Government blasts 'unreasonable' council in Walthamstow Stadium row

East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Government blasts 'unreasonable' council in Walthamstow Stadium row Government blasts 'unreasonable' council in Walthamstow Stadium row

THE government has said the council acted "unusually and unreasonably" in its handling of plans to turn Walthamstow Stadium into a housing estate.

It comes amid mounting calls for the authority to be investigated over how it fast-tracked the planning application to build 294 homes at the iconic site in Chingford Road, Chingford.

Conservative London Mayor Boris Johnson rubbed stamped the controversial proposals last week after initial permission was granted by Labour councillors earlier this year.

But it was widely expected that the government's communities secretary Eric Pickles would then have 21 days in which to intervene before the council formally issued final planning permission.

But Waltham Forest Council approved all the final paperwork within 48 hours of Mr Johnson's decision, leaving the government powerless to intervene in time.

When Mr Johnson announced his decision he said it was subject to any action the secretary of state might take.

In a strongly-worded statement, a spokeswoman for the department of communities said it would be looking further into the issue, but stopped short of announcing a full investigation.

She said: "The fact that this decision has been made unusually and unreasonably swiftly, and ahead of any discussion with the department, means that the Secretary of State had no opportunity to consider whether or not he would have wished to call the scheme in for his determination.

"The department is currently considering the issues raised and the appropriate course of action."

But the council has denied the claims and said it acted entirely properly.

A spokesman said: "Throughout this protracted process there has been no indication from the Secretary of State that he was minded to call in the application.

"Indeed, in a Waltham Forest Guardian article from 1 November he stated 'it would be unusual were I to step in. I can only go on the basis of planning issues.'

"Knowing campaigners had been in touch with the Secretary of State’s office, we made checks to see whether the DCLG [department of communities] had contacted us about this matter. No contact had been made and, on this basis, the planning decision notice was issued."

He added: "We find it odd that with local authorities subject to criticism for delays, red tape and bureaucracy we are now being castigated for taking two days to issue a routine document.

"While we know the decision is an unpopular one with some, the process we followed is correct and the development itself will help address the dire need for new housing new jobs in our borough."

Chingford MP Iain Duncan Smith is among those to call for a full investigation.

The issue has opened up a rift among both Conservatives and Labour, with Tories criticising Mr Johnson and Labour council leader Cllr Chris Robbins saying claims by his party colleague Stella Creasy MP that Eric Pickles had 21 days to intervene were incorrect.

In a letter to the Walthamstow Stadium Area Residents Association, council leader Cllr Chris Robbins said that 48 hours was an "entirely appropriate timescale" to turn around the planning application after Mr Johnson's announcement.

But Cllr Matt Davis, leader of the Conservative opposition group at the council, said his group were appalled by the "unprecedented" step.

He said: "It is strange that a council which is not renowned for its quickness in dealing with planning applications can suddenly discover such speed."

The residents association says a judicial review is the only step left now to stop the development. It has instructed solicitors and is looking for funding.

Developers London and Quadrant (L&Q) say the housing scheme will help boost the area and provide much-needed housing.

 

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:25am Wed 7 Nov 12

Mr Brittas says...

Is this not normally the stage where the chairman tells everyone that his management staff have his full confidence and support, shortly before sacking them, to cover his own back.
Is this not normally the stage where the chairman tells everyone that his management staff have his full confidence and support, shortly before sacking them, to cover his own back. Mr Brittas

9:46am Wed 7 Nov 12

Techno3 says...

It shall be interesting to see if this is bluster or if Mr Pickles is going to put his money where his mouth is and act.

