PCEL AGM Minutes 2025

 PCEL AGM- Minute of Meeting 3rd April 2025  

Held in the Ovic Centre Pacific Close at 10:30 am. 

The Chairman opened the PCEL Annual General Meeting by welcoming members. Apologies received from David Craig, Mrs S Reid 

The minutes from the AGM held on the 18th April 2024 had been posted on the website and agreed by all present with no amendments. 

The meeting then discussed significant issues regarding lease changes, insurance costs, and the jetty project. The Chairman highlighted the importance of lease amendments for leaseholders and the necessity of addressing the deteriorating condition of the jetty. 

The Chairman noted that requests from leaseholders for changes to leases have been addressed after previous delays and a new solicitor has been appointed to expedite this process.  

The Chairman thanked Rod Allsworth and Anthony Power for reviewing the budgets for 2026 and beyond and noted their cautious approach to reserves and major items like lift repairs. Thanks were also expressed to Rod for efficiently managing this year's insurance costs with the broker, especially given the significant rise in premiums. His efforts have been very beneficial in controlling increase in premium.   

The Chairman reported on the Jetty project, noting he has spent significant time liaising with the relevant statutory authorities. After visual inspections by Tom O’Connor, the board hired consulting  engineers to survey the jetty structure. They found the condition of the supporting piles was worse than expected due to gribble attack. The engineers proposed options including reducing the area of the jetty and complete demolition, since leaving it unchanged was not a viable option. Tenders were invited for these options. A leaseholder criticized this approach and wanted alternative designs to be considered but failed to understand that to produce and review each design option would increase costs by thousand pounds. The board are focussed on controlling the costs of managing the estate. 

Out of 99 leaseholders, 86% voted for the demolition of the jetty. Only about 10 respondents have used the jetty in the last five years. Following the decision to demolish the jetty,  the process to obtain the necessary approvals was begun with the engineers and legal advice was obtained on the head lease. The Chairman approached Ocean Village Developments, who raised no immediate objections. He also consulted with Natural England. 

The Chairman stated that 'doing nothing' is not an option. Even in the interim period before demolition, it will be necessary to check for loose timbers and possibly carry out emergency work to remove or secure them. Repairing the entire jetty could exceed £1.5M plus ongoing maintenance costs. 

The Chairman explained that he had previously managed the contractors selected to carry out the work and the application process to obtain a MMO licence which has saved leaseholders considerable expense. 

However, due to unwarranted and harsh criticism of the Directors and totally unsubstantiated  accusations by Dr Correa in widely distributed emails, the Directors are no longer prepared to continue to take on this responsibility. These tasks will now be contracted to Andrew Waring Associates at a cost of several thousand pounds to the leaseholders. 

Questions Raised 

Mr Lyons expressed concern that the jetty survey sent to all leaseholders was not democratic as only those with computer access could respond. The Chairman challenged this statement by noting that the survey letter invited leaseholders to either complete the online form or telephone Napier with their comments. Any such comments were then included in the report. 

Mr. Lyons suggested that the jetty be left as is and allowed to disintegrate over time, and indicated and suggested the engineers had a vested interest in its demolition. The Chairman explained that the landlord, and consequently the leaseholders, could be liable for any damage caused by parts of the jetty breaking away. It was also necessary to prevent access to the structure, and most residents wanted the removal of the security fencing. Lowering the height of the fencing would not be an acceptable deterrent to trespassers. 

Several comments were made about external changes to properties and balconies. The balcony in No 64 appears to have been fitted with a plastic handrail. Napier’s to investigate. 

Napier’s are to investigate the requirement to redecorate the internal areas of all blocks. 

A number of members expressed concern that garages are being sublet and activities that appears to be a car maintenance business.  It was agreed the situation would be monitored and appropriate action taken if necessary. 

Napier’s are to reissue the Pacific Close Handbook to all letting agents  to ensure all “renters” are aware of the various rules. 

The meeting closed at 12.30 

Those present : 

Mr R Vose Chairman. 

Mr T O’Connor Director. 

Mr A Power Director. 

Mr R Allsworth Director. 

Mr D Craig Director sent apologies. 

Members present; 

Mrs H Blackwell. 

Mr J Stoddart. 

Mr R Lyons. 

Mr A Smith. 

