|
About Us -
Minutes
|
NOTE OF A MEETING HELD in the Community Lounge of Cradlehall Primary School at 7.45 Pm on Monday 8 APRIL 2008.
Co-chairs: Catriona Johnson (Chair, Westhill Community Council)
and Councillor Jim Crawford Organisational Representatives: Rob McNaught (Castlehill residents’ group);
Bill Hepburn (Tulloch Group); Gil McGeachy (Peveral Scotland)Residents: Forty-one residents were present.Notes: Neil Hornsby
1. Welcome Ms Johnson welcomed everyone, and explained that the Westhill Community Council had facilitated the meeting to enable residents of the Castlehill area to discuss their concerns with Tulloch and Peveral about the levels and scope of factoring charges they were being asked to pay for communal area maintenance. 2. Area Maintenance Mr McNaught said that the residents had a range of concerns relating to two Tulloch-owned areas: that to the North of Caulfield Road (the ‘top’ area), and a larger area to the South. Their concerns included defining the areas of land for which residents could be reasonably be expected to pay an on-going factoring charge, and why residents should pay the play-park maintenance charges. Mr Hepburn explained that the provision and maintenance of the open land in question had been a condition of planning permission granted to Tulloch for its housing development proposals. Because of the level of charges (now) set by Highland Council to acquire such communal areas, Tulloch had decided to retain their ownership, and employ a Factor (Peveral) to manage them at a reasonable level of maintenance, whose costs would be borne by residents. Mr Hepburn added that Tulloch had not originally planned to include the larger (Southern) area as community ownership, and recognised that there would (now) be associated cost implications to residents. He said that Tulloch would be prepared to designate the Southern area as community woodland, which would attract a lower maintenance charge. Mr Hepburn also said that completion of Phase three of the development – comprising five house – was unlikely to have a significant effect of the size of factoring charges. 3. Play-Park Mr McNaught enquired about the type and costs of the planned play equipment, including maintenance, replacement, inspection insurance and decommissioning charges, and whether Highland Council could be invited to adopt the play-park? Mr Hepburn said that the play equipment would cost £’000s. He added that Tulloch would maintain the surrounding woodland, but would not be responsible for the play-park itself. Mr McGeachy said that annual insurance and Health and Safety inspection costs would be around £420. After discussion, in which concerns were expressed about the potential for under-age drinking residents and anti-social behaviour at the site, residents voted forty to one for dispensing with the play-park. The meeting noted that, as the play park had been a provision of planning permission, the Highland Council’s agreement to such a change would need to be sought. Mr Hepburn said that he would now arrange for the play-equipment scheduled for the site to be transferred elsewhere, and that the finance saved would be used for planting on the sites; he also agreed to consider drawing on those funds to install lighting along the path. 4. Billing arrangementsMr McNaught said that residents would prefer to be billed for factoring in arrears, rather than in advance of work done, principally so that residents were fully aware about the scope of the work they were financing and because, in the past, residents had been billed for overlapping time periods. In addition, he said residents would welcome notification of set billing dates and details of all works, including: standards of service (levels); quotes, estimates and cost breakdowns of work proposed; costings of work undertaken during the billing period; bank charges incurred during the billing period. At the meeting, residents voted unanimously for arrears billing. Mr McGeachy said that his company’s policy was for advance billing, and did not extend to paying by Direct Debit in arrears; this arrangement, based on twice-yearly billing, helped the company plan and budget for the maintenance work. But in the light of the residents’ wishes, he would consider the implications of arrears billing. He also undertook to provide one set of works cost etc data, when finalised, to the residents’ group (one set only because of the considerable resources that would be involved in providing a set to each household). 5. Factoring/service charges for flats Concern was expressed about the significantly higher factoring charges levied on flats compared to that for houses. Mr McGeachy said that flats necessarily attracted additional communal charges, including insurance. Residents invited Peveral to seek cheaper insurance quotes. 6. Duration of Factoring contract Mr Hepburn explained that there was no time restriction on the duration of a factoring contract; it was probable that a residents’ association could seek a change of Factor, should they wish. 7. ACTIONSFor Cllr. Crawford· To consult Highland Council about the residents’ request for the provision of a play-park to be withdrawn as a condition of planning permission.For Mr Hepburn· To designate the ‘top’ (Southern) area as community woodland,· To re-invest finance saved from not purchasing play-equipment into woodland planting and also to consider installing lighting along the (Northern area) path. · To provide a resident with Tulloch contact for the Woodside Gardens/Nursery area.For Mr McGeachy· To re-invoice residents, in the light of the meeting’s agreements (including the reduction in charges to take account of the revised area designations area, and also to take account of charges already paid by some residents);· To consider arrears billing· To provide a work-data set to the residents’ group · To consider seeking cheaper quotes for communal flat insurance· To advise on the effect of house re-selling on factoring charges. For all parties· To arrange to meet in a month’s time to review progress
|
