Chris and Jan Hutchinson,

Hello Chris and Jan,

I understand Henry Jones has been in touch, regarding setting up

something to assist the needy and vulnerable inside Portsoken Ward.

There are two precincts in Portsoken Ward, with social housing making up

the bulk of the residents in both precincts.

We have a small daily distribution set up, run by dedicated volunteers,

with some assistance from our local minimarkets - but to be honest, the

pickings are often slim.

We also help co-ordinate the food bank deliveries to our local residents

who have asked for assistance, but the food bank is stretched to the

limit as well.

There is an ancient and historic connection between the Spitalfields

Market and this area of the City - ( you may be interested to know one

of our regular volunteers, Bella, used to live in the flats above the

Old Spitalfields Market); we just wanted to say we really appreciate the

kind offer you made to Henry to help us out.

We are trying to look after our vulnerable residents here in the two

precincts in a more intensive way during this difficult time, and any

assistance you could provide to us via Henry would be highly

appreciated. We organised a large fruit and milk delivery last week, and

would love to be able to do something like that again; our list of

families in need continues to grow as this crisis deepens.

Once again, thank you ever so much for working with Henry on this. We

are incredibly appreciative of all his hard work in the Ward.

Kind regards,

Evan.

cc. Aiman Ez El-Sherif, Headborough, The Tower Hill Precinct of

Portsoken Ward.

REPLY

Morning Evan

I will speak to tenants on Monday morning and see if we can get something organised.

Regards

Jan

Dear Andrew,

Thank you very much for your prompt response to my email raising security concerns at Middlesex Street.

I am sure the residents will be relieved to hear that this matter is being dealt with promptly, especially under the current constraints of the lockdown, where we fully appreciate the restrictions you are operating under, making any works and interventions more complex to undertake than usual.

I will copy your reply below to the Precinct's 'Committee of Watch and Ward', and to the Alderman and his Deputy.

Kind regards, and wishing you a happy Easter weekend,

Evan

__________________________________________

Dear Evan,

Thank you for raising your concerns, officers are looking into these and have asked Wates (our contractor) to ensure that the doors work effectively.

The City of London Police, Parkguard and our Rough Sleepers Outreach service will use the information you have provided to assist with planning and responding.

Regards

Andrew

Andrew Carter

Chief Officer/Director

Community & Children's Services

Hello Jim,

Thank you for your reply.

I am aware that all the information you quoted has been provided to residents, as I have received it myself. This is not, however, actually the problem.

My concern is with a logical deficiency in the supplied government advice, which exposes the collection staff to unnecessary risk.

Government advice to double bag etc only applies to households in isolation where a person is displaying overt Covid-19 type symptoms, yet many households will contain asymptomatic individuals, or pre-symptomatic individuals, or indeed post-symptomatic individuals, all of whom will be, according to the current research, shedding the virus.

Their rubbish will potentially be as contaminated as a symptomatic person's.

Please refer to the following papers:

1. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200327091234.htm

2. https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2762808/incubation-period-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-from-publicly-reported

3. https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/stealth-transmission-fuels-fast-spread-coronavirus-outbreak

Therefore it logically follows that rubbish from every and any household needs to be treated as biohazard, regardless. This is a direct logical inference from the medical facts.

Cleaning staff need guidelines and protocols for dealing with what is, in essence, potentially hazardous waste.

This is particularly an issue with the recycling collection on the Middlesex Street Estate, which is a door to door collection twice a week.

Perhaps we are left with only two logical solutions, and that is to:

1. Write our own advice to residents, reflecting the above, to safeguard the staff, and secure PPE for the staff, in the foreknowledge that advice will only be partially adhered to.

or,

2. Suspend the door to door recycling service on Middlesex Street Estate completely for the duration of this crisis.

The latter is, in my view, the safest way to secure the safety of the recycling collection staff, given the difficulty in securing appropriate PPE, etc.

Kind regards,

Evan.

Hello Laurence,

I understand discussions are underway following my enquiry about a local room on the Estate for food distribution, and that someone from Markets is in charge?

Matt Ring tells me that a flat on the square has been identified as suitable.

After discussions with Alina, and other volunteers, I suggested a clothes bank would also be very useful to set up; it would be 'visit by appointment', and run with Alina's help, and other volunteers.

Please let me know if we can use one of the rooms in the flat on the square for this purpose, for the duration of the crisis?

If there is demand, we can discuss this further after this Coronavirus mess is over, and perhaps move the clothes bank into a large vacant shed or another dry lockable space, if one is available.

Looking forward to your ideas/feedback on this.

Kind regards, and wishing you a Happy Easter,

Dear Henry,

I am writing to express my thanks for the generous donations of food Jones Dairies recently supplied to help the needy in the Covent Garden Precinct during this time of crisis.

You made a lot of people very happy, and everyone who received assistance felt the love.

Please pass on my heartfelt thanks to your donors,

Kind regards,

Evan

Dear Jeremy,

As the Chairman of the body anciently responsible for organising the scavengers in the Precinct, I would like to make the following observations:

Your cleaning staff and cleaners and rubbish collectors are pretty upset with their employer, i.e.you. They are working, but are quite vocal about their lack of PPE. They don't even have rudimentary face protection with a CE rating.

For goodness sake, just get a special grant from City Cash or something, and do something about it. It is embarrassing.

No advice and instruction has gone out to residents, instructing them to firmly close their rubbish bags. Workers dealing with poorly closed bags coming from domestic premises, some of which have people in them with active infections, are potentially exposed to high viral loads. We have many residents with issues, as this is social housing, and they cannot be relied on to follow guidelines to tightly close bags - and the fact is, they are not doing this.

Our rubbish collector was reduced to writing hand written notes.

This is not acceptable. The City is one of the wealthiest Local Authorities in the world. The City is currently almost empty, so there is less cleaning to be done than usual. So why can't this be dealt with properly in Portsoken? Why can't you protect your staff?

We have had to put up our own notices, requesting all residents to tightly tie their bags shut; but really it should not be for the Precinct Meeting to have to take on this role, however, the CoL appears to be missing in action. Do something!

Should Housing try to make us take our notices down, (so far they have left these particular ones about rubbish bags in place for weeks, so no complaints on that account, yet) I will convene the Precinct Mote, and pass a bye-law requiring such notices in all buildings used as a dwelling place in the Precinct. I will then convene the Precinct Council, and we will move to enforce that bye-law using all the powers available to the Precinct Court as an administrative court at law, should the notices be removed from the building. Those powers exist on paper, and in law, and it would be an interesting exercise to test them, would it not? Especially on such a point as this one?

To stand by and watch the staff you employ suffer psychologically in this way would be a dereliction of a duty of care; these are people we know and talk to and interact with regularly. They want to be safe, and we want them to be safe, and happy in their work, not scared and frightened.

Get them appropriate PPE for Gods sake for their hazardous job, and please write to the residents and tell them to tie their rubbish bags tightly closed, to protect the staff. This should have been done weeks ago, with regular reminders sent out.

Kind regards,

Evan Millner

11th Floor Thomas Moore Building,

Royal Courts of Justice,

London WC2A 2LL

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing up the GDPR compliance document for the Court of Precinct Mote, Covent Garden Precinct, in the City of London.

I am unsure as to whether the Courts Precinct Mote ( also called Precinct Meetings) of the City of London are included in the abolition of ancient courts listed in the appendix to the Administration of Justice Act 1977. Some City of London courts are listed by name in the appendix, but the wardmote courts are not.

The Courts of Wardmote are sui generis, and although they are similar to hundred courts, they are not hundred courts, and nor are they manorial courts or torns. Their subsidiary courts - the Precinct Motes, are likewise sui generis, and are not exactly courts leet, or views of frankpledge, although they share things in common with views of frankpledge and courts leet.

These courts are mentioned in the City of London Police Act and elsewhere. Nomination of constables (now in abeyance) took place at the Courts of Precinct Mote (Precinct Meetings), and election of other officers peculiar to each Court of Precinct Mote. Moreover, 5 and 6 Victoria c 109 excludes the City of London. Presidents (Borsholders or headboroughs in law) are elected at the Courts of Precinct Mote (Precinct Meetings).

