|
I am posting this anonymously in order to maintain my privacy. The Baltic Quay website is an open access website and I do not want the whole world to know where I live. If I can attend the next resident's meeting I will be happy to own up, if anyone is interested enough to enquire.
We attended the general meeting held on Wednesday 27th Feb 2002 after receiving notice that the purpose of this meeting was to vote for our preferred option from three proposals contained in the surveyer's report and presented to us by the appointed surveyer at the previous general meeting, regarding extensive building reparation work. Now we are left wondering whether we were the only residents in attendance who came to last night's meeting with the intention of balloting.
We actually liked the idea of a glass atrium that would have provided protection to ourselves and our third floor apartment from the ravages of strong winds and other adverse weather conditions. We were enthusiastic towards the prospect of having our windswept open area and its shabby tiles, gravel and blocked drains replaced with a comfortable, heated, carpeted glass corridor. Our preference was for Atrium Option 2 - with a glass roof across the third floor with 3rd, 4th and 5th floors encased within glass corridors (less expensive and less enclosed than Option 1). We believe the atrium was a viable solution to many of the problems within the building and that it would have enhanced the building, by increasing the value placed on individual properties within the entire building and significantly improving the quality of life for those residing in the upper floors of the podium. We really could have had the building to be proud of, which is what most of us want. We acknowledge that the atrium suggestion/s were an unexpected solution to the major problems concerning water leakage and the general delapidation that Baltic Quay is experiencing and that, due to the urgency of resolving the problem of water ingress to the ground floor apartments, there was no consultation period and neither was there enough time given to properly consider the options. We accept that major expense would have been incurred from the outset had either of the atrium options been given the go-ahead and, with the level of owed service charge outstanding (which I'll return to later), the raising of upfront finance would have been a real problem. However, as was mentioned at some point during yesterday's meeting, the prices paid more recently by leaseholders for the purchase of their properties were below market value prices in reflection that major expenditure on building restoration work was imminent. We purchased in June 2000 and, although we were not informed of any forthcoming expenditure, the poor state of the building was very apparant and it was obvious to us that we would eventually have to fund extensive reparation work. We made our decision to purchase on that basis. Anyone who reecently bought into this building in the belief they were getting a "bargain" was sadly naive or misguided. We also go along with the fact that the figure quoted by the committe - an average of £6,000 per flat (marginally higher than the figures quoted in the Sturges report) - is indeed a lot of money for most leaseholders to have to find at short notice. But the expenditure would have to be met eventually whichever proposal was accepted. The projected overall costing analysis contained in the report of the appointed surveyer indicated that the 3rd floor atrium option would be considerably less expensive than the basic repair option. All the options contained a contingency budget of £60,000 or more in order to accommodate unforeseen problems that resulted in further expenditure. However, the figures quoted by the committee appeared to be a reversal in that the atrium was shown as being the more expensive option. Contrary to the general opinion expressed during the meeting, the Sturges report indicated that the glass atrium would in fact resolve the problem of water ingess experienced by residents on the ground floor and below into the car park. At the meeting, much was made of future additional expenditure that would be incurred through maintaining the atrium (heating, ventilating, dehumidifying) but these would surely be offset through savings made on ongoing exterior maintenance of that area and increased repair work, and the heating bills for individual apartments in the podium would be lower as a consequence of having better insulation.
Judging from the extemely negative response of some leaseholders towards the two atrium proposals, we attended the meeting in order to vote for our preferred option with the knowledge that our choice was unlikely to win majority approval. We nonetheless wanted an opportunity to express support for the atrium proposal by voting in favour and were appalled that our preferred option was dismissed as a "non-starter" and that voting did not even take place because the decision to bin the idea had already been made. Whatever happened to the democratic process???
|
Pages: [1] 
Atrium proposals and service charge arrears (Read 11986 times)