Mrs S Smith 

Mr Enrico Clarke 

Mrs A Allsworth

Mrs S Reid sent apologies. 

Use of the common areas within Pacific Close Southampton

 

Use of the common areas within Pacific Close Southampton

 

Leaseholders/residents have a right to use the common areas, including roads and parking spaces, of the Estate for private pleasure purposes only. This specifically excludes any kind of commercial, trade or business activity. Leaseholders/residents should ensure no activity takes place in a parking space which might cause a nuisance to other residents.

All maintenance of the Estate and Estates common areas which includes all gardens, borders and flower beds is under the control of Pacific Close Estates Ltd (PCEL). Currently the PCRA ‘Greening Committee’ provide input for the communal areas and gardens. Napier, as PCEL’s managing agent, provide instructions for the contract gardener. Leaseholders and residents are not permitted to interfere with any of the communal garden areas including the borders and flower beds. To maintain the cleanliness of the estate and ensure the safety and care of the residents and the public no form of gardening activity must be undertaken without the explicit written permission of PCEL. Any permission granted will require a risk assessment and suitable insurance.

 

Alterations to properties in Pacific Close Southampton

 

Alterations to properties in Pacific Close Southampton

 

1. Please remember that all houses and apartments are “Leasehold” and leaseholders cannot proceed with any alterations or additions to the property without prior consent and a Licence granted by Pacific Close Estates Ltd (PCEL). All alterations must be approved in writing by PCEL and be in compliance with planning and building regulations and any necessary building control approval in addition to PCEL. Written consent should be obtained prior to works starting.

Leaseholders are not permitted to cut maim or injure the structural parts roofs or walls of the Property or make structural alterations or additions to the Property without the consent of PCEL, such consent will not to be unreasonably withheld.

Failure to obtain the consent and Licence from PCEL before proceeding with works may result in legal action being taken against you and the Transfer of the property not being agreed when the property is sold.

 

2. Balcony balustrades and flooring may only be replaced with a design approved by PCEL.

 

The design options are:-

1 Wooden replacement as per the original design but replacing the wooden rail or flooring with Fire Retardant material.

 

2 A local company used successfully for this work is called “Ridon Glass”, the contact is Ben on 02380 225622. Email info@ridonglass.co.uk.

 

The options are:

 

2.1 12mm clear toughened heat soaked glass panels with polished edges, minimal radius corners and six 22mm holes in each. The company will fit the new glass to the existing lugs with new stainless steel nuts and bolts. Black neoprene washers to be fitted against the glass and stainless steel penny washers to cover. Satin Stainless steel handrail to be fitted to the top of the glass that will be fixed against the wall.

2.2 A stainless steel tube rail of 42 mm with a 2mm wall and glass panels to design as above. 

3 Windows may only be replaced with the design approved by PCEL.

The approved design is white PVCu windows and doors similar in appearance to the products currently on site albeit all welds, including transoms and mullions should be fully welded. Externally beaded windows should be glazed on double sided security tape. Existing PVCu window and casement door combinations can be replaced with PVCu patio sliding doors. Any necessary building control approval in addition to PCEL written consent should be obtained prior to works starting.

 

If leaseholders require further clarification, please contact PCEL via Napier’s, with any queries.

 

Napier Property Management within Pacific Close.

 

Napier Property Management within Pacific Close.

 

Napier Property Management are appointed by Pacific Close Estates Ltd (PCEL) as their Agents and are authorised to receive requests and communications from:

a          Pacific Close Residents Association (PCRA) on behalf of individuals or groups of residents.

B         Tenants.

C         Landlords

D         Leaseholders

 

It would be convenient if Leaseholders/Residents would permit both PCEL and Napier’s to use their email address for future communications. Please forward your email address to Napier (kylieo@napiermanagement,co,uk) confirming your permission for its use by both parties.

 

Car parking arrangements within Pacific Close Southampton

 

Car parking arrangements within Pacific Close Southampton

 

Parking permits are supplied to each dwelling to enable residents and their guests to use as casual parking. Spaces are made available on the estate roads by the Landlord. The permit reference number must be visible at all times on the permit and if obscured or missing then a parking notice will be issued. If permits are found to be copied or false in any way then a parking notice will be issued.

It must be remembered that estate road parking is a privilege and not a right and therefore any infringement of these rules may result in the permits being revoked.