Personally, I am fairly confident that a proper investigation of the council, its senior officers and leading councillors would be justified: not simply over the dogtrack shenangans but a series of other scandals which suggest that the council is not currently fit for purpose.
It shall be interesting to see if this is bluster or if Mr Pickles is going to put his money where his mouth is and act. Personally, I am fairly confident that a proper investigation of the council, its senior officers and leading councillors would be justified: not simply over the dogtrack shenangans but a series of other scandals which suggest that the council is not currently fit for purpose. Techno3

10:00am Wed 7 Nov 12

red37red says...

fraud!!!
check there bank accounts
fraud!!! check there bank accounts red37red

10:07am Wed 7 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

Even though I feel that ultimately this will not succeed, I am for a thorough investigation of the handling of this matter as it evidently stinks of under the table dealings.

No stone should be left unturned.
Even though I feel that ultimately this will not succeed, I am for a thorough investigation of the handling of this matter as it evidently stinks of under the table dealings. No stone should be left unturned. Cornbeefur

10:19am Wed 7 Nov 12

Silent Majority 2009 says...

Why should this perfectly acceptable scheme to increase much needed housing in the Borough be stuck in this ridiculous row when the appalling 14 storey Travelodge scheme in Walthamstow Town Centre was not opposed by anyone expect the residents. Where was Stella then? Surely the badly designed Town Centre scheme is going to be far more damaging than the re-use of an out of Town redundant dog track!
Why should this perfectly acceptable scheme to increase much needed housing in the Borough be stuck in this ridiculous row when the appalling 14 storey Travelodge scheme in Walthamstow Town Centre was not opposed by anyone expect the residents. Where was Stella then? Surely the badly designed Town Centre scheme is going to be far more damaging than the re-use of an out of Town redundant dog track! Silent Majority 2009

10:37am Wed 7 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

Silent Majority 2009 wrote:
Why should this perfectly acceptable scheme to increase much needed housing in the Borough be stuck in this ridiculous row when the appalling 14 storey Travelodge scheme in Walthamstow Town Centre was not opposed by anyone expect the residents. Where was Stella then? Surely the badly designed Town Centre scheme is going to be far more damaging than the re-use of an out of Town redundant dog track!
Because it is not the love of the Stow, it is the fear of 300 new families moving in, a lot of which will be depending on benefits to pay the rent and thereby probably affecting the saleability of homes nearby.

The Travelodge will be a good thing in the main as will these L&Q scheme if people give it a chance.
[quote][p][bold]Silent Majority 2009[/bold] wrote: Why should this perfectly acceptable scheme to increase much needed housing in the Borough be stuck in this ridiculous row when the appalling 14 storey Travelodge scheme in Walthamstow Town Centre was not opposed by anyone expect the residents. Where was Stella then? Surely the badly designed Town Centre scheme is going to be far more damaging than the re-use of an out of Town redundant dog track![/p][/quote]Because it is not the love of the Stow, it is the fear of 300 new families moving in, a lot of which will be depending on benefits to pay the rent and thereby probably affecting the saleability of homes nearby. The Travelodge will be a good thing in the main as will these L&Q scheme if people give it a chance. Cornbeefur

10:45am Wed 7 Nov 12

sensibility says...

@ Silent Majority, the whole point is the scheme is not perfectly acceptable.

Yes residents opposed the 14 Storey travelodge and no, LBWF didnt listen as usual to residents wishes but perhaps local businesses were hoping the travelodge would bring in visitors and more outside money to walthamstow. There are certainly a lot of small businesses struggling locally.

The old Chingford Hall estate just across the road had the towerblocks demolished and more suitable and much lower housing put on it. Why on earth would anyone want a modern version of what was demolished.

Had L&Q built two storey properties, put in a few shops and leisure/entertainmen
t locals wanted and listened to residents in surrounding roads, the permission would have been given ages ago and it would probably be built by now.

Had L&Q combined the stadium with some low rise housing that would have had support too.

The one common denominator is that so many people dont want the build that L&Q showed to them.