It is clear from Chitty, 'A Practical Treatise on the Criminal Law', Volume II, pg 276 that the wardmote courts maintained a criminal jurisdiction. It follows that the Precinct Mote Courts also retain their ancient common law jurisdiction - and the borsholder his powers as a 'conservator of the peace'. (The Constables Protection Act 1750 (still in force).c. 44 (Regnal. 24_Geo_2))

The custom of the city was that if presentment was brought before the Alderman in the wardmote court, it would be referred to the Lord Mayor's Court, and not put to the question before the wardmote court itself. Presentments brought to the Precinct Mote are referred to the Wardmote in like manner.

Nevertheless, if the Precinct Court retains its dormant and theoretical powers in law to bring a criminal presentment, is a GDPR statement required?

Please see: https://sites.google.com/view/coventgardenprecinct/documents

If the judicial functions no longer exist, and these courts only have customary powers to appoint officials, does the Court of Precinct Mote still fall under the remit of the MoJ in terms of GDPR?

Secondly, if the Precinct Mote Court is included in the list of ancient jurisdictions listed in the Administration of Justice Act 1977 that lose their judicial powers, would GDPR nevertheless still affect the President (Headborough) of the Precinct Meeting, as a headborough/borsholder under 5 and 6 Victoria c 109 and The Constables Protection Act 1750 (still in force).c. 44 (Regnal. 24_Geo_2)?

Kind regards,

Evan Millner

Headborough

Covent Garden Precinct

City of London

19b Petticoat Tower

Petticoat Square

City of London

E1 7EF

COVID-19 Data

Hi Jeremy,

Thank you for your reply. I am not sure where the BBC are getting their data from, as there is only one data source for the UK. I suspect the BBC (correctly) have the CoL categorised as a HTLA, but there is no data to input due to a problem with the original data collation.

I found the data company (Arcgis) that is collating the statistics for PHE; they are using patients' postcodes as supplied by the hospitals, so the data for CoL could readily be separated out and presented without much difficulty.

I have registered on the Arcgis site, and enquired as to whether this could be done. According to their own published criteria, the data should be available for every HTLA, and County, and the CoL is both of these.

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/f94c3c90da5b4e9f9a0b19484dd4bb14

I don't expect to hear back from them until later next week.

Kind regards,

Evan

____________________________________________

Reply from Chair of PHES Committee:

Hallo Again,

The City will be asking the BBC to ensure their on-line tool no longer shows zero for the number of cases in the City of London, as this is misleading – we’ll ask then to put “Number Included Under Hackney” or some similar wording.

JLS

Evan Millner

Headborough

Covent Garden Precinct of Portsoken Ward

City of London

E1 7EF

24 March 2020

To: National Archives

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to you regarding the use of the Royal Coat of Arms by the elected Headborough of Covent Garden Precinct, Portsoken Ward, City of London, who is an Officer of the Peace at common law.

The precinct is the small area of local authority government in the City of London, and is roughly analagous to a parish meeting elsewhere in England. Full documents and a detailed explanation can be found here:

https://sites.google.com/view/coventgardenprecinct/documents

The Headborough of the Covent Garden Precinct was elected by the properly and legally summoned Court of Precinct Mote; the position in law appears to be that he may be obliged to use these arms. Our Precinct Mote was the first to have been summoned in the City of London since the 1930s.

As 5 and 6 Victoria c 109 does not apply to the City of London, the office of tythingman, which is identical to that of headborough, was not abolished in the City. The City quite evidently sought an exemption to the Act.

Moreover, the Constable’s Protection Act 1750, which is still in force, makes explicit provision for the office of headborough, in addition to the common law powers of the office to keep the Queen’s Peace within the precinct, which continue to exist. Please see Mirror of Justices, 39 and also page 41. re: City of London.

Although the City of London Police Act put the office of the elected constables into abeyance, the common law powers of the legally constituted Court of Precinct Mote to appoint its own officers are not affected by that Act.

Although the elected Headborough of Covent Garden Precinct has not been sworn in before a magistrate, it is clear from the case law that this is not necessary. See King v Corfe Mullen 1 Barn. & Adol.211. it was held that a man gained a settlement as a tithing-man, (headborough) although he was not sworn in; The headborough is different to a constable in this respect, as a constable must be sworn, as a constable’s office is an Office of Trust. See Rex v De Mierre, 5 Bur. Rep. where it was held that the office headborough, was not an office of trust, unlike that of the office of constable.

Which brings me to the issue of the right to use the Royal Arms:

“Such as are chosen and admitted to the office of constable in London, are obliged to put the Queen’s Arms, and the Arms of the City over his Door, or (if he live in an Ally) at the End of the Ally towards the Street, to signify, that a constable lives there”

According to Brook Peace 13. Fitz. 127 All Petty constables ( a tything man is a petty constable), by virtue of their office, within their several liberties of their several Towns, are conservators of the Queen’s peace at common law.

It is also clear from the common law, that where there is no constable, the tythingman or headborough assumes the powers of the constable. In towns (in the City of London, a ward is a ‘town’) where there be no constables, and that the...head-boroughs..be the only Officers for the Peace; as also in such cases where the power or authority of the Head-borough is declared to be equal with the power of the Constable; in all such cases and things their Office and Authority are in a manner all one. (See the Stat 1 Jac cap 7. Lamberts Offic del Const. 4,6,9.)

The City of London Police Act put the election of ward constables into abeyance (it did not formally abolish them, merely stopped them being elected). The Act says nothing about affecting the Courts of Precinct Mote, which are governed entirely by the common law, and the election of tythingmen or headboroughs by the precincts.

Please see the detailed legal documents and sources here:

https://sites.google.com/view/coventgardenprecinct/documents

Thus is would appear that the headborough may be obliged by law to place the arms of the City of London and/or those of HM the Queen, above his or her door.

It would also follow from this that in personal correspondence as Headborough, and on notices issued, these arms may be used.

I look forward to your response regarding this matter with relation to use of the arms of HM the Queen.

Kind Regards,

Evan Millner

Headborough

The Covent Garden Precinct of Portsoken

City of London

_________________________________________________

Dear Sir,

Thank you for contacting The National Archives of the United Kingdom. I am forwarding your query to my colleagues at the Lord Chamberlain’s Office, who are responsible for granting permission for requests such as yours and for those granted a Royal Warrant by Her Majesty the Queen, and we will get back to you shortly.

Yours sincerely,

Judy Nokes

Crown Copyright, Copyright and Information Policy Adviser

____________________________________________________________________

CORONAVIRUS

A large amount of correspondence has been ongoing with City officials in relation to this issue. A summary may be posted here in future.

26-04-2017

Dear Henry,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Precinct Meeting.

A resolution was passed at a meeting of the Precinct, held on 25th of April 2017, thanking you for your work in Portsoken Ward, and in particular, thanking you for your efforts to keep the CoL Cleansing Team based on the Middlesex Street Estate. The Precinct Meeting is in favour of this initiative.

It was further resolved at the meeting that the Port Health, Children's and Community Services, and the Housing Sub-Committees should be notified of this resolution.

Kind regards,

Evan der Millner

Headborough

Covent Garden Precinct Meeting

Portsoken Ward

cc. Philippa Sewell, Natasha Dogra, Sacha Than (Committee Support Officers for the committees named above)

26th April 2017

To Councilmen Mr Pritchard and Mr Ali,

Dear Jason and Munsur,

Can you please let me know what the reason was for the cancellation of your April Surgery, to be held at the Artizan St Library?

Holding regular surgeries was a major campaign promise of yours in the recent election.

I trust there is an excellent reason for this.

Kind regards,

Evan

To the Ward Councilmen:

26th April 2017

Dear Henry, John, Munsur and Jason,

At a meeting held on 25th April 2017, the Covent Garden Precinct Meeting passed a resolution regarding communications with the elected members in the ward.

The resolution is as follows:

"The inhabitants of Covent Garden in Precinct Mote Assembled resolve that:-

The Precinct Meeting will only communicate with our elected members using their official Corporation of London email addresses,

and that all ward members will be advised of this; and that the Portsoken Common Councilmen should only use their official Corporation of London email addresses in their communication with residents in their capacity as councilmen. And it was further resolved that a copy of this resolution should be sent to the Town Clerk."