All vehicles parked or used on the common parts of the estate must be road legal and taxed, current MOT and insured.

Designated areas for casual parking are:

1. The white marked parking bays on the road. Vehicle must be within the space allocated. Permits are required to be visible.

2. No permit is required in the marked or pavior parking areas/drives that are allocated to a house or flat.

 

Non permitted parking areas, whether the vehicle is showing a permit or not are:

1. On double yellow lines.

2. Anywhere on the road or within the quadrangle outside block 2 where no white marked parking bays exist. Please note this may include the area in front of some garages.

3. Pinch points or on pavements.

Any type of caravan, camper van, commercial vehicles or trailers must not be parked overnight.

Leaseholder owned car parking areas are not to be used for any other purposes than as a private parking space, unless permission is granted by PCEL. No chairs, tables, items of furniture or other items should be placed or stored in the parking spaces.

If leaseholders require further clarification, please contact PCEL via Napier’s, with any queries

 

PCEL AGM Minutes 2024

 

 

Pacific Close Estates Ltd Company Number: 07450803   MINUTES OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

 

Property:	PACIFIC CLOSE ESTATE	Client ref:	PAC000
Meeting:	ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING	Meeting No:
Venue:	THE DOCK OFFICE, OCEAN VILLAGE
Date and time:	THURSDAY 18th APRIL 2024 AT 10.30 A.M.

 

Present	Title	Representing
Mr R Vose Mr R Allsworth Mr T O’Connor Mr & Mrs D Craig Mr A Power Mr & Mrs Stoddard Mr D Bass Dr J Correa	83 52 27 72 85 60 54 79

 

In attendance
A N Other

 

 

 

 

Minutes of Meeting

Item			Action
1.00	To receive Apologies & Proxies   Apologies were received from:   Gareth Griffith 42 Richard House  66 Keith Mowser  25 John Russell  73
2.00	Minutes of the last Meeting held on Wednesday 10th May 2023   No comments or amendments have been received therefore the Minutes are taken as read and approved.
3.00	Chairmans Report   Robert Vose (RV) explained that PCEL had not appointed Napier as company secretary of PCEL PCEL had not barred Napier from attending.  RV had spoken with Aileen and it was mutually agreed this was not a good use of their time. The information circulated by Dr Correa (Dr C) was incorrect.   RV gave a brief overview of the actions being taken to assess the condition of the jetty and determine appropriate options and costs.   Consulting engineers were commissioned to carry out a survey of the jetty to determine its condition and provide recommendations for future actions. Following an initial assessment, the advice received from the consulting engineers was that the decking and support structure is unsafe, therefore the jetty should be fenced off to prevent access.   Three options are being evaluated and cost estimate obtained: - Demolish and remove the jetty and its supporting structure. Reduce the decking area to approximately 67% and carryout limited repairs. Reduce decking area and supporting structure to approximately 33% and carry out limited repairs.   Legal advice has been obtained which confirmed the Jetty is within the demised premises and Landlords permission may be required to demolish or materially change the area of the jetty.   RV commented that leaseholders would be invited to comment via PCRA on the recommendations for the jetty once options had been evaluated and quotations received from contractors.   In the meantime, Napiers have been asked to obtain a quotation to increase the height of the existing barrier rails around the jetty so the current safety fencing may be removed.