The scheme L&Q showed me isnt the scheme being built anyway.
@ Silent Majority, the whole point is the scheme is not perfectly acceptable. Yes residents opposed the 14 Storey travelodge and no, LBWF didnt listen as usual to residents wishes but perhaps local businesses were hoping the travelodge would bring in visitors and more outside money to walthamstow. There are certainly a lot of small businesses struggling locally. The old Chingford Hall estate just across the road had the towerblocks demolished and more suitable and much lower housing put on it. Why on earth would anyone want a modern version of what was demolished. Had L&Q built two storey properties, put in a few shops and leisure/entertainmen t locals wanted and listened to residents in surrounding roads, the permission would have been given ages ago and it would probably be built by now. Had L&Q combined the stadium with some low rise housing that would have had support too. The one common denominator is that so many people dont want the build that L&Q showed to them. The scheme L&Q showed me isnt the scheme being built anyway. sensibility

11:00am Wed 7 Nov 12

sensibility says...

@cornbeefur sorry you are totally wrong. It isnt about the fear of 300 new families moving in, a lot of which will be depending on benefits to pay the rent and thereby probably affecting the saleability of homes nearby.

Living near Walthamstow Stadium I can tell you we have families from all walks of life, varying cultures, families who are working, families on benefits and elderly retired people and not everyone owns their own house so please dont stereotype people you dont know.

In fact with the sale prices of flats will be out of reach for many and there is only 17% of properties that are affordable rent.

From what I gather affordable rent means they can charge up to 80% of the going rate.

I for one wanted something that fitted in with the surroundings and 5, 6, 7 and 8 storey towerblocks dont fit in here
@cornbeefur sorry you are totally wrong. It isnt about the fear of 300 new families moving in, a lot of which will be depending on benefits to pay the rent and thereby probably affecting the saleability of homes nearby. Living near Walthamstow Stadium I can tell you we have families from all walks of life, varying cultures, families who are working, families on benefits and elderly retired people and not everyone owns their own house so please dont stereotype people you dont know. In fact with the sale prices of flats will be out of reach for many and there is only 17% of properties that are affordable rent. From what I gather affordable rent means they can charge up to 80% of the going rate. I for one wanted something that fitted in with the surroundings and 5, 6, 7 and 8 storey towerblocks dont fit in here sensibility

2:05pm Wed 7 Nov 12

NDevoto says...

As said, the vast majority of homes on the New estate at the Stow site will not be "affordable" as the developers won't make enough money so there won't be "a lot", if any , on benefits. This is also at time where housing benefit capping by the Govt is forcing Councils to consider moving residents on benefits out of London.
It's just Cornbeefur's usual prejudice and lack of knowledge to think this aspect is a major issue for surrounding residents as he pontificates from Marylebone.
As said, the vast majority of homes on the New estate at the Stow site will not be "affordable" as the developers won't make enough money so there won't be "a lot", if any , on benefits. This is also at time where housing benefit capping by the Govt is forcing Councils to consider moving residents on benefits out of London. It's just Cornbeefur's usual prejudice and lack of knowledge to think this aspect is a major issue for surrounding residents as he pontificates from Marylebone. NDevoto

2:21pm Wed 7 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

NDevoto wrote:
As said, the vast majority of homes on the New estate at the Stow site will not be "affordable" as the developers won't make enough money so there won't be "a lot", if any , on benefits. This is also at time where housing benefit capping by the Govt is forcing Councils to consider moving residents on benefits out of London.
It's just Cornbeefur's usual prejudice and lack of knowledge to think this aspect is a major issue for surrounding residents as he pontificates from Marylebone.
I actually pontificate in Waltham Forest Old Bean.

However, I am convinced that the objections have nothing to do with the loss of Greyhounds Running after a toy hare.
[quote][p][bold]NDevoto[/bold] wrote: As said, the vast majority of homes on the New estate at the Stow site will not be "affordable" as the developers won't make enough money so there won't be "a lot", if any , on benefits. This is also at time where housing benefit capping by the Govt is forcing Councils to consider moving residents on benefits out of London. It's just Cornbeefur's usual prejudice and lack of knowledge to think this aspect is a major issue for surrounding residents as he pontificates from Marylebone.[/p][/quote]I actually pontificate in Waltham Forest Old Bean. However, I am convinced that the objections have nothing to do with the loss of Greyhounds Running after a toy hare. Cornbeefur

