HFG Estate Company Limited – AGM May 2011
HARROW FIELDS GARDENS ESTATE COMPANY LIMITED
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
(At ORLEY FARM SCHOOL, SOUTH HILL AVENUE, HARROW)
SUNDAY MAY 22nd 2011 at 2:00 PM
DIRECTORS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 HFG ESTATE COMPANY FINANCES 2
2 HFGEC ACTIVITY UPDATE 2
2.1 Overview 2
2.2 Support for HFGEC Directors 3
2.3 Managing Agents 3
2.4 Covenant Management 3
2.5 Regulations 4
2.6 Planning Application 5
2.7 Gardening 5
2.8 Tree Maintenance 6
2.9 Proposed Landscaped Area 6
2.10 Legal Matters 7
2.11 Health and Safety Matters 7
2.12 Tennis Court 9
2.13 General Maintenance 10
2.14 Water Utilities Issues 11
2.15 Dumping on Amenity Land 11
2.16 Private Events on Amenity Areas 11
2.17 Estate Security 12
2.18 Parking 13
2.19 Residents Handbook 14
2.20 HFGEC Web Site 14
3 EXPENDITURE PROPOSALS FOR 2010/11 15
3.1 AGM Process 15
3.2 New and Revised Expenditure 15
3.3 Maintenance Fee for 2010/11 £900 (per house) 16
3.4 Other Potential Expenditure 16
1 HFG ESTATE COMPANY FINANCES
These will be produced and circulated separately by Philip Brand (Company Secretary) in advance of the AGM for presentation and explanation at the meeting.
2 HFGEC ACTIVITY UPDATE
2.1 Overview
2.1.1 Report Contents
The Directors have gone to considerable lengths to provide a report that sets down as much relevant detail as possible so that interested shareholders are well informed of both general progress and current issues prior to the AGM.
The aim is not only to ensure attendees arrive fully briefed at the AGM but also to give shareholders the opportunity to provide feedback to the Directors prior to the meeting. This could be a request for clarification, a proposed agenda item or a recommended initiative for the coming year (provided that it is accompanied by the associated costs). Note that general ideas can be put forward at any stage throughout the year by email, face to face or via the web site contact form
2.1.2 Progress
We have enjoyed a second year without any significant amenity area mishaps and this has allowed us to progress on several fronts. However, we have had two director resignations as well as a Committee Member resignation during the year and this has impacted progress.
In summary:
· The tennis court has survived eighteen months without any significant further slippage or cracking. We are also improving the guidelines and regulations in the light of experience gained during the first full season of use.
· We have advanced our obligation to uphold the covenants by communicating the implications of converting garages as well as the requirement for ongoing property maintenance.
· We witnessed a second successive Picnic Day organised by the residents with no funding from the HFGEC budget.
· The proposed landscaped area, henceforth referred to as the East Lawn, has been continuously improved simply by regular cutting.
· We have circulated the first release of the HFGEC handbook
· We have installed lighting for block 3-3C to improve site security
· We have released an HFGEC web site which also incorporates the document library previously planned.
· We have replaced the boundary fence that runs to the West along Green Lane and also planted hawthorn bushes to further improve site security.
· We have extended the annual arboriculturalist contract from specific Tree Protection Orders to all trees on the estate as this is our obligation within the Sudbury Hill conservation area.
· We have intervened to ensure termination of a multiple let (which is in breach of the covenant to restrict occupation of the properties on the estate to a single family).
· We have cleared the patch of amenity land situated between 2 and 3HFG
· We have explored the risks of the increasingly evident fox population on the estate and identified potential deterrents
· We have arranged for significant snowfall to be cleared from the estate paths and roads
· We have assisted on a range of day to day matters such as dumping, untaxed vehicles, fence maintenance, tennis court issues, dog concerns and resident shed issues
· We have commissioned a comprehensive Health and Safety Risk Assessment to comply with the legislation that impacts the management company. We will follow through on selected recommendations in the coming year.
The above has been achieved within the annual budgeted spend agreed at the last AGM.