4.00	Ongoing Matters   a)      Insurance. Rod Allsworth (RA) commented on the significant increase in the cost of insurance. Last year the premium was £16k. The best premium obtained for the current year obtained by Coversure was £29k. Two claims were for repairs to block roofs however, the vast majority of claims are for internal leaks from fittings within apartments. RV commented that the work by RA with insurers saves paying Napier a commission and helps to reduce premiums each year. The current excess is £2500.   b)      Dividend Payment. RV explained that a dividend payment was possible last year as fees had been received for several lease extensions. The number of requests has declined as owners may be waiting to see the impact of Gove’s Leasehold Bill currently out for consultation which may remove necessity for lease extensions.   c)       Membership of PCEL. Dr Correa (Dr C) asked if house owners could join PCEL. RV explained that only flats were permitted to join PCEL but they could obtain representation on estate matter by joining PCRA.   d)      Alterations to property. There was a general discussion regarding the requirement to obtain permission from PCEL before carrying out alterations to a property e.g. replacement of door and windows and painting of external areas. RV pointed out that on selling their property owners are required to state that all requisite permissions have been obtained for any alterations or modifications to the property.   e)      Parking Control. RV explained that Napier have been asked to liaise with PCRA regarding options to monitor and manage parking arrangements. Untaxed vehicles stored in the small carpark were reported to MDL and subsequently removed. Dr C commented that a car parked in a residents parking space without permission was reported to Napier who had the car removed.   f)       Security Arrangements. RV explained he had discussions with the security company employed by MDL. The cost of increasing security arrangements was discussed with PCRA who are currently unwilling to incur additional costs. At this time significant improvements have been achieved around the Estate at a minimal cost to the Service Charge accounts.
5.00	Any Other Business   RV commented on the activities of an owner that has resulted in several complaints being made to the Police.   The Directors of PCEL alerted  the members of PCEL to the following matters :-   1              Tin cans and similar items of rubbish have been left on the bonnet of a director’s car and a piece of metal from a scaffold clamp was left under the tyre of a director’s car which if it had it not been noticed could have caused damage and/or a serious accident. If any further occurrences of this happened the Police should be informed and a crime number obtained. The CCTV system would then be made available to the Police for investigation.   2              Several emails had been circulated to an undisclosed recipient list, including one email purporting to have originated from the police, which upon investigation found to have been altered to change its intended meaning.   3              A Director had recently been blind copied an unsolicited email containing images of young children and this had been passed the contents to Southampton Social Services. The originator of the email was not disclosed.                   Dr C at that point disclosed that he had sent the email and gave an explanation why as being “that he liked pictures of children with dogs”.   Dr C also complained he had not received an email inviting him to attend the AGM. RV explained the invitation to attend the AGM had been sent to all PCEL members. He pointed out that it may have gone into a member’s spam account. He agreed to review arrangements for circulation of emails from PCEL.   Mrs Stoddard (SC) commented on a recent incident in which she had been sprayed with water by DR C when she had been walking with her cat in the vicinity of block 7. There was a brief discussion regarding the circumstances.   Dr C asked about proposals to provide facilities on the estate for charging electric vehicles. RV commented that various options are under review.   Dr C also asked if the contractors currently on-site repainting balconies and external walls are also going to paint garage doors. RV advised they will be done once the balconies and walls have been completed.   RV explained the requirement to replace gas boilers in the future was also under review. A discussion took place regarding heat pumps and similar alternatives.
	There being no further business the Meeting closed at 12.10 p.m.