3:39pm Wed 7 Nov 12

Techno3 says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
NDevoto wrote:
As said, the vast majority of homes on the New estate at the Stow site will not be "affordable" as the developers won't make enough money so there won't be "a lot", if any , on benefits. This is also at time where housing benefit capping by the Govt is forcing Councils to consider moving residents on benefits out of London.
It's just Cornbeefur's usual prejudice and lack of knowledge to think this aspect is a major issue for surrounding residents as he pontificates from Marylebone.
I actually pontificate in Waltham Forest Old Bean.

However, I am convinced that the objections have nothing to do with the loss of Greyhounds Running after a toy hare.
In order to be convinced that 'the objections have nothing to do with' the loss of greyhound racing you would have to be able to read the minds of all the objectors, or at the very least, to have spoken to them all. As you have not done so, you can only be speculating.

It is your right to ontificate, of course, but may I suggest you consider whether you really want to make yourself look like an apologist for an unpopular decision by one of the least democratic and arguably more corrupted councils in the UK?
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NDevoto[/bold] wrote: As said, the vast majority of homes on the New estate at the Stow site will not be "affordable" as the developers won't make enough money so there won't be "a lot", if any , on benefits. This is also at time where housing benefit capping by the Govt is forcing Councils to consider moving residents on benefits out of London. It's just Cornbeefur's usual prejudice and lack of knowledge to think this aspect is a major issue for surrounding residents as he pontificates from Marylebone.[/p][/quote]I actually pontificate in Waltham Forest Old Bean. However, I am convinced that the objections have nothing to do with the loss of Greyhounds Running after a toy hare.[/p][/quote]In order to be convinced that 'the objections have nothing to do with' the loss of greyhound racing you would have to be able to read the minds of all the objectors, or at the very least, to have spoken to them all. As you have not done so, you can only be speculating. It is your right to ontificate, of course, but may I suggest you consider whether you really want to make yourself look like an apologist for an unpopular decision by one of the least democratic and arguably more corrupted councils in the UK? Techno3

3:39pm Wed 7 Nov 12

Techno3 says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
NDevoto wrote:
As said, the vast majority of homes on the New estate at the Stow site will not be "affordable" as the developers won't make enough money so there won't be "a lot", if any , on benefits. This is also at time where housing benefit capping by the Govt is forcing Councils to consider moving residents on benefits out of London.
It's just Cornbeefur's usual prejudice and lack of knowledge to think this aspect is a major issue for surrounding residents as he pontificates from Marylebone.
I actually pontificate in Waltham Forest Old Bean.

However, I am convinced that the objections have nothing to do with the loss of Greyhounds Running after a toy hare.
In order to be convinced that 'the objections have nothing to do with' the loss of greyhound racing you would have to be able to read the minds of all the objectors, or at the very least, to have spoken to them all. As you have not done so, you can only be speculating.

It is your right to pontificate, of course, but may I suggest you consider whether you really want to make yourself look like an apologist for an unpopular decision by one of the least democratic and arguably more corrupted councils in the UK?
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NDevoto[/bold] wrote: As said, the vast majority of homes on the New estate at the Stow site will not be "affordable" as the developers won't make enough money so there won't be "a lot", if any , on benefits. This is also at time where housing benefit capping by the Govt is forcing Councils to consider moving residents on benefits out of London. It's just Cornbeefur's usual prejudice and lack of knowledge to think this aspect is a major issue for surrounding residents as he pontificates from Marylebone.[/p][/quote]I actually pontificate in Waltham Forest Old Bean. However, I am convinced that the objections have nothing to do with the loss of Greyhounds Running after a toy hare.[/p][/quote]In order to be convinced that 'the objections have nothing to do with' the loss of greyhound racing you would have to be able to read the minds of all the objectors, or at the very least, to have spoken to them all. As you have not done so, you can only be speculating. It is your right to pontificate, of course, but may I suggest you consider whether you really want to make yourself look like an apologist for an unpopular decision by one of the least democratic and arguably more corrupted councils in the UK? Techno3

