receive while living in Brentford Dock.
Elaine Rowe responded with a thoughtful appraisal [see below]
of Mr Stone's proposal, and
I urge everyone to read it. She has correctly identified what some of the consequences
will be if the club is open to the public. She also asks for an open meeting
to discuss this proposal; I support such a meeting.
Jeffrey Birnberg, Numa Court,
July 2003.
Disagree with Marina Club Proposal II
The Marina Club
I was dismayed to read the Board's note to residents on the future of the Marina Club. It seemed to be heavily biased in favour of running a club open to the general public, come what may. One wonders "Why?" Details are vague on how the following issues would be addressed. Not enough information has been provided to reach a valid decision, although I fully endorse the sentiments expressed in Jim Cornhill's note [see below].
1. No reference is made to car parking for customers. Where will they park?
Brentford Dock has insufficient parking for residents or their visitors. This
could make a bad situation even worse.
2. Security: Who will be responsible for disruptive customers who might have
had a few drinks too many? Will this become part of Pinnacle's remit? Where
there's a bar, couldn't this result in an increase in the likelihood of drugs
on the Dock? Aren't we giving undesirable "visitors" an excuse for
being on the Dock?
3. The Marina Club failed because residents didn't support it. Why should residents
provide the facilities to outsiders, who don't necessarily have residents' interests
at heart, that they don't want for themselves? The [proposal]
note says: "We feel that it is highly desirable to maintain the Club
premises as a social amenity as originally intended". This surely is a
personal viewpoint, not based on fact.
4. Who, then, will be the real beneficiaries from this venture? Surely not the
residents who didn't support the old Marina Club. The new business will be run
solely for profit and not for the benefit of residents whose interests should,
of course, be paramount. A modest rental income is surely no justification for
the very real possible disturbance to residents.
It is by no means clear that the Board unanimously supports these proposals
either. In this sense, the [proposal]
note appears to be thoroughly one-sided and does not reflect dissenting
views - hardly democratic! Perhaps no surprise, then, that I for one feel so
uneasy about the outcome of the vote and shall be voting against the proposal.
Such a critical matter, affecting all residents, deserves a wider airing. Would
it not be best, then, to convene a general meeting to review all the facts when
we have them, at which the "ad hoc" committee can give a full account
of their proposals, and the issue can be fully debated?
I am certainly putting these suggestions to my Block Director to take back to
the Board, and I recommend that you do likewise and vote against the proposal.
The vast majority of residents I have spoken to appreciate living in a quiet
and attractive environment. This ill-conceived plan could very well put paid
to this.
Elaine Rowe, Nero Court, July 2003.
Disagree with Marina Club Proposal
You have received a proposal from
Martin Stone. It sounds plausible. Except as a resident for more than 20
years, I remember the Club as a commercial centre. We forget all too quickly.
With a 5-year lease in his/her pocket the operator will be interested in only
one thing - profit.
If that means selling more drink than food, so be it. If that means yobbos leaving late at night in full voice, the operator will shrug his shoulders - too bad. If he gets more customers playing loud music he will play it. Do I need to spell out the parking problems ( + takeaways!). And if your quality of life in Otho and Nero plummets will your property value increase? Dream on.
Of course under the residents only regime of recent years the Club has been rather quiet. If its working well, please, please don't fix it.
If you like signing blank cheques by all means return "agree". If you think I have a point return "disagree".
Little coteries can meet and propose nonsense, but YOU decide.
Jim Cornhill, Otho Court, July 2003.
I am attaching a copy of a letter I sent to Sue Green and Romulus Ct block director Michael Kerrigan on 4 June. I would be interested to know whether other residents share my views or not. At the time of writing (the evening of 9 June) I have had no response. Best regards, Jo Francis, Romulus Court email: bully@BDRWnewbully.plus.com.
[Editor's Note: When replying by e-mail, remove the letters BDRW from the address.]
|
Re: Estate Planting
I was interested to see the note regarding planting in your latest newsletter. I think that "low night temperatures" are the least of our problems as over the past couple of years the standard of planting and plant maintenance across the state has declined considerably.
I feel this year it has reached a new low.
While the large octagonal planters themselves are excellent, the contents all too often are not. Currently, many planters are filled with weeds, overgrown and out-of-shape shrubs, or a poor display of seasonal plants (often dead or past their best). Many appear to be suffering from a lack of water, too.
Three examples:
It should be relatively straightforward and inexpensive to stock the planters with perennials to give year-round interest, with the addition (and timely removal) of some annual flowers etc., for seasonal colour during the year. Someone also needs to carry out appropriate pruning and shaping.