Kind regards,

Evan

Headborough

LIFT REFURBISHMENT PETTICOAT TOWER

11th April 2017

Dr David Downing

Asset Programme Manager

Property Services

City of London Corporation

Dear Dr. Downing,

I am writing to you in my capacity as the Headborough of the Covent Garden Precinct Meeting of Portsoken Ward, (which is a common law form of a parish meeting, operating within the City's own unique constitutional framework.)

I wish to raise a number of matters regarding the Section 20 notices that have been issued with relation to the proposed lift refurbishment on the Middlesex Street Estate, in support of the submission made by the Chairman of the Petticoat Square Leaseholders' Association, and on behalf of the residents generally.

There are a number of serious issues that need to be addressed, related to the lift refurbishment proposals, that affect all residents of the Estate – and in particular, all residents of Petticoat Tower.

It is my considered view that the current Section 20 notices are inadequate, as they relate to a situation on the ground that no longer exists; namely the gating of the Estate by the enclosure of the main pedestrian access on Middlesex Street, which has shifted the principal entrance to Petticoat Tower from Petticoat Square, to Artizan Street.

This material change in circumstances must be acknowledged in any proposals regarding lift replacement and refurbishment.

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, 20ZA, notes that:

Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision

requiring the landlord—

(a)to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the

recognised tenants’ association representing them, (b)to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements,

(c)to invite tenants or the recognised tenants’ association to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord should try to obtain other estimates, (d)to have regard to observations made by tenants or the recognised

tenants’ association in relation to proposed works or agreements and estimates, and (e)to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements.

I would concur with the view of Mr Way that the currently issued Section 20 notices do not appear to meet the requirements of the above Act.

A stage one Section 20 notice must

1.) generally describe the proposed works;

2.) state the reasons for considering the proposed works;

and

3.) invite leaseholders to make written observations within 30 days.

I am of the opinion that item 1.) is not fully met, given the changed material circumstances

on the Estate since 2010.

The proposals as stated in your Section 20 notice are:

"Carry out lift refurbishment works to the two residential lifts in Petticoat Tower"

and

"Carry out lift refurbishment works to the four residential lifts in Petticoat Square"

These statements are inadequate, given the current complexities.

I believe the description of works is too general, given the altered physical environment on the Estate. A general description is required – but the one provided appears inadequate in the present circumstances.

Secondly, viz. item 2.) No reason is given for not extending the current lift service contract, which is manifestly an option open to the Corporation in the interim.

Furthermore, given that this issue affects all residents of the Estate, due to the blocking of the principal entrance on Middlesex Street, and the removal of Petticoat Square from the public realm, I would regard a consultation with only leaseholders as inadequate, and a lack of consultation with all residents as somewhat dubious.

As a proof of this material alteration to the facts on the ground on the Estate, the street address of Petticoat Tower is, and remains, 'Petticoat Square' – yet Petticoat Square is no longer a public place, nor is it publicly accessible.

When the initial report was produced in 2010, the base of Petticoat Tower was not the formal entrance to Petticoat Tower, and the Estate Office was situated on Petticoat Square. Due to the gating of Petticoat Square, the main entrance to Petticoat Tower is now Artizan Street. This is the only entrance where flats can be accessed via door buzzer from the street. While a legacy buzzer panel still exists on the Petticoat Square entrance this is no

longer accessible to the public. In light of this change in use, I formally request, on behalf of all the inhabitants of the

Estate, that a new report be commissioned into the entrance to Petticoat Tower.

At present, discussions are under way viz. relocating the Estate Office. One option being considered, is demolition of the sheds in the foyer area leading off Artizan Street, and placing the Estate Office in this entrance foyer.

An entire re-think of this access point needs to be made; namely, demolishing the sheds, and opening an entrance to the lift shafts on the side facing Artizan Street, reversing the lifts; creating a proper foyer, with an entrance way that is not, as it is at present, an obstacle course for the elderly and infirm, and wide enough to allow disabled users ease of

access.

I have seen no evidence of any impact survey on the shifting of the main entrance to the Tower to Artizan Street. Originally, I believe, it was proposed that the new main entrance to the Estate should be on Harrow Place; a grand new glassed in foyer was created to this end; but the buzzers to allow access to the flats in Petticoat Tower were not moved; the de facto entrance for deliveries, guests etc. is therefore Artizan Street.

This entrance is not fit for purpose. Residents have to open three heavy steel doors to gain access to the area where the lift foyer is; the passageway is narrow, and the elderly, or those in wheelchairs, cannot navigate it without assistance; it is very difficult for a wheelchair user who is a visitor to gain access to a flat without someone coming down to the front entrance to assist them through the current obstacle course.

It is true that residents of the Tower have the option of accessing the Tower via Harrow Place, but disabled visitors do not have this facility, as they cannot buzz the flat they want to visit from that entrance.

I am of the opinion that the current Section 20 notice does not appear to fully satisfy statutory requirements; the notice is based on a report from 2010 that does not reflect realities on the ground; furthermore, these altered realities, I would submit, render it desirable that all residents be consulted, and not only the leaseholders.

I therefore urge the Corporation to withdraw the section 20 notices as currently worded, and commission new condition and compliance reports on the six Middlesex Street Estate lifts, with proper attention paid to disabled access for visitors to Petticoat Tower and the remodelling of the ground floor of Petticoat Tower from two independent consultants, using 2017 prices, before consulting leaseholders and tenants on these renewed proposals, and (for the leaseholders) the available costed options.

Kind regards,

Evan der Millner

Headborough

Covent Garden Precinct Meeting of Portsoken Ward.

POLLUTION HOTSPOTS

Dear Assembly Members,

The Covent Garden Precinct Meeting in the City of London - which is a type of common law Parish Meeting - has reconvened after a period of dormancy. We have been advised that our function is broadly similar to that of a Parish Meeting, and will at our next meeting be voting on whether to become members of the Local Council Public Advisory Service.

At the next Precinct Meeting of the inhabitants, two resolutions for the attention of the Assembly Members (among others) will be put to the vote; they are both likely to pass, having been circulated previously by e-mail; these resolutions concern air pollution in the immediate vicinity of the Precinct, as we are circled by pollution hotspots.

If you follow this link to http://coventgardenprecinct.london you will find the text of these draft resolutions under the 'Resolutions' tab.

I have also attached a research paper on the Precinct Meetings of the City of London, which you may find to be of interest.

Kind regards,

Evan der Millner

Reply:

Dear Mr der Millner,

Thank you for copying Andrew Dismore AM into your email, he has raised this with the GLA member for City and East London Unmesh Desai.

Best wishes,

Arjun Mittra

Research and Support officer to Andrew Dismore

London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden

LONDONASSEMBLYLABOUR

CCTV SYSTEM

10th April 2017

Dear Mr Patel,

I am writing to you, in your capacity as both Chairman of the Community and Children’s' Services Committee, and Crime and Disorder Scrutiny Committee, regarding the CCTV system on the Middlesex Street Estate.

Concerns regarding the functionality of this system were raised by residents at the recent Court of Wardmote; I expect an investigation is under-way, but nevertheless wished to ask some questions, and raise some points regarding this matter.

There have been substantial improvements in security on the Estate over the past two years – with many thanks due to our Common Councilmen, in particular to Henry Jones, the Middlesex Street Estate's allocated member. There is now better trouble-shooting maintenance of the exterior doors (whose design faults cause ongoing maintenance and security issues) , and the new Park Guard service has lead to an objective reduction in antisocial activity.

However, it appears that the current CCTV system may not be fit for purpose.

I have a number of questions regarding the CCTV system; would it be possible to obtain answers to these on behalf of the residents?

1.0 CCTV System:

1.1 When was the system last tested? Is there a written report on this test?

1.2 What was the outcome of the test? Is the system fully functional?

1.3 How high-resolution are the cameras?

1.4 Are the police/ Park Guard satisfied with the current system?

1.5 Have formal recommendations been sought, and/or volunteered by these agencies for improvement?

1.6 Would not a modular Wi-Fi system be more economical in the long term, and also cause less disruption/damage to the fabric of the building, and give more flexibility about placement than the current hard-wired system?

1.7 Could a feasibility study be carried out comparing the costs and advantages/disadvantages of eventual upgrade to a wireless system?