4:00pm Wed 7 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

Techno3 wrote:
Cornbeefur wrote:
NDevoto wrote:
As said, the vast majority of homes on the New estate at the Stow site will not be "affordable" as the developers won't make enough money so there won't be "a lot", if any , on benefits. This is also at time where housing benefit capping by the Govt is forcing Councils to consider moving residents on benefits out of London.
It's just Cornbeefur's usual prejudice and lack of knowledge to think this aspect is a major issue for surrounding residents as he pontificates from Marylebone.
I actually pontificate in Waltham Forest Old Bean.

However, I am convinced that the objections have nothing to do with the loss of Greyhounds Running after a toy hare.
In order to be convinced that 'the objections have nothing to do with' the loss of greyhound racing you would have to be able to read the minds of all the objectors, or at the very least, to have spoken to them all. As you have not done so, you can only be speculating.

It is your right to pontificate, of course, but may I suggest you consider whether you really want to make yourself look like an apologist for an unpopular decision by one of the least democratic and arguably more corrupted councils in the UK?
You cannot accuse people of corruption without evidence. If you have some, go to the Police Station (sorry the local one is closed) at Chingford and file a report.
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NDevoto[/bold] wrote: As said, the vast majority of homes on the New estate at the Stow site will not be "affordable" as the developers won't make enough money so there won't be "a lot", if any , on benefits. This is also at time where housing benefit capping by the Govt is forcing Councils to consider moving residents on benefits out of London. It's just Cornbeefur's usual prejudice and lack of knowledge to think this aspect is a major issue for surrounding residents as he pontificates from Marylebone.[/p][/quote]I actually pontificate in Waltham Forest Old Bean. However, I am convinced that the objections have nothing to do with the loss of Greyhounds Running after a toy hare.[/p][/quote]In order to be convinced that 'the objections have nothing to do with' the loss of greyhound racing you would have to be able to read the minds of all the objectors, or at the very least, to have spoken to them all. As you have not done so, you can only be speculating. It is your right to pontificate, of course, but may I suggest you consider whether you really want to make yourself look like an apologist for an unpopular decision by one of the least democratic and arguably more corrupted councils in the UK?[/p][/quote]You cannot accuse people of corruption without evidence. If you have some, go to the Police Station (sorry the local one is closed) at Chingford and file a report. Cornbeefur

5:23pm Wed 7 Nov 12

NDevoto says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
Cornbeefur wrote:
NDevoto wrote:
As said, the vast majority of homes on the New estate at the Stow site will not be "affordable" as the developers won't make enough money so there won't be "a lot", if any , on benefits. This is also at time where housing benefit capping by the Govt is forcing Councils to consider moving residents on benefits out of London.
It's just Cornbeefur's usual prejudice and lack of knowledge to think this aspect is a major issue for surrounding residents as he pontificates from Marylebone.I actually pontificate in Waltham Forest Old Bean.

However, I am convinced that the objections have nothing to do with the loss of Greyhounds Running after a toy hare.In order to be convinced that 'the objections have nothing to do with' the loss of greyhound racing you would have to be able to read the minds of all the objectors, or at the very least, to have spoken to them all. As you have not done so, you can only be speculating.