 

PCEL AGM Minutes 2023

 

 

Pacific Close Estates Ltd Company Number: 07450803   MINUTES OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

 

Property:	PACIFIC CLOSE	Client ref:	PAC000
Meeting:	ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING	Meeting No:
Venue:	HARBOUR LIGHTS OCEAN VILLAGE
Date and time:	WEDNESDAY 10TH MAY 2023 AT 10.30 A.M.

 

Present	Title	Representing
Please insert attendees from list, including Directors	Mr R Vose Rod Allsworth Adrian Smith Sylvie Smith Sarah Reid Mr T O’Connor Mr J Gallagher Mr A Power Mr R Lyons Mr G Cook Mr D & Mrs C Craig	83 52 45 55 60 27 91 85 89 53 72

 

In attendance
Paul Drake		Observer

 

Minutes of Meeting

Item		Action
1.00	To receive Apologies & Proxies   Apologies were received from: Andrew Graham Flat 56 appointing Ray Lyons as Proxy David Bass Flat 54 appointing Ray Lyons as Proxy Graham Cook Flat 53 appointing Ray Lyons as Proxy Gareth Griffiths Flat 42 Heather Blackwell Flat 67 appointing David Craig as Proxy Elizabeth Platts Flat 84 Enrico Clark Flat 88 appointing Ray Lyons as Proxy Raymond Park Flat 92 appointing the Chairman as Proxy Elaine Green Gamcolla Developments Flat 25 appointing the Chairman as Proxy
2.00	Directors Report   The Chairman Robert Vose (RV) discussed several emails that had been circulated by some of the residents and confirmed to all Members that the meeting is being recorded.   RV apologised for the late notification of the venue, explained the circumstances and noted that Members had received the AGM Notice and there were 20 present.   Dr Correa (Dr C) and Ray Lyons (RL) both challenged the Notice of the meeting and commented that the communication had not been circulated correctly.   Anthony Power (AP) explained he had advised Members that he was putting himself forward to join the Board. The Directors confirmed they had requested AP attend a previous Board meeting.   This led to discussion about the procedures required to appoint Directors.   RV explained that he did not believe the Nomination Form for RL had been received (Post meeting note, Napier had forwarded the nomination to the Board however, it had been attached as a photograph to an email inside another email and as a consequence of the volume of emails prior to the meeting it had been inadvertently missed).   After these discussions the Chairman agreed the meeting could be adjourned and asked for a vote by a show of hands.  There were only 2 votes in favour of adjourning the meeting and all others present voted to proceed and therefore the meeting continued.   RV explained that all the decisions were made by the Board collectively.   RV went on to explain the rationale for the £10,000.00 which is included within the Budget only.  He confirmed that there had previously been no charges to the service account against this fund that has been set aside for any necessary expenditure on legal or professional services during the year.   He also explained that legal advice had been obtained following a legal challenge to stop the installation of CCTV by Ray Lyons. The legal costs would be taken from the Service Charge accounts which was an example of the type of expense for which funds have been budgeted.   RV then went on to explain how the voting arrangements works.   He also discussed the role of Napier and the significant increase in workload that has been created by a small number of Owners and to relieve part of the workload was the reason for removing the responsibility for the duties of Company Secretary of PCEL from Napier.     After this there was discussion on the role of the Company Auditors and the year-end accounts.  RV explained that there is a distinction between the accounts for Pacific Close Estates Ltd and the Service Charge accounts (also described as Management accounts for the Estate).  There was also discussion on the Founder Member payments and RV explained the payment to the Founder Members is made from the proceeds of the sale of Lease Extensions and is not paid from the Management fees (Service Charge accounts).
3.00	Pacific Close Residents Association   RV explained PCEL have provided support to the assist the work of PCRA and regular meetings are now planned between representatives of the two organisations.
4.00	Other Matters   a)      RV explained that the Directors had discussed the provision of regular security patrols and obtained indicative costs which are significant.  It was considered an unnecessary additional expense at present but this matter was being kept under review.   b)      MDL – RV explained that legal advice had been obtained on the terms of Lease of the small car park currently used by MDL.   The Board had met several times with MDL to discuss the commercial use of the carpark by MDL customers and visitors and further efforts are ongoing to resolve the issues created by the additional traffic and disturbance to nearby residents caused by these activities.  It may be necessary to use a Legal Mediator to try to resolve matters.   c)       RV commented on the significant savings that had been achieved by the Directors in progressing CCTV, the installation of TooB broadband, the external decoration, the jetty maintenance, and insurance matters.   He also commented that significant improvements have been achieved around the Estate at a minimal cost to the Service Charge accounts.   Questions from the floor:   a)      Security Patrol – The area covered by the MDL security guards on Pacific Close is at no cost to Pacific Close at present.  b)      Discussions are taking place with the parking patrol company regarding having additional parking patrols. A general discussion took place regarding the parking issues, the new permits and abuse of parking privileges.  RV explained that Napier had been asked to add property numbers to the permits but that had not occurred. There was a comment that there are privacy issues to also be considered however there is a record of the numbered permits that have been issued to each property.   c)       There was a question raised about the cost of legal action by a lease holder and whether it should be charged back to the individual rather than included as a charge to the estate within the Service Charge accounts.  RV agreed to check if this could be reclaimed.   RL commented that he thought the patrols do cover the whole estate.   There was also a comment that the parking company could be incentivised to recover any costs in issuing more parking fines.   This led to general discussion about 24 hr security and the additional cost which might be as much as £100.00 per property per annum.   d.)           AP commented on the benefits of CCTV and that anti-social incidents           may be recorded and should be reported to the Police. RV confirmed that the Police had recommended CCTV on estates like Pacific Close.