For those with no appetite for the detail, there is no need to read on but please be aware that many of the items could be discussed at the AGM and decisions taken. If, as we hope, you do plan to attend then you will also appreciate that progress is much faster when attendees have read the full report.
2.2 Support for HFGEC Directors
We have lost the services of two of the support team during the year. Firstly, Ashish Patel (31 HFG) had to relinquish his Directorship because he has taken up a position in Prague. Then Brian Hawkins (10 HFG) resigned his committee role for personal reasons. We would like to extend our thanks to both of them but must make a special note of Brian’s contribution to our community over many years. Finally, Tony Lynch (12 HFG) resigned from his new position as Director, also for personal reasons, but continues to provide support as a Committee Member.
This has extended the workload on the remaining team members although we have, for the most part, kept abreast of the regular tasks. However, progress has been slower on some of the new initiatives as a result.
2.3 Managing Agents
In light of the prevailing circumstances, the directors have reviewed our previous analysis of potential managing agents decided that they can only continue as directors if HFGEC appoint Wilson Hawkins to manage the estate.
As previously explained, the Directors and shareholders will continue to set policy, priorities and budgets but will utilise Wilson Hawkins for their expert input and the day to day management and implementation of agreed tasks.
There will be a cost associated with this initiative but Wilson Hawkins has agreed to keep the annual charge to £150 including VAT. With other ad hoc charges for administration support and project related work, we have budgeted for an additional £200 per household for this arrangement. This will be achieved without increasing the annual maintenance fee because we have reduced the contribution to the tennis court reserve from £200 to £50. The balance is absorbed within the budget.
2.4 Covenant Management
2.4.1 Formal Policy
In January last year, we introduced a documented covenant management policy which explained the covenants and the approach that HFGEC would adopt to ensure that they were upheld. This year, we have continued to progress with a more formal approach to covenant management and have advanced several areas. Just as importantly, this knowledge is documented so that the covenants can continue to be upheld irrespective of who takes the directors’ roles. Furthermore, as we welcome new owners and because we have an increasing number of rented properties, it is also increasingly important to ensure that everybody is aware of the promises that they have effectively made to their neighbours.
2.4.2 Property Maintenance
We circulated a communication in March 2010 explaining your obligations to maintain your property. This was followed by reminders that required changes should be implemented within six months, i.e. by September 2010. If necessary, we were prepared to employ an independent external contractor to assess each property in October and to provide recommendations to the Board. This has been postponed due to the prioritising of the Health and Safety Risk Assessment (see below) but we are obliged to return to the issue of property maintenance during the coming year.
2.4.3 Garage Conversions
In May, we also distributed a circular explaining that garage conversions are a breach of the covenants and leave householders with a defective title which may be highlighted to prospective purchasers by their solicitors. Furthermore, the issue could also surface when the prospective purchaser is required to sign a deed of covenant and commit to abide by the documented covenants.
2.4.4 Absent Landlords
Property maintenance is made difficult when the shareholder is absent for extended periods. While the problems are usually of a cosmetic nature, a deteriorating exterior detracts from the appearance, ambience and resale values of the estate. We are exploring ways to avoid these situations going forward.
2.4.5 Rented Properties
We are now working towards providing guidelines for prospective renters, specifically a reminder that properties may only be rented to single families. Also, tenants are often not made aware of the covenants that impact them. Similarly, the house owner may be unaware of their continued liability for their tenants’ behaviour. We have increasing numbers of rented properties on the estate so this issue is a priority for us.
2.4.6 Alterations
We remind all shareholders that no alterations to their property should made without the formal written consent of HFGEC.
Finally, we must emphasise once again that the Directors are obliged to ensure that each covenant is enforced unless we have the unanimous agreement of the shareholders to waive it. Notwithstanding the difficulties imposed by allowing earlier breaches, we believe that we are now in a much stronger position to ensure that the appearance and behaviour on the estate continue to meet with the initial aspirations of the developers.
2.5 Regulations
In clause 3 of the Sale Transfer document relating to your property, you are covenanted to comply with regulations made from time to time by Harrow Fields Gardens Estate Company Ltd.