It is your right to pontificate, of course, but may I suggest you consider whether you really want to make yourself look like an apologist for an unpopular decision by one of the least democratic and arguably more corrupted councils in the UK?You cannot accuse people of corruption without evidence. If you have some, go to the Police Station (sorry the local one is closed) at Chingford and file a report. wrote: " it evidently stinks of under the table dealings."
You are clearly suggesting corruption by the above statement. I expect you will now be sending your report and evidence to the local Police?
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NDevoto[/bold] wrote: As said, the vast majority of homes on the New estate at the Stow site will not be "affordable" as the developers won't make enough money so there won't be "a lot", if any , on benefits. This is also at time where housing benefit capping by the Govt is forcing Councils to consider moving residents on benefits out of London. It's just Cornbeefur's usual prejudice and lack of knowledge to think this aspect is a major issue for surrounding residents as he pontificates from Marylebone.[/p][/quote]I actually pontificate in Waltham Forest Old Bean. However, I am convinced that the objections have nothing to do with the loss of Greyhounds Running after a toy hare.[/p][/quote]In order to be convinced that 'the objections have nothing to do with' the loss of greyhound racing you would have to be able to read the minds of all the objectors, or at the very least, to have spoken to them all. As you have not done so, you can only be speculating. It is your right to pontificate, of course, but may I suggest you consider whether you really want to make yourself look like an apologist for an unpopular decision by one of the least democratic and arguably more corrupted councils in the UK?[/p][/quote]You cannot accuse people of corruption without evidence. If you have some, go to the Police Station (sorry the local one is closed) at Chingford and file a report.[/p][/quote][/quote] wrote: " it evidently stinks of under the table dealings."[/quote] You are clearly suggesting corruption by the above statement. I expect you will now be sending your report and evidence to the local Police? NDevoto

5:24pm Wed 7 Nov 12

NDevoto says...

Cornbeefur wrote: " it evidently stinks of under the table dealings."
You are clearly suggesting corruption by the above statement. I expect you will now be sending your report and evidence to the local Police?
Cornbeefur wrote: " it evidently stinks of under the table dealings." You are clearly suggesting corruption by the above statement. I expect you will now be sending your report and evidence to the local Police? NDevoto

5:39pm Wed 7 Nov 12

Techno3 says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
Cornbeefur wrote:
NDevoto wrote:
As said, the vast majority of homes on the New estate at the Stow site will not be "affordable" as the developers won't make enough money so there won't be "a lot", if any , on benefits. This is also at time where housing benefit capping by the Govt is forcing Councils to consider moving residents on benefits out of London.
It's just Cornbeefur's usual prejudice and lack of knowledge to think this aspect is a major issue for surrounding residents as he pontificates from Marylebone.
I actually pontificate in Waltham Forest Old Bean.

However, I am convinced that the objections have nothing to do with the loss of Greyhounds Running after a toy hare.
In order to be convinced that 'the objections have nothing to do with' the loss of greyhound racing you would have to be able to read the minds of all the objectors, or at the very least, to have spoken to them all. As you have not done so, you can only be speculating.

It is your right to pontificate, of course, but may I suggest you consider whether you really want to make yourself look like an apologist for an unpopular decision by one of the least democratic and arguably more corrupted councils in the UK?
You cannot accuse people of corruption without evidence. If you have some, go to the Police Station (sorry the local one is closed) at Chingford and file a report.
Dr Foster
O-Regen
EduAction
Better Neighbourhoods Initiative
Worknet
Independent Panel Report

Do keep up.
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NDevoto[/bold] wrote: As said, the vast majority of homes on the New estate at the Stow site will not be "affordable" as the developers won't make enough money so there won't be "a lot", if any , on benefits. This is also at time where housing benefit capping by the Govt is forcing Councils to consider moving residents on benefits out of London. It's just Cornbeefur's usual prejudice and lack of knowledge to think this aspect is a major issue for surrounding residents as he pontificates from Marylebone.[/p][/quote]I actually pontificate in Waltham Forest Old Bean. However, I am convinced that the objections have nothing to do with the loss of Greyhounds Running after a toy hare.[/p][/quote]In order to be convinced that 'the objections have nothing to do with' the loss of greyhound racing you would have to be able to read the minds of all the objectors, or at the very least, to have spoken to them all. As you have not done so, you can only be speculating. It is your right to pontificate, of course, but may I suggest you consider whether you really want to make yourself look like an apologist for an unpopular decision by one of the least democratic and arguably more corrupted councils in the UK?[/p][/quote]You cannot accuse people of corruption without evidence. If you have some, go to the Police Station (sorry the local one is closed) at Chingford and file a report.[/p][/quote]Dr Foster O-Regen EduAction Better Neighbourhoods Initiative Worknet Independent Panel Report Do keep up. Techno3

8:21pm Wed 7 Nov 12

SXH says...