5.00	Ocean Global Race   RV commented that it is anticipated there would be 50-70,000 spectators and circa 17 super yachts in Ocean Village.  There are discussions currently being held with MDL about appropriate measures during that time to avoid any issues with the vehicles parking in Pacific Close and spectators seeking to view the event.   It was noted the race is starting in September with arrangements commencing a couple of weeks prior to that.   Tom O’Connor (TOC) confirmed he would liaise with MDL and PCRA regarding plans for the crowd control and parking arrangements. Sarah Reid also volunteered to assist in the organisation of the arrangement re the yacht race.
6.00	Water Leaks   There was discussion on water leaks in apartments in several blocks and the volume of insurance claims.   Rod Allsworth confirmed that he had discussed with the insurance broker and there had been several claims of circa £11,500.00 and £24,000.00 in the last year.    The number and value of claims has recently increased and that would directly impact the premiums.  The excess which is currently £500.00 could be increased to £1000.00.  It was noted that the premium last year was £16,000.00 as opposed to an earlier premium of £12,000.00.   There was an explanation on how the premium is broken down by block rather than by apartment as it depends on the rebuild value of each block.  An option being considered would be to increase the excess or create a fund to cover small claims.   Napier have been advised that before submitting claims to the insurance company they must discuss the basis of the claim with the directors of PCEL.   AP offered to review and prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis of the various options.   It was commented there had been a problem with a gas leak from a gas supply pipe in at least two apartments. Attendees were reminded they should have an annual gas safety check to include a gas pressure test.   Dr C asked how increasing the policy excess would impact individual property owners and RV explained it would only normally be charged to individual owners if the problem was caused by a failure of installation or utility within their property.   b.) Electric Vehicle Charging RV raised the matter of EV charging.  It was explained that advice had been received that electric vehicles, including disability scooters, should not be charged in garages.  RV explained PCEL are exploring a range of options to introduce EV charging facilities to the estate.   There was a discussion on how lamp post charging points had been installed on lamp posts on a similar estate in Milton Keynes where under footpath gulley had been created to take the charging cables. Six lampposts at PC had been identified as potentially suitable. It may also be feasible in conjunction with use of solar panels.   c.) Gas Boilers RV commented that replacement gas boilers would not be available after 2030 and that an appropriate provision for an alternative source of energy for the estate would need to be considered.   d.) Fuse Boxes It was noted there had been some earthing problems with the electrical fuse boxes.
7.00               8.00	Nominations to PCEL   Membership applications had been received from Flat 88, Flat 84 and House 39, these were approved with no objections.   Dr C raised the issue of cheques being returned.  Robert Vose explained the circumstance relating to this specific case.   Any Other Business a.)    Jetty Dr C raised concerns that decking on the jetty was unsafe in places. RV explained that a survey was being commissioned to determine the condition of the jetty and to make recommendations for any necessary repairs. In the meantime, to avoid the risk of injury, it was concluded access to the jetty should be locked its use prohibited until the results of the survey are known. Dr C also commented on regular maintenance of the jetty by F&S in the past and RV confirmed arrangements would be put in place following the survey and completion of any necessary repairs.   b.)    CCTV Dr C commented on the positive benefits of CCTV as a deterrent to anti-social behaviour.    c.)     Service Charge Accounts RL asked about the 2022 Accounts and RV confirmed a problem had been identified in the trial balances and Napier and the Accountants are working to reconcile the position.   AP would be asked to assist with a review of the accounts to resolve any outstanding issues.  (Post Meeting Note :  the auditors had held a very productive meeting with Napier and many of the outstanding issues had been resolved)   d.)    Memorandum & Articles There was a query as to where a copy of the Memorandum & Articles of Association for PCEL could be obtained and it was confirmed they are available from Companies House.   There were some general discussions regarding periodic review of appointment and contracts of Agents, Accountants and Insurance Brokers.
9.00             10.0	RV explained that during whilst the AGM was proceeding he had received a Nomination form for Ray Lyons which had been embedded in another email from Gail Drysdale at Napier.  RV offered to set up electronic voting system for members to vote on the proposal.   RL accepted this offer.  Subsequent to the meeting the online poll has been held and the vote was 7 votes for and 12 votes against.   Appointment of Accountants for the following year   RV proposed HJS be reappointed as Accountants for PCEL and explained that they have expertise for managing complex tax issues particularly on the sale of Lease Extensions.  After a vote this proposal was carried.   Appointment of Anthony Powers as Director   After a vote this appointment was agreed
	There being no further business the Meeting closed at 12.00 p.m.