I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter,

Kind regards,

Evan der Millner

Cc. Alderman Sir Michael Bear, Mr Henry Jones (Deputy), Nominated Precinct Trustees, Precinct Officers.

PARK GUARD

10th April 2017

Mr Lee Hutchings,

Operations Director,

Park Guard.

Dear Mr Hutchings,

At a recent meeting of the Covent Garden Court of Precinct Mote (City of London), a resolution was passed by the inhabitants, thanking Park Guard for their work around the Middlesex Street Housing Estate, which sits within this Precinct of Portsoken Ward, in the City of London.

The resolution as passed on the 8th March 2017 is as follows:

VOTE OF THANKS TO THE NIGHT-WATCH:

The Inhabitants of Covent Garden in Precinct Mote Assembled

resolve: that the Court of Common Council be profusely thanked for continued provision of the Night-watch in the Precinct. The inhabitants feel much more secure, knowing that night watchmen regularly visit the vicinity and patrol the Middlesex Street Estate; and further resolve that this resolution be sent down to the Ward Clerk.

Proposer: Evan der Millner;

Seconder: Phillip Chancellor RVM;

Motion carried unanimously

The residents here appreciate the presence of Park Guard; it has made an objective difference to their quality of life; there has been a marked reduction in anti-social activity in the immediate vicinity as a result of Park Guard's ongoing preventative activities.

Kind regards,

Evan der Millner

PETTICOAT TOWER FOYER

9th April 2017

Dear Mr Patel,

I am writing to you about the ongoing problem with the main entrance lift foyer of Petticoat Tower.

If my information is correct, it is approximately ten to fifteen years (10 to 15) since this area was last fully redecorated; this is a very high-use location; currently the paintwork in the lift foyer is in a very poor state, and it looks like what it is: a council estate, but not only a council estate, but a run-down, dog-eared one. We have been reassured time and time again that 'something will be done about it'.

Residents are embarrassed to bring guests home, and personally, arriving back home to this foyer, in its current state, is frankly dispiriting.

A large number of flats in the tower are now leasehold. Those leaseholders feel rightly aggrieved that the main entrance foyer to their homes looks like something from a sink estate. The council tenants are likewise upset at this state of affairs.

No-one here can understand why this is taking so long to rectify. I recall that at the previous common council elections, four years ago, 'action was to be taken'. A small section of the entrance was indeed painted, in the days leading up to that election (the wrong section, as it turned out; the area around the lift foyer was left untouched – the area that was re-painted was not in particularly bad repair). The same promises were made at the common council election four years prior to that.

The local estate staff have expressed a willingness to do this job, if they are compensated for the work. If there are obstacles to this, due to a requirement that the job is put out to tender, this can easily be circumvented by providing the Precinct Meeting with the necessary funds; we are not restricted in this way by statute, and can pay the local Estate staff directly, with no need to put the job out to tender.

There is no reason why there should be any further delay whatsoever in dealing with this matter. All that is under discussion here is a mere coat of paint.

It is outrageous – and I do not use this word lightly – that this issue should have been allowed to fester for so long, and that residents' complaints – from the Petticoat Square Leaseholders, from the now-defunct Tenants' Association, and from numerous individuals, should have been so studiously ignored.

Anyone looking at this objectively would come to the conclusion that there was a deliberate policy of obfuscation in place – something worthy of a Dickensian Circumlocution Office.

I trust that this is just a case of local incompetence, and not a deliberate policy. I trust that we can resolve it speedily and amicably.

POLICY PROPOSAL

A proper written policy needs to be drawn up for the maintenance of this particular foyer, ideally to be drawn up in consultation with the Precinct Meeting.

The foyer is a high-use area, and requires special focus.

I propose that this area should be re-painted annually; perhaps a two-tone paint scheme can be put in place, with a dado/paint line at 2 metres, so that the upper walls and ceiling, which receive little to no wear and tear, and do not need regular re-painting, can be left untended. This would substantially reduce the cost of ongoing annual upkeep, as there would be no need for scaffolding.

PROPOSAL FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION

If tendering for this particular redecoration job is a statutory requirement, this can be circumvented by providing the Precinct Meeting Trustees with a grant for use on local improvements. The Precinct Meeting is, I believe, not subject to statutory obligations regarding local authority tendering. If the Gardening Club can maintain the podium, I see no reason why a similar arrangement cannot be made for the Precinct Meeting, whose trustees will manage the funds and make arrangements in co-ordination with Housing Management.

I trust that you will be able to investigate this matter, and assist in reaching a rapid conclusion to this ongoing saga.

Kind regards,

Evan der Millner

Headborough

Covent Garden Precinct of Portsoken Ward.

cc. Alderman Sir Michael Bear, Deputy Henry Jones, The Precinct Trustees

ARTIZAN STREET PROJECT

8th April 2017

City Public Realm

Department of the Built Environment

City of London Corporation

Dear Ms Ben-Hassel,

I am writing to you regarding the progress of the Artizan Street Project. I would appreciate it greatly if the Precinct Meeting could be provided with a formal update as to the current state of plans, and the proposed work schedule.

I also write to further note that the issue of ponding of water outside Petticoat Tower persists. This was was first flagged up at least as early as 7/7/2015. Although some work was done, the problem was not rectified.

It is now March 2017. When it rains heavily, it remains the case that a deep pond forms on the northern side of Artizan St., between the security barriers – forcing residents to walk through water that is deep enough to enter footwear. Puddles occur elsewhere as well.

Despite several complaints over the past two years, nothing has been done to move the crash barriers to a different location, so that residents can access their homes in wet conditions.

The Corporation as Surveyor of Highways has a legal duty to maintain the pavement, and this includes a common law obligation to not having paving that allows significant puddles to collect.

As we still have many months to wait until the Artizan Street Project gets under-way, can the barriers please be shifted, so that protection from vehicles is still provided, while allowing pedestrian access, unimpeded by deep puddles during rainy weather.

Yours sincerely,

Evan der Millner

Headborough

AIR BNB ACTIVITY

Dear Henry and Michelle,

I had a couple of queries about the situation re: short term letting on the Estate that I thought you might know something about.

Currently, in Greater London, outside of the City of London, (if not otherwise specified in a tenancy agreement or leasehold agreement), it is legal to let your home if you are away temporarily, and if you do not do so for more than a total of 90 days in any year.

My first question is, does this restriction( in section 25 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 as amended by sections 44-45 of the Deregulation Act 2015) apply in the City of London?

If not, has the CoL done anything to create equivalency - or even implement a stricter position, regarding this matter?

Either way, has a discussion been held within the CoL about future leases granted to long leaseholders or homes been held, to discuss whether these leases should have a clause restricting short term sub-letting of the entire premises. If so, what was the outcome?Many long leases already do this elsewhere in London.

I trust you will be able to throw some light on this matter,

Kind regards,

Evan.

NEW COMMUNITY ROOM

07/04/2017

Dear Councilman Patel, (Community and Childrens' Services Committee)

I am writing to you in your capacity as Chairman of the Community and Children's Services Committee.

I have recently been elected as the Headborough of the Precinct Meeting for Covent Garden Precinct of Portsoken Ward. For more background about this, I have attached the research paper we originally sent to the Town Clerk, regarding the Precinct Meetings.

This is a type of common law Parish Meeting; many wards had them, but none have met since the 1920s.

At a meeting of the Precinct held on the 8th March 2017, the residents passed a resolution, regarding community space.

When the Artizan Street Library was built, the residents of the Precinct lost their Community Hall.

There are a number of factors why social cohesion on the Estate has declined markedly over the past few years, but the loss of the 'village hall' is an identifiable factor; social cohesion on the Estate has been affected by it. Over the past few years, two dedicated communal rooms on Middlesex Street estate have been lost - the so-called 'Paint Room', and the Communal Hall. Both spaces have been turned into social housing - a good thing that no-one can argue about - but this has come at a cost to communal life on the Estate.

As the stairwell of Petticoat Tower is currently being reglazed, we thought this would be an opportune time to glaze this first floor balcony, in matching style, at little additional cost. This would create an enclosed space that could be used by residents' groups.

This large balcony space has never been used for any purpose, at any time, since the estate was built. If enclosed with a conservatory as we recommend, it would create a useful community space at very low cost to the Corporation.