Over the years, there have been various decisions taken by the directors of that time, or by the shareholders at formal meetings, with respect to residents’ behaviour. These have been variously communicated within AGM minutes, newsletters, directors’ reports and email circulars.
We are now prioritising the collection of all such decisions, along with several new proposals, into a single published set of HFGEC regulations. These will be included in both the Handbook and the HFGEC web site so will be readily accessible by everybody. The regulations will include some or all of the following:
· Dogs (must be kept on lead at all times, not allowed on amenity areas unless guide dogs, owners must clear mess)
· For Sale Signs are banned on the estate
· A new regulation extends covenant 5, about antisocial behaviour on your property, to address behaviour on the amenity land as well.
· Fireworks are not allowed without HFGEC authorisation and specific event insurance
· Private events on amenity land are not allowed without HFGEC authorisation and specific event insurance
· Some elements from the tennis court usage guidelines will be formalised as regulations
· Regulations to extend and formalise parking guidelines (see Parking section above)
· Satellite Dishes – beneath the bridge line
· Dumping on amenity land (not allowed, residents responsible for their contractors, payment for removal by Harrow Council)
2.6 Planning Application
The extension and modifications to the property reported last January were eventually completed towards the end of the year. As HFGEC is not legally empowered to grant consent to a breach of covenant, the property is now burdened with a “defective title”.
We are still challenging Harrow Council over the positioning of the garage door because it is now about a foot from the ground and this makes it evident that the building is no longer a garage and as thus is a change to the streetscape. This is direct contravention to the commitments given to the council and to HFGEC.
We are mindful of the potential costs of a legal challenge to this one aspect of the development. This is because we have sought a barrister’s advice and been reassured that the development in question doesn’t set a precedent for other properties on the estate because the house was unique in its location.
2.7 Gardening
2.7.1 Regular Duties
We feel that the continued work undertaken by the gardener, Joseph Figuieras, represents excellent value for money and we continue to receive positive comments about the overall appearance of the amenity land.
We have not utilised the additional 150 hours contracted with the gardener, Joseph Figuieras, after agreement at the last AGM. This was due in part to other unplanned expenditure (perimeter fence and Health and Safety assessment).
We will review those areas initially targeted for additional focus during the coming year. They include keeping roads and paths clear from weeds and grass, disposal of waste of site, various cleaning tasks.
2.7.2 Ad Hoc Gardening Tasks
The gardeners have also been able to accommodate several ad hoc tasks within the allocated hours. These include:
· Removing the stumps of the woodland trees felled because they had died
· Tidying the small amenity area plot by 3HFG which had become overgrown
· Planting the hawthorn barrier along the boundary with Green Lane
· Planting a hedge of woodland mix trees along the boundary with JLS playing fields
2.8 Tree Maintenance
We were again able to keep expenditure on tree maintenance to a minimum during the year and our total outlay was just over £500. The following work was carried out in March 2010.
Tree / Species / Location / Works Completed / Cost1 / Ash / Opposite 3A HFG Garage / Remove 2 Ash Suckers to Ground level & Poison Stumps / £60.00
2 / Ash / Opposite 30HFG / Reduce 1 Ash tree by 25%
(Large hole in base) / £160.00
3 / Elm / By Shed / Remove 1 Dead Elm tree to Ground level / £30.00
4 / Ash / Near Tennis Court / Remove 1 arm of Ash tree Leaning over through Mulberry tree / £180.00
We have also completed our annual survey of the trees on the estate for the coming year. The survey has been extended and now addresses three distinct areas:
· Trees protected by specific Tree Preservation Orders
· Trees on residents’ properties
· Trees on amenity land which are not protected by specific TPO’s
This is because Harrow Fields Gardens falls within the Sudbury Hill Conservation Area and all trees above a certain size are protected in a conservation area.
We have also received an application for a reduction in the canopy of the large tree nearest 31 HFG on the grounds that it is causing subsidence and cracking of the property. However, Harrow Council has rejected the application on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to link the subsidence with the tree root system. The situation is being monitored and we would not object to the reduction if accepted as necessary or allowable by Harrow Council.