Techno3 wrote:
Cornbeefur wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
Cornbeefur wrote:
NDevoto wrote: As said, the vast majority of homes on the New estate at the Stow site will not be "affordable" as the developers won't make enough money so there won't be "a lot", if any , on benefits. This is also at time where housing benefit capping by the Govt is forcing Councils to consider moving residents on benefits out of London. It's just Cornbeefur's usual prejudice and lack of knowledge to think this aspect is a major issue for surrounding residents as he pontificates from Marylebone.
I actually pontificate in Waltham Forest Old Bean. However, I am convinced that the objections have nothing to do with the loss of Greyhounds Running after a toy hare.
In order to be convinced that 'the objections have nothing to do with' the loss of greyhound racing you would have to be able to read the minds of all the objectors, or at the very least, to have spoken to them all. As you have not done so, you can only be speculating. It is your right to pontificate, of course, but may I suggest you consider whether you really want to make yourself look like an apologist for an unpopular decision by one of the least democratic and arguably more corrupted councils in the UK?
You cannot accuse people of corruption without evidence. If you have some, go to the Police Station (sorry the local one is closed) at Chingford and file a report.
Dr Foster O-Regen EduAction Better Neighbourhoods Initiative Worknet Independent Panel Report Do keep up.
Techno3 well said yet another added to the list
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NDevoto[/bold] wrote: As said, the vast majority of homes on the New estate at the Stow site will not be "affordable" as the developers won't make enough money so there won't be "a lot", if any , on benefits. This is also at time where housing benefit capping by the Govt is forcing Councils to consider moving residents on benefits out of London. It's just Cornbeefur's usual prejudice and lack of knowledge to think this aspect is a major issue for surrounding residents as he pontificates from Marylebone.[/p][/quote]I actually pontificate in Waltham Forest Old Bean. However, I am convinced that the objections have nothing to do with the loss of Greyhounds Running after a toy hare.[/p][/quote]In order to be convinced that 'the objections have nothing to do with' the loss of greyhound racing you would have to be able to read the minds of all the objectors, or at the very least, to have spoken to them all. As you have not done so, you can only be speculating. It is your right to pontificate, of course, but may I suggest you consider whether you really want to make yourself look like an apologist for an unpopular decision by one of the least democratic and arguably more corrupted councils in the UK?[/p][/quote]You cannot accuse people of corruption without evidence. If you have some, go to the Police Station (sorry the local one is closed) at Chingford and file a report.[/p][/quote]Dr Foster O-Regen EduAction Better Neighbourhoods Initiative Worknet Independent Panel Report Do keep up.[/p][/quote]Techno3 well said yet another added to the list SXH

9:09pm Wed 7 Nov 12

Walthamster says...

Silent Majority 2009 wrote:
Why should this perfectly acceptable scheme to increase much needed housing in the Borough be stuck in this ridiculous row when the appalling 14 storey Travelodge scheme in Walthamstow Town Centre was not opposed by anyone expect the residents. Where was Stella then? Surely the badly designed Town Centre scheme is going to be far more damaging than the re-use of an out of Town redundant dog track!
The scheme isn't acceptable to the large number of people living around it, as they have made clear.
Jobs and infrastructure are much-needed; adding hundreds more people without these will be a disaster.
The Travelodge plan is stupid too. That doesn't mean the dog track doesn't matter: all parts of the borough deserve care and respect.
None of them get it from the council!
[quote][p][bold]Silent Majority 2009[/bold] wrote: Why should this perfectly acceptable scheme to increase much needed housing in the Borough be stuck in this ridiculous row when the appalling 14 storey Travelodge scheme in Walthamstow Town Centre was not opposed by anyone expect the residents. Where was Stella then? Surely the badly designed Town Centre scheme is going to be far more damaging than the re-use of an out of Town redundant dog track![/p][/quote]The scheme isn't acceptable to the large number of people living around it, as they have made clear. Jobs and infrastructure are much-needed; adding hundreds more people without these will be a disaster. The Travelodge plan is stupid too. That doesn't mean the dog track doesn't matter: all parts of the borough deserve care and respect. None of them get it from the council! Walthamster