The initial planting up of the large planters must have involved several hundred (if not thousand) pounds worth of shrubs, and yet these are not being cared for properly. The new planters on the gravel near the Management Office look ok at the moment, but that’s only because they are relatively new.
Well-planned and maintained gardens and planting can enhance an entire area, but I’m afraid the current situation is contributing to an overall impression of dilapidation and neglect. No-one seems to be taking an overall view of the estate planting, and yet it is one of our greatest assets.
Could you please tell me who is responsible for the planters, why they are in such a poor state, and what you intend to do to rectify this situation?
Yours sincerely, Jo Francis, June 2003. |
Not Enough Done About Parking Violations
|
June 5 2003 Ms Sue Green (Pinnacle PSG),
Dear Ms Green,
Despite the frequency of my complaints to you concerning vehicles - not just cars - parking in the turning space in front of my car port adjoining the Romulus Court lift, nothing constructive has been done. Nothing. No double yellow lines to emphasise it is a No Parking area. No sign post carrying even the threat of a clamping fine. Not even a new coat of paint on the "No Parking" painted on the ground which has been there suffering years of wear.
Putting "Polite notice" pieces of paper under the windscreen of offenders does no good whatsoever. They are just a source of amusement before becoming estate litter.
It is just another example of the lassitude which now permeates the estate.
On August 20, 2002 I wrote to Mark Dibblin (Pinnacle PSG) about the lack of light caused by the plane trees in Augustus Close and the illegal parking in front of my car port. His reply dated September 23 - everything takes time - was that tree lopping would take place in the new financial year.
Then in a Newsletter dated February 2003, mention was made of the annual pruning of trees to be carried out shortly, contact Ivan Topping (Pinnacle PSG) for special interest cases. I contacted him. It will surprise no-one that nothing has been done. Not a single tree touched. The Saga of the heating system is too well known to bear repetition.
It's a bit of a chore as I will have to alter my bank account, but as I can no longer rely on the use of my carport, paying a service charge for it is an extravagance, so I will discontinue it.
Yours sincerely, Robert Hill |
Sunday was quite cold at first, the early morning walk to the bus stop, then the tube journey to Charing Cross. Even the Piccadilly Line was full of very nervous (and very lean, fit) people clutching their kit bags. I tried to hide behind Jeff Beck, rather than "Simply the Best" I listened to Jeff Beck playing Superstition at concert volume.
Change to the overground at Charing Cross, a trip through the misty morning along the Thames and past Deptford Creek, seeing the Laban Centre in the mist. Left the train at Greenwich and the long walk through the village centre past the Observatory and into the park.
Nerves getting worse all the time and it was only just 8:15. More water, shared a joke and a commiserating word with a fellow Geordie at the Shelter stall. Changed, greased, more water as the morning low cloud burned off.
To the start line, well actually about a kilometre from the line - almost on the slope back to Greenwich. Nervous words with other lunatics, some had never done it before others were all to aware of what was to come.
The hooter, a slow halting shuffle to the gates, sharp left to the arch of balloons which signified the start. A bleep as the electronic timer recorded the beginning of my race, almost an hour after Paula Radcliffe had left Blackheath Common. Her run was historic, mine much more mundane with the Rhinos and Jedi Knights, a skeleton, Jesuit Wombles and a psychedelic pantheon of other costumes.
Running over an hour more slowly then my last Marathon, which was 15 years ago, I took in the sights and the sounds of a real carnival along every step of the way. Yes, it was hard work, and yes, I am sore a couple of days after the event, but it was exhilarating, and a tremendous sense of achievement in finishing.
The support form the Shelter team was magnificent and almost every time my step faltered there was someone to shout encouragement. Just as I neared the Houses of Parliament I was passed by a runner carrying a banner reading "Runners World get you round in under 5 hours." Not beating 5 hours had never been an option and I began to press for home, picking up the pace along Bird Cage Walk to put my only real burst of speed (well about 8-minute-mile pace) in for a grandstand finish towards Admiralty Arch.
They said the finish was near St James' Park, but I could not see the Milburn Stand. Through the finish, that medal is heavy, and the "goody bag" and then return of my kit from the baggage truck. By the time I met Diana, Stephen, Pam & Nick I felt like a contestant in "Double or Drop".
All in all a really great day.
Thanks to everyone who has sponsored me call on 07775 744849 to arrange for me to collect (and show off my medal).
Best wishes.