We are happy for this to remain bare concrete inside, if funds cannot be located to redecorate it. It would serve the purpose, simply by being enclosed.

The resolution as passed follows.

The Inhabitants of Covent Garden in Precinct Mote Assembled

resolve that a Court of Common Council be petitioned to enclose the balcony space that is situated above the entrance to Petticoat Tower, on the first floor of said Tower with a glass conservatory-type extension, using the same style to be adopted for the stairwell renovations, and the Harrow Place stairwell, thus forming it into an enclosed room.

And further resolve that the Common Council assign this newly enclosed space to be used exclusively as a Vestry or Community Meeting Room for this Precinct, for the purpose of holding local residents' meetings for the various committees, clubs and groups formed by the inhabitants; and that the keys, administration and booking of this room should be under the control of the Officers of said Precinct, who will institute a fair and equitable booking system for said room.

I hope to hear from you regarding this matter.

Kind regards,

Evan der Millner

ADDRESS MANAGEMENT UNIT

Address Management Unit,

Royal Mail,

Admiral House,

Admiral Way,

Doxford International Business Park,

SUNDERLAND,

SR3 3XW

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have a query re: address/street name re-allocation. Should a Parish Meeting vote to change a postcode or street address for a building in its area, would the Address Management Unit take this under advisement?

The Precinct Meeting of Covent Garden, Portsoken, City of London, will shortly be joining the Local Council Public Advisory Service, on the equivalent terms to a Parish Meeting; (being the lowest tier of local government).

Background:

The postcode of Petticoat Tower, a significant building in the Precinct, is currently Petticoat Tower, Petticoat Square E1. The principal entrance to this building, until a couple of years ago, used to be on Middlesex Street, E1. Petticoat Square was accessible from Middlesex Street.

However, the entrance to Petticoat Tower from Middlesex Street has been permanently blocked off. There is no longer any public access to Petticoat Square; this square is now enclosed as a private, gated space; it is no longer a public space. Petticoat Square is, however, still featured as the official street address for Petticoat Tower,

which causes ongoing confusion with deliveries to Petticoat Tower; even directing visitors to the front door of Petticoat Tower is problematic. It should be emphasised that the only street level direct access to Petticoat Tower is now on Artizan Street, E1.

The adjacent building to ours, Beaufort House, has the postcode EC3A 7NJ, despite falling on the same North-South axis as the new ground floor access entrance to Petticoat Tower on Artizan Street.

The residents of the Tower, visitors, and delivery agencies would find life much easier if the address of Petticoat Tower were to be changed from Petticoat Square, to Artizan Street.

Thus, in conclusion, if you decide that you would would take a vote of the inhabitants of the Precinct under advisement concerning this matter, I will add it to the agenda for the next Precinct Meeting, and inform you if the residents vote to request a change to the street address for Petticoat Tower.

Kind Regards,

Evan der Millner

Headborough

PODIUM FORMER STAIRCASE

07/04/2017

(To Community and Children's Services, Planning, Transportation committees and others)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you regarding the decommissioned stairwell, being the former main

entrance to Middlesex Street Estate.

Further to discussions with various shop-keepers on Middlesex Street, I am contacting you

on their behalf, as they wanted to know why it was not technically possible to substantially

demolish the stairwell?

I had previously been told that the base holds an electrical substation; however, on

personal inspection yesterday, it is quite clear that the majority of the base is actually

storage space - only a small corner of of the total space under the landing appears to be

used by the electrical substation.

Surely it would be technically possible to demolish the vast majority of the stairwell, leaving

only a small nub behind? This would vastly improve Middlesex Street.

Putting a mosaic on one wall of the stairwell, as is currently proposed, will not resolve the

problem that the stairwell is ugly, an unwelcome imposition on the streetscape, and a

focus for anti-social behaviour. The York stone stairs are steadily deteriorating. This

particular pig's ear will not easily be turned into a silk purse.

Could a feasibility study be made into the cost of demolition, with the section holding the

sub-station retained, and re-clad?

Yours sincerely,

Evan der Millner

Reply from Henry Jones, Deputy

Dear All

I am on a working group with CoL officers LBTH members and officers regarding Petticoat Lane

We have discussed the stairway and I am waiting for a report back

Henry.

Reply from John Fletcher CC

Agreed, will investigate.

TESCO FUNDS

The Ward Clerk, Portsoken Ward, City of London

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you for clarification about a matter related to funding, and would like to know whether you would be able to provide a chronology to the Precinct Meeting regarding the below matter.

At a meeting of the Housing Management and Almshouses Sub-Committee on 28th of November 2016 it was reported that:

“Paul Richardson, Estate Manager, has been successful in getting a grant from

the Tesco Bags of Help scheme. With this, he plans to improve the Podium

for all residents. We are waiting to hear if the grant is £8,000, £10,000, or

£12,000 – this will be dependent on a customer vote, so I would be grateful if

Members could do their shopping at Tesco for the next few weeks.”

There are a number of questions, answers to which I would like to present to the Precinct Meeting to be held

on 25th April 2017:

1. What was the size of the grant finally obtained?

2. Was there a consultation with residents on how these funds should be spent?

3. On what date was the consultation held?

4. What was the outcome of that consultation?

5. When were these funds spent, and on what specifically were they spent?

6. Are accounts available?

7. Are all these funds now spent?

I trust that you will be able to forward this letter to relevant officers or Members who will be able to throw some light on this small matter.

Can you please respond promptly to this letter, acknowledging receipt, and further, kindly inform the Precinct Meeting of who specifically has been tasked with dealing with the matter, once you ascertain who that party may be.

Kind regards,

Evan der Millner

___________________________________

4th April 2017

Tesco Bags of Help, Groundwork.

Attn: Zoe Ivory

Dear Ms Ivory,

I am writing to you regarding a Tesco Bags of Help grant, secured by the Corporation of London in late 2016 on behalf of the inhabitants of the Precinct living on the Middlesex Street Estate. We are trying to follow up what happened to these funds; whether the grant was made at all; to whom it was made; what the sum was, and how it was spent.

I have attached a letter from myself on behalf of the Precinct Meeting, to the Ward Clerk for Portsoken,City of London, detailing our questions regarding this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course, hoping that you may be able to throw some light on this matter.

Kind regards,

Evan der Millner

cc. Ward Clerk, Portsoken.

_____________________________________

Dear Evan,

Thank you for your enquiry re: Tesco Bags of Help grant awarded to City of London Corporation. Your letter and contact details were passed to myself here at Groundwork London as Enabler Lead for the programme in London.

I have provided answers to your questions on your letter and also copied in Michelle Warman who is the new contact for the project as I understand Paul Richardson has left the organisation.

1. What was the size of the grant finally obtained? - £10,000 was the grant award
2. Was there a consultation with residents on how these funds should be spent? - According to the initial application that was made for funding, residents were consulted by letters, questionairres and during meetings over the past two years and the areas of improvements that were applied for were the highest on the priority list for improvements.
3. On what date was the consultation held? - As above, but I cannot answer this as we only support and adminster the application process and after support.
4. What was the outcome of that consultation? - As above
5. When were these funds spent, and on what specifically were they spent?- I am currently liaising with Michelle as the grant has yet to be processed to City of London Corporation but the application was made for the following: Improving the podium, garden and play areas for residents.
6. Are accounts available? - I can't answer this sorry
7. Are all these funds now spent? - No, as we are processing the grant payment

I hope this is helpful for your Precinct meeting and don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any further questions.

Michelle, also please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any queries or questions in accepting the grant or next steps for your project.

Best wishes,

Alex

Alex Forrester

Programme Manager

Groundwork London

Tel: 020 7922 1230

Mob: 07955508472

18 - 21 Morley Street, London, SE1 7QZ

Local Council Public Advisory Service

Dear Evan

Thank you for your email

We would be delighted to be of service to the Precinct Meeting of Covent Garden.

Having read with interest the history and functions of a Precinct Meeting that you kindly provided, I would agree that they have a similar purpose as a Parish Meeting.

The definition of a parish for the purpose of Parish Meetings is laid down in the Local Government Act 1972 s9. This excluded urban areas.

However, the Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 s85 allows a non-parochial area to become a parish. This was introduced to allow Greater London areas to become parished and thereby being able to establish a Parish or Town Council.

