Survey on future of Stewardship

  • The LVCA has been in discussions with BVT regarding the future shape of the Stewardship scheme. We are aware of the high levels of discontent amongst some residents with the scheme and that some would like to see the scheme scrapped. Realistically, we don't think there is a legal route to achieve this. However, we have a meeting, with an Independent Facilitator on the 20th October to discuss the future shape of the scheme. We would like to gauge the sentiments of the residents about the possible options. Please click here to give use your vote!

Jim Weir

Jim Weir
Staff member
Admin
Oct 1, 2017
94
17
8
3 Church Croft, Lawley Village
#1
The LVCA has been in discussions with BVT regarding the future shape of the Stewardship scheme. We are aware of the high levels of discontent amongst some residents with the scheme and that some would like to see the scheme scrapped. Realistically, we don't think there is a legal route to achieve this. However, we have a meeting, with an Independent Facilitator on the 20th October to discuss the future shape of the scheme. We would like to gauge the sentiments of the residents about the possible options. The option we think are viable are:

1. Residents form a Community Interest Company (CIC) and take over direct ownership and management of the shared land (including courtyards) and income. The Community Interest Company would have a board elected by residents and appoint a village manager and staff to run the scheme.

2. Residents form a Community Interest Company and take over direct ownership and management of the shared land and income, as in Option 1, but sub-contract operational management to a Stewardship provider, which could be BVT or another management company.

3. Agree a new structure, with a new LVCA Management board to manage the scheme. BVT would own the land and assets of the community and deliver services, managed by residents.

4. Keep scheme operating as it is but improve working relationships and improve engagement with residents through the Lawley Village Management Committee and relationships with the BVT board.

5. Keep everything as it is now, happy with the status quo

Please scroll to the bottom of this thread to cast your vote.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

paulrv

New Member
Oct 14, 2018
1
0
1
#2
Please make sure that whatever happens the whole of Lawley benefits, rather than just a couple of areas near the white church. Lawley is a big place now and growing rapidly, we all pay the same in fees but only certain areas seem to get the rewards.
 

Jim Weir

Jim Weir
Staff member
Admin
Oct 1, 2017
94
17
8
3 Church Croft, Lawley Village
#3
Please make sure that whatever happens the whole of Lawley benefits, rather than just a couple of areas near the white church. Lawley is a big place now and growing rapidly, we all pay the same in fees but only certain areas seem to get the rewards.
I think one of the important aspects of this is to get whole community involvement, so that we can make sure that the whole estate is included.
 
Oct 3, 2017
10
1
3
#4
Please make sure that whatever happens the whole of Lawley benefits, rather than just a couple of areas near the white church. Lawley is a big place now and growing rapidly, we all pay the same in fees but only certain areas seem to get the rewards.
I live on woodland view, near the white church. If you think we get more benefits than anywhere else in Lawley you are wrong. We get nothing from bvt, just as everyone else in Lawley seems to get.
 
Oct 3, 2017
10
1
3
#5
Whatever is chosen all I would like is that we actually see something for the money we pay rather than just get the stock answer of "we haven't adopted that are yet, we can't/won't do anything"

I am just bemused as to what we are paying for when they haven't adopted most of Lawley yet. They are quick to send out ridiculous letters for minor breaches yet when you ask them to do something about a problem they reel out the stock excuse for not doing it.

If they haven't adopted the areas surely they have no jurisdiction over them to send out letters threatening people of they put a satellite dish up or leave a bin out.
 
Oct 10, 2017
1
0
1
#6
This would be a better option as i am not sure that we should be getting into realms of employer which will include pension contributions and everything else that goes with being an employer.
 

greenman

New Member
Oct 16, 2018
1
2
3
#7
I just think it will be a massive commitment to run the whole maintenance and upkeep independently (option 1). It will need voluntary or paid staff. It will involve the purchase of equipment/transport, along with maintenance/consumables etc. It will involve company law , accounts to be kept, and filed. I am trying to put a realistic view on some of the things that will be involved, should option one become reality.
Nothing would please me greater that kicking BVT off the development, but we need to be realistic with what we actually propose. A protest vote is fine, but we need to have credible alternatives that can be implemented smoothly, for the benefit of all residents.
I would like to see a way forward that first gives the residents more say in the running of the present scheme, and with a view to sharing equally the management responsibility. I would also expect BVT to listen and act in accordance with residents wishes.
 

Jim Weir

Jim Weir
Staff member
Admin
Oct 1, 2017
94
17
8
3 Church Croft, Lawley Village
#9
Is just paying our council tax, the same as everyone else in the country, and not have any management scheme an option?
That would be a popular choice I think, but we can't realistically think of way it would happen. TWC would have to agree to take on the common areas with no funds to maintain them, Homes England would have to agree and they are the ones who insist all new developments have this scheme, and all residents have signed an agreement to do it. We did initially think of having that as a choice, but after discussion decided that asking people to vote for something we thought would be impossible to achieve was pointless.
 
Oct 3, 2017
10
1
3
#10
That would be a popular choice I think, but we can't realistically think of way it would happen. TWC would have to agree to take on the common areas with no funds to maintain them, Homes England would have to agree and they are the ones who insist all new developments have this scheme, and all residents have signed an agreement to do it. We did initially think of having that as a choice, but after discussion decided that asking people to vote for something we thought would be impossible to achieve was pointless.
Fair enough comment. My only question is why won't twc have the funds? We all pay council tax, that should fund it.

I don't actually mind the scheme I just want to see something for the money we pay. where we are we only have 2 very small areas of communal land. Which bvt refuse to attend to as they haven't adopted it yet. I'm not sure why we should have to pay or abide by any of their rules if they haven't adopted it. If it's a good enough excuse for them then it should be for us too.

They can't have it both ways. (well they shouldn't but it seems they can)
 

Which Stewardship Management option do you think is preferable?

  • 1. CIC Directly run and operate services

    Votes: 45 40.9%
  • 2. CIC Directly own services but sub-contract operational management

    Votes: 22 20.0%
  • 3. LVCA Management board to manage the scheme. BVT own land and deliver service

    Votes: 12 10.9%
  • 4. Keep scheme operating as it is but improve working relationships

    Votes: 30 27.3%
  • 5. Keep everything as it is now, happy with the status quo

    Votes: 1 0.9%

  • Total voters
    110
  • Poll closed .