Tony Hutchinson, Otho Court email:
tony_hutchinson@BDRWtony27.fsbusiness.co.uk
[Editor's Note: When replying by e-mail, remove the letters BDRW from the address.]
Thank you to everyone who has sponsored me to run the London Marathon for Shelter on Sunday April 13. Each bit of sponsorship has helped me to get out of bed on cold and dark mornings to train.
My number is 36704 and I will be wearing a bright vest, probably not quite as bright red as my face. So if you are watching on TV keep your eye out for the lumbering, lurching shambling figure just ahead of the rhinoceros and the man in the diving suit. Anyone brave enough to join the crowds on the streets please give me a wave and a cheer, I will need all the help I can get.
Once again thanks for the sponsorship and good wishes. There is still time to pledge your sponsorship, via the web (link on www.cardiff-road.info), by phone, e-mail, in person or any way you feel able to. Thanks again for the encouragement.
Tony Hutchinson, Otho Court
Hi, Anyone remember the days of "non-professional" management with my team and Ron Kenny and then Aarron Taylor, when we had a budget estimate and public explanation before the service charge was due. Eleven days to payment day and no estimate. The gardens look great - better than we achieved - but at what cost? 10.4% last year. What's this year's?
David Procter, Augustus Close, email: daprocter@aol.com.
Early-risng residents may have noticed a rather slow moving object puffing & blowing as it leaves and re-enters the estate.
Do not be alarmed. It is a rather portly and decidedly unfit resident trying to gain some semblance of fitness to take part in this year's London Marathon.
After a break of fifteen years I am back on the road, hoping to raise money for Shelter. Any resident wanting to offer encouragement can pledge sponsorship at the following address: http://www.bmycharity.com/shelter/event.asp?eventid=414ODC6A-70124D266-8ABA-D8BBF1961FO
Thanks. Tony Hutchinson, Otho Court email:
tony_hutchinson@BDRWtony27.fsbusiness.co.uk
[Editor's Note: When replying by e-mail, remove the letters BDRW from the address.]
Letter Concerning Special Resolution, AGM January 2003
8th January 2003
3 Augustus Close, Tel and Fax: 020 8568 6230
email: amwarren@BDRWfreeuk.com. [Editor's Note: When replying by e-mail, remove the letters BDRW from the address.]
Dear Fellow Shareholder,
I am writing to urge you to consider carefully the content of the Special Resolution to be put to the AGM on 23rd January, and to vote upon it.
You will make up your own mind on whether you think the proposed arrangements for the election of Directors are better than the current ones.
The Resolution has been presented as a series of sentence-changes to the Company's Articles of Association without any accompanying explanation. I have reviewed the wording, and in my opinion the changes will indeed give effect to the motion passed at the EGM in November 2002.
The most important changes which passing of the Special Resolution will achieve are:
- Full Candidate statements prior to elections (in
line with best practice guidelines from the Chairman's
own Professional body)
- Positive endorsement by shareholders in a Yes / No
vote - where there is only one candidate for a
Directorship. This will ensure the shareholders actually
want the candidate.
- That any shareholder can stand in any constituency (subject to nomination by shareholders within the constituency). This could help the representation of constituencies where no shareholder from within the constituency will stand. Such a candidate would be elected only by a majority YES vote of shareholders in the block concerned. It is a better solution than the Board's present practice of nominating a Director to look after un-represented Blocks.
The proposal to allow one Director to hold two Directorships is relatively unimportant. It is intended to further help resolve the problem of un-represented Blocks. Some people are uneasy about this proposal, and it should, in my opinion, have been put to a separate vote.
Very shortly after the EGM, I pointed out in Open Letters to the Chairman that the Board had many options in how the Resolution should be taken forward. I wrote that if what eventually appeared were to be a single take-it-or-leave-it package, that would be a deliberate wrecking tactic. Much to my regret the Board have indeed come forward with exactly that. (Editor: Click to see Letter 1, Letter 2 and Letter 3. Click Back to return here.)
I shall be voting for the Special Resolution at the AGM, because I believe it will create, all in all, a better system than the present one. I hope you will do the same.
Whatever your opinion, I do urge you to use your vote, whether in person or by proxy. If, on reflection, you are simply unsure whether the proposed changes would really be for the better, then you can register an abstention.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony Warren
If time is short, your proxy can be faxed to Shaws - Rothman Pantall 020 7930 9849, ref: BDL/AGM.
|
Click here to see 2002 Notice Board |
Copyright © 2001 to 2008 Neil O'Dwyer. All rights reserved.