This being the case, I can see no reason why Covent Garden could not be established as a parish and therefore able to choose the style that any future parish authority may take.

This would require a Community Governance Review which would be carried out by the London Borough. I would be happy to provide further details.

The Precinct Meeting may take the view that you are happy in the historic form you take now and in that case we can support you in carrying out your meetings and functions.

The Meeting may wish to consider Parish Meeting or Parish Council status if it wishes to have a statutory basis, statutory powers and the ability to raise a precept (local tax on the community to pay for any assets and functions provided). We can support you with this also.

We are going to be assisting a parish in Peterborough establish a Parish Council this year. I am sure you are aware that Queens Park recently became a Council. Shortly Lowestoft in Suffolk will become a Town Council. This type of activity is encouraged and supported by the Government who can see the value of Local Councils in urban communities.

Our annual fee for subscription for a Parish Meeting is £25 and this includes access to our solicitor for desktop advice, HR support and financial advice via our partners. We offer legal and procedural advice and training courses. We issue regular legal updates and information and host many useful documents and templates on our subscribers area. We would be happy to offer the same price and services to the Precinct Meeting of Covent Garden.

I hope this helps and if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Very best wishes

Jayne

---------------------

4th April 2017

Dear Jayne,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

Our next Precinct Meeting is scheduled for 25th April.

I will put annual membership of LCPAS on the agenda - I expect that resolution to be approved. Being a member of LCPAS will be useful for us.

At this stage, we will continue with our historical format ; we know how we fit in to the City of London's unique constitution.

We will try to obtain a memorandum of understanding from the CoL regarding statutory planning consultation; this appears to be the most pertinent difference for us, at this stage, between being a Precinct Meeting, and a statutory Parish Meeting.

If at some stage we decide that becoming a statutory Parish Meeting will make things work more effectively, we will explore going down that route.

Kind regards,

Evan

INVITATION

26th March 2017

Dear Henry, Jason, John, and Munsur,

I would like to invite the four of you to attend the next Covent Garden Precinct Meeting: this will be at 7.30pm, in the Artizan Street Community Centre, on the 25th of April.

The format for this part of the meeting will be: each councilman will get 3 minutes to talk: e.g. let people know which ward committees you have been assigned to; any meetings you have attended to date; any issues you are currently dealing with, or intend to deal with, etc.

After everyone has spoken, I will open the floor to questions.

I hope you will be able to attend.

Kind regards,

Evan

cc. Sir Michael Bear, Alderman; Precinct Clerks and Beadle

22 March 2017

GYM EQUIPMENT

The Ward Clerk,

Portsoken Ward.

Dear Sir,

Following a meeting of the Covent Garden Precinct Meeting, I am writing to you as instructed, regarding the matter of the proposed outdoor gym equipment for Middlesex Street Estate.

Discussion at the recent Precinct Meeting on this matter centred around general disatisfaction with the way the CoL had gone about consulting residents about the details of this particular project. The following resolution was agreed at the meeting:

The Inhabitants of Covent Garden in Precinct Mote Assembled

RESOLVE to invite Fusion to address this meeting with a presentation about the proposed gym equipment that is proposed for installation on the Estate; to request the Corporation of London to make no final decision about placement and installation of said gym equipment without the agreement of this Precinct Meeting. Resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent down to the Ward Clerk.

If you could kindly forward this resolution to the appropriate committee and officers for a formal response, this would be appreciated.

Kind regards,

Evan der Millner

Chairman & Headborough

Covent Garden Precinct Meeting (Portsoken Ward)

22 March 2017

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

The Ward Clerk,

Portsoken Ward.

Dear Sir,

Following a recent meeting of the Covent Garden Precinct Mote, I am writing to you as instructed, regarding the matter of the lack of a Neighbourhood Plan for the area around Middlesex Street Estate.

There was much discussion at this Meeting about the mix of shops in the area, and the local environment in general; it was observed that the Corporation appears to let out shops without thinking through what the area could and should be like; residents queried why a shop was let to an adult-related business in a residential neighbourhood. No-one objected to the business itself, if it were indeed legitimate, but queried whether this was the right place for it.

A proper policy needs to be in place, with a mix of shops appropriate for the area; residents stated they would like to see a traditional butcher, a laundrette, a baker, an organic greengrocer, and perhaps a flower shop, etc. This could be achieved if the appropriate policies were in place, and this would change the character of the area. Residents were concerned that Middlesex Street might end up as a seedy backwater if the Corporation is not careful with how it manages the current situation; it was noted there are now apparently three massage parlours on the street already; one at the top end near Bishopsgate, and two near the Middlesex Street Estate.

The following resolution was passed at the meeting:

The Inhabitants of Covent Garden in Precinct Mote Assembled

RESOLVE: that the Headborough write to the Ward Clerk, outlining our concerns about the mix of shops and the general retail environment of the Precinct, noting that there should be a more formal neighbourhood plan in place for the area.

It would be appreciated if this letter could be forwarded to the appropriate committees and officers for a formal response.

Kind regards,

Evan der Millner

Chairman & Headborough

22 March 2017

NEW FLATS

The Ward Clerk,

Portsoken Ward.

Dear Sir,

Following a meeting of the Covent Garden Precinct Meeting, I am writing to you as instructed, regarding the matter of the new flats to be built on Middlesex Street Estate.

The residents were in favour of the new flats; however, the affect they would have on our local retailers was noted; in particular, that the retailers were being forced to give up the space on their top floors to make room for the flats, and thus were losing vital storage capacity, needed in order that they can run their businesses effectively. It was agreed that the CoL should be encouraged to find an alternative storage facility for the affected retailers. The following resolution was passed by the meeting:

“The Inhabitants of Covent Garden in Precinct Mote Assembled

RESOLVE: that we convey our support for the provision of additional housing in the Precinct, and that we wish to make the following observations:

1. That there should be triple glazing

2. That as the retailers will be forced to give up their storage space, making it difficult for them to run their businesses, alternative arrangements for storage should be made for the affected retailers; Resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent down to the Ward Clerk.”

If you could kindly forward this resolution to the appropriate committee and officers for a formal response, this would be appreciated.

Kind regards,

Evan der Millner

Chairman & Headborough

22 March 2017

SHED MONEY

The Ward Clerk,

Portsoken Ward.

Dear Sir,

Following a meeting of the Covent Garden Precinct Meeting, I am writing to you as instructed, regarding the matter of the so-called 'shed money' precept.

The residents have not asked for accounts for previous expenditure of these funds; we acknowledge that this could be complex, as the accounts do not appear to have been set up to differentiate the expenditure from the HRA in this way.

Rather, it was resolved that the residents should ask for better consultation and proper accounting for these funds in future.

Reference was made at the meeting to the statement in Elizabeth Donnelly's letter dated 10^th November 2010, in which she stated that 20 to 25% of the 'shed money' would be reinvested on the Estate.

In light of this, the following resolution was passed by the Precinct Meeting:

“The Inhabitants of Covent Garden in Precinct Mote Assembled

RESOLVE: that the Court of Common Council be asked that future allocations of the 'shed money' should only be distributed after consultation with the Precinct Meeting.”

Could you kindly please pass this resolution on to the appropriate committee or officer for a response?

Kind regards,

Evan der Millner

Chairman & Headborough

21 March 2017

PARISH MEETING

Dear Damien,

With regard to your previous email, I think it is reasonable to treat the Precinct Meeting as roughly equivalent to a Parish Meeting in parishes that do not have a Parish Council; i.e. having extremely limited powers (most of which, in any event, are irrelevant in our Precinct), therefore principally functioning as a debating chamber, and a vital officially recognised conduit of communication up to the next level of government.

The Precinct Meeting is implicitly recognised; there is no doubt about this; e.g. The Precinct Meetings, as part of the City's Municipal Government are clearly under the ultimate jurisdiction of the Court of Aldermen (refer the 1829 sitting of the Court of Aldermen in judicial capacity, where the Precinct Meetings appear to have had their ancient power to fine the inhabitants for not taking up a civic office removed).

I believe we should wait until the Town Clerk and/or the Court of Aldermen report back to us with their considered response to the initial position paper as to our powers and responsibilities within the City's constitution.

In the mean time, we should continue to conduct our meetings in accord with common law and the available precedents (which largely accord with the statutory requirements for Parish Meetings, which appear to have simply codified the pre-existing common law arrangements, so there is in many areas little practical difference).

The Precinct Meeting as it is running now is clearly a very small, rather insignificant, part of the City's municipal government - nevertheless we should run it as closely to the various precedents that exist as possible, and make no changes to how it runs that cannot be supported by an available precedent.

I advise being as conservative as possible in this matter,

-Evan.

cc. Alderman Sir Michael Bear.

17th March 2017

GUILDABLE MANOR

Tony Sharp, esq.,

Clerk,

The Guildable Manor of Southwark.

Dear Mr Sharp,

A small group of inhabitants of the City have recently resurrected the ancient Court of Precinct Mote in the Ward of Portsoken in the City of London, (with the permission of the Town Clerk) as a working 'Parish Meeting'.

We recently held our first meeting, where I was elected Headborough of the Precinct; a beadle and a precinct clerk were also elected. I have not yet been sworn in by a JP, as we are not quite sure how to approach this matter, although I made the declaration at the tything court (which is a type of leet jurisdiction).

Our next meeting is scheduled for the day before the annual Wardmote, 21st March, at 8pm. We will probably meet monthly, as there is much practical business to transact of concern to the inhabitants of the Precinct.

Our website is up at http://coventgardenprecinct.london

Our Precinct is an ancient Saxon tything jurisdiction, but is, interestingly, independent of the Lord Mayor of London, (although it is intimately connected to the municipal administration via the Wardmote).

For more information, please take a look at the 'documents' section of our website, as the research that enabled us to re-boot the Precinct (and convince the Town Clerk ) is contained there.

I anticipate that you might be able to advise us on a number of ceremonial and practical matters; for example, on how to run an inquest jury, if we elect one, as some Precinct Motes formerly did.

I look forward to hearing from you,

Yours sincerely,

Evan der Millner

Headborough

Covent Garden Precinct

City of London

I have attached a copy of our most recent newsletter for your information.

LEGAL STATUS

John Barradell, esq.

The Town Clerk,

City of London,

Guildhall.

16th March 2017

Dear Mr Barradell,

Following my earlier correspondence with you, regarding the Covent Garden Precinct, I would like to bring the following points to your attention, to be considered by your legal officers, when adjudicating the status to be assigned to the Precinct Meeting.

It appears that the Covent Garden Precinct may be an existing town or vill at common law, and not a parish, for the reasons I outline below.

The Precinct Meeting could perhaps be recognised as the legal Town Meeting for this administrative jurisdiction.

William Blackstone equates the word 'town' with 'tithing', which is the smallest civil division in England; our Precinct is such a tithing. “Tithings, towns or vills are of the same signification in law” (1 Bl. Com. 114).

Thus, the Precinct Mote or Meeting may be, by this definition, a Town Meeting.

And further, given that recent government guidance states that “We will make it clear that there will be a presumption in favour of the setting up of parish councils so that local authorities will be expected to grant communities’ requests to set up new parish councils, except where there are good reasons not to, and that existing parish councils are not to be abolished against the wishes of local people.” (DCLG, Strong and prosperous communities, 2006, p43), and further, it is stated:-

“We believe that localism is best achieved when it is led by the local communities themselves. We see town and parish councils as playing a vital role in helping local people to make this happen; it is for this reason we want to support those neighbourhoods...”

(DCLG, Government response to consultation on making it easier to set up new town and parish councils, 2013, p.4)

And furthermore, in addition to Blackburn's definition, the interpretation clause in 11 Geo 4 and 1 Will. 4. c.64. s. 32 is instructive: “the words 'parish or place' shall be deemed to include any township, hamlet, tithing, village, extra-parochial place, or any place

maintaining its own poor.” Covent Garden Precinct had its own overseers of the poor, as is clear from the Vestry minutes of St Botolphs without Aldgate, “Mr. Francis Hawes and Mr. William Myers [overseers] For Covent Garden Precinct, etc.”

London, as a County unto itself, is anciently described in the legal authorities as being divided into wards and precincts, these corresponding with shires and towns in counties elsewhere. The Precincts of the City of London in each Ward are enumerated in detail in “A Short Account of the Various Wards, Precincts, Parishes, etc., in London”, by John Smart, 1742.

In addition to the above, it is an established principle of English constitutional law that where there is a constable, there is a town. (Rex v Sir Watts Horton, 1Term.Rep. 376, S.C. per Buller, J ) ( R v The Inhabitants of East Church, May 8, 1830) “One criterion of what constitutes a vill or town, to which the Courts have paid great attention, is that of a constable, or a tithing man; and the statement in support of this criterion, made by Mr Buller, J, is, “that where there is a constable there is a township; for there may be a constable for a larger district, but not for a smaller, and that the doubt, in many cases, has arisen where there is no constable.” (The Legal Examiner, September 26, 1832, pg. 43)”

In law, this Precinct still appears to retain the right to nominate and elect a constable; (nominations pro forma were called for at the previous meeting of the Precinct.) The constable is elected at the precinct level, and said election is confirmed or otherwise at the

wardmote (and subsequently by the City Marshall.) The City of London Police Act does not abolish the election of constables, it merely cancels the holding of said elections for the duration the act is in force, while explicitly stating that this has no constitutional affect on city governance and customs.

An additonal aspect to consider, is that separate rates were once levied by each precinct of this City for watch and ward. (For example, for our precinct, see https://www.londonlives.org/static/LSDSPOL.jsp)

Furthermore, towns may elect councilmen (although this does not appear to form a requirement of the definition of a town or vill); the precincts of this City originally each sent a single representative to Common Council; however, this institution of electing

councilmen is of much more recent origin than the precincts themselves. The election of councilman was confirmed at the Wardmote. This right was weakened, and then finally removed by the Court of Common Council in 1920. (London is subdivided into 236

Precincts, each precinct sends a representative to the common council.)

That this precinct still has a right to elect other local municipal officers for within its jurisdiction, to elect its own inquest jury, to appoint committees, etc.,is clear from various precedents described in earlier correspondence, and furthermore each Precinct Meeting does not, and has never required, the precept of the Lord Mayor of London in order to convene and transact its own municipal business. The office of headborough, the ancient Borsholder of a Tithing, or Tithingman, which is distinct from that of constable, was maintained in the City of London, as 5 and 6 Victoria c 109 excludes the City of London. Latterly, in the City, records show that the elected leader of each precinct was styled a 'chairman', but this appears to never have been a formal designation, and the elected leader of a tything or precinct remains a borsholder or headborough at law.

To conclude: Given there appears to be a presumption in the DCLG advice in favour of recognition, and given that the City of London Precincts are an ancient common law administrative jurisdiction, being the Saxon tything jurisdiction, and given that they have never been abolished by statute within the City of London; it thus appears that the Precinct Meeting may be considered to be a Town Meeting.

The “Headborough and Inhabitants of Covent Garden Precinct in Precinct Mote Assembled” and/or “Covent Garden Precinct Meeting” and/or “Covent Garden Precinct” should, in view of the above, be recognised as having equivalence to a parish or town for the purposes precepting, planning related matters, grant applications, the Community Infrastructure Levy, and any such matters that would fall within the competencies of a parish, town or community council.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course regarding this matter,

Kind regards,

Evan der Millner

Headborough

Covent Garden Precinct

COAT OF ARMS

13th March 2017

Dear Officers,

Following the resolution of the last Court of Precinct Mote, I contacted the Court of the Arms to discuss the matter of insignia.

I had a very interesting appointment today with William Hunt, Windsor Herald of Arms (who incidentally designed Sir Michael Bear's Arms, and was also very involved with the Portsoken Militia).

He said the City would not actually be at liberty to allow us to use their arms, and that we should, additionally, not use anything that a layman might confuse with the City's arms, even if they are, technically, not the Corporation's arms per se. He suggested using a badge of some kind. When I arrived home, I found an email waiting for me with a message from the Chief Commoner, confirming precisely this.

After much searching, I have found the conjectural reconstruction of the ancient Roman arms of London that I had once seen some years back.

I have changed our livery to this on our documentation, and the website. The next Court meeting will need to decide whether or not we keep it. I like it, as it references the large stone eagle recently dug up in The Minories, and of course, we should not forget that our building is sitting on top of a Roman cemetery.

Kind regards,

Evan der Millner

Headborough.

cc Alderman, Sir Michael Bear.

SPITALFIELDS

Dear Mr Donoghue,

I have recently been elected as Headborough of the Precinct of Covent Garden, in the Ward of Portsoken.

As you are probably aware, the office of Headborough in its full force was never abolished in the City of London. Unlike your Hamlet, the Precincts in the City were never abolished, either. We aim to get our Precinct Meeting recognised as equivalent to a Parish Meeting; the most recent Precinct Meetings in the City were held as recently as 1920. You can find more extensive detail in the 'documents' section of our website.

We are also interested in being recognised for the purposes of planning and the CIL,and I wondered if there was anyone in your forum who would be able to help us, as we are totally new at this, and know little about it.

Our Deputy Precinct Clerk, Mr Damien Vaugh, has been given the brief of looking into this matter. I wonder if you could be so kind as to contact him?

I hope you will be able to offer us assistance and advice in this matter,

Yours sincerely,

Evan der Millner

Headborough

To: Michelle Warman, Estate Manager

10th March 2017

Dear Ms Warman,

On behalf of the Precinct of Covent Garden, I would like to wish you a warm welcome to our area as Estate Manager.

The previous meeting of the Court of Precinct Mote passed a resolution, inviting you to address a future meeting. Our next meeting is scheduled for 21st March at 8 pm. If that is inconvenient, we can arrange a different time; I am happy to schedule around your requirements, provided a room can be booked for the occasion. (Note, we do not want to use the computer room, as it is unsuitable for public meetings.)

It is up to you what format you would like to adopt. You could perhaps give a short speech, followed by a brief question and answer session. Please let me know.

Secondly, on a different topic, can you please let me know what we need to do, in order to apply for funding from Housing, in our capacity as a residents' representative forum?

Many Thanks,

Evan der Millner

Headborough

Covent Garden Precinct

Reply:

10 March 2017

Good afternoon Mr der Millner,

Thank you for your email, and I am looking forward to meeting you and working with residents on various projects to improve service we provide.

I am really sorry but cannot make your next meeting, but would be happy to answer any matters arising regarding concerns or queries on the Estate.

The City of London no longer fund resident groups but offer a community grant which gives all residents an opportunity to apply for funding.

I am happy to meet with you to explain the process and can give you the relevant forms.

Have a lovely weekend

Michelle

Reply:

10 March 2017

Dear Ms Warman,

Thank you for your kind reply. Our invitation stands; the residents at the meeting were very keen to have you attend. I will relay your reply at the forthcoming meeting. I will certainly let you know when our next meeting is, and hope you will be able to attend then.

It is generally productive to address a residents' group, rather than individuals one at a time, as people learn from one another, and share valuable experience and information. I am not sure if I attached our briefing document on the Precinct Meeting. It is now available on the Covent Garden Precinct website, under 'documents.

I will ask the Town Clerk about funding.

Please find attached the agenda for the forthcoming meeting of the Precinct.

Many Thanks.

To: Dr Professor Derek Keene MA, DPhil (Oxon)

Emeritus Professor of Metropolitan History and Honorary Fellow

Dear Dr Keene,

Thanks to your research, we have, with the Town Clerk's sanction, been able to resurrect the ancient Court of Precinct Mote in the Precinct of Covent Garden, City of London.

I would like to enquire as to whether you still have the map you constructed from the City's tax records, which enabled you to reconstruct the Precinct boundaries? There are other precincts that are interested in our project, but do not want to have to reinvent the wheel.

Our website is now up and running:

https://sites.google.com/view/coventgardenprecinct

You may find the 'documents' section of interest.

We have mentioned your work; if you would like to attend and address the Court of Precinct Mote at some point in the future, we would be delighted to receive you.

Evan der Millner

Headborough

To: Ms D. Regis CC

9th March 2017

Dear Ms Regis CC,

The Court of Precinct Mote of Covent Garden passed a vote of thanks to the four serving common councilmen.

We understand that you are not seeking re-election this year, and wish you well for the future.

Should you wish to attend a future meeting of the Covent Garden Precinct Mote, please let me know.

Our next meeting is pencilled in for the 7.30pm on the 21st March 2017.

Perhaps you would like to keep your connection with local politics, and serve as headborough for your ward's precinct, which is the 'Tower Hill Precinct', where the Mansell Street Estate is situated; parish meetings of this type are useful, and have a higher level of recognition than tenants' committees.

Please be in touch if you want to know more. You will find most of the information you require in the 'documents' section on our website. https://sites.google.com/view/coventgardenprecinct

Kind regards,

Evan der Millner

Headborough

Attachment: Parliamentary Briefing Paper on Parishes

To: Mr John Fletcher CC

9th March 2017

Dear Mr Fletcher CC,

The previous meeting of the Covent Garden Precinct Mote passed a vote of thanks for the common councilmen who have served the ward over the past four years.

There has been much to do, and despite the tiny area of our ward, a surprisingly large amount happens that needs attention; you are always to hand, and your life experience has proved invaluable in helping you in the important matter of not talking about things, but actually getting things done. The residents are grateful to have such a dedicated champion.

I would personally like to wish you all the best in the forthcoming ward elections, and would like to take this opportunity to extend an invitation to you to address a Precinct Meeting at some point after they have concluded.

Yours sincerely,

Evan der Millner

Headborough

To: Mr Henry Jones, Deputy

9th March 2017

Dear Mr Jones, Deputy,

The previous meeting of the Covent Garden Precinct Mote passed a vote of thanks for the four serving common councilmen.

On behalf of the residents, I wish to convey my personal thanks to you for all your hard work over the past four years in advocating for the residents of the Precinct; despite the small size of our 'parish', there is always much to do, and you have been indefatigable.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend an invitation to you to address the Precinct Mote; this would be best left until after the election, as you are currently a candidate for re-election.

You are welcome to attend our next meeting, which is pencilled in for 7.30pm on March 21st.

Yours sincerely,

Evan der Millner

Headborough

To: Dr Campbell-Taylor CC

9th March 2017

Dear Dr Campbell-Taylor CC,

The previous Court of Precinct Mote passed a vote of thanks to the Common Councilmen who have served the ward for the past four years.

You have put much work into this ward over the years, with your involvement reaching back 2001-3 when Iris Samuels was the Deputy ; petitioning the Lords on the city franchise, helping with the ward boundary, the school, ensuring we kept four councilmen( when it was proposed to reduce the number to three) and numerous other important local and City matters.

In addition to these, you have been involved with innumerable local issues affecting individual residents, and other broader constitutional issues affecting City governance; the residents will miss your valuable input into local affairs.

I am pleased to hear that you intend to maintain a connection with the ward.

I would like to extend a formal invitation to attend and address the Precinct Mote at some time in the future. Our next meeting is pencilled in for for 7.30pm on the 21st March - the room is booked, but it still needs to be confirmed.

With best wishes,

Evan der Millner

Headborough

COAT OF ARMS

9th March 2017

Dear Mr Barradell,

Further to the telephone call I received from the Corporation, stating that we may hold the Precinct Meeting, I am writing to you, as requested, for further clarification; namely, to enquire as to whether, in your view, the Precinct Meeting is entitled to use the Corporation of London's Coat of Arms on its documents?

The Precinct Meeting is in essence a type of Parish Meeting, and serves the same function; I have noted that in other localities, the Parish Meetings generally use the Arms of their respective County Council.

Yours sincerely,

Evan der Millner

Headborough

cc. The Precinct Clerks

COAT OF ARMS

6th March 2017

Re: Precinct Mote of Covent Garden, Portsoken (Arms)

Dear Sirs/ Mesdames,

I am writing to you, regarding your request to not to use the City's Coat of Arms. Until the position is clarified, we have no complaint in complying.

However, please be advised, as I mentioned on the telephone, that the current handbill has already been printed and is in distribution to the inhabitants of the Precinct.

Until we have received clear advice on the matter, we will use an alternative coat of arms (The ancient Saxon arms of the City, which are not under the jurisdiction of the Court of Chivalry, as they are conjectural).

Yours Sincerely,

Evan der Millner

Chairman pro tem

Precinct of Covent Garden

Portsoken

City of London