9:10pm Wed 7 Nov 12

Mark Dawes says...

Eric Pickles Dept wrote to me on the issue and said

"The decision as to what will become of the Walthamstow Stadium site is a matter for the Council. Local authorities are democratically elected organisations, and as such, are independent from central government. We cannot, therefore interfere in planning matters."

It would seem he never intended to intervene.
Eric Pickles Dept wrote to me on the issue and said "The decision as to what will become of the Walthamstow Stadium site is a matter for the Council. Local authorities are democratically elected organisations, and as such, are independent from central government. We cannot, therefore interfere in planning matters." It would seem he never intended to intervene. Mark Dawes

9:51pm Wed 7 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

Techno3 wrote:
Cornbeefur wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
Cornbeefur wrote:
NDevoto wrote:
As said, the vast majority of homes on the New estate at the Stow site will not be "affordable" as the developers won't make enough money so there won't be "a lot", if any , on benefits. This is also at time where housing benefit capping by the Govt is forcing Councils to consider moving residents on benefits out of London.
It's just Cornbeefur's usual prejudice and lack of knowledge to think this aspect is a major issue for surrounding residents as he pontificates from Marylebone.
I actually pontificate in Waltham Forest Old Bean.

However, I am convinced that the objections have nothing to do with the loss of Greyhounds Running after a toy hare.
In order to be convinced that 'the objections have nothing to do with' the loss of greyhound racing you would have to be able to read the minds of all the objectors, or at the very least, to have spoken to them all. As you have not done so, you can only be speculating.

It is your right to pontificate, of course, but may I suggest you consider whether you really want to make yourself look like an apologist for an unpopular decision by one of the least democratic and arguably more corrupted councils in the UK?
You cannot accuse people of corruption without evidence. If you have some, go to the Police Station (sorry the local one is closed) at Chingford and file a report.
Dr Foster
O-Regen
EduAction
Better Neighbourhoods Initiative
Worknet
Independent Panel Report

Do keep up.
Yes. The ones quoted stink, but has anyone been successfully banged up for the mere allegations? I think not.

Apart from Miranda Grell, (who is now back in a well paid job in Islington) everyone seems to walk on water.
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NDevoto[/bold] wrote: As said, the vast majority of homes on the New estate at the Stow site will not be "affordable" as the developers won't make enough money so there won't be "a lot", if any , on benefits. This is also at time where housing benefit capping by the Govt is forcing Councils to consider moving residents on benefits out of London. It's just Cornbeefur's usual prejudice and lack of knowledge to think this aspect is a major issue for surrounding residents as he pontificates from Marylebone.[/p][/quote]I actually pontificate in Waltham Forest Old Bean. However, I am convinced that the objections have nothing to do with the loss of Greyhounds Running after a toy hare.[/p][/quote]In order to be convinced that 'the objections have nothing to do with' the loss of greyhound racing you would have to be able to read the minds of all the objectors, or at the very least, to have spoken to them all. As you have not done so, you can only be speculating. It is your right to pontificate, of course, but may I suggest you consider whether you really want to make yourself look like an apologist for an unpopular decision by one of the least democratic and arguably more corrupted councils in the UK?[/p][/quote]You cannot accuse people of corruption without evidence. If you have some, go to the Police Station (sorry the local one is closed) at Chingford and file a report.[/p][/quote]Dr Foster O-Regen EduAction Better Neighbourhoods Initiative Worknet Independent Panel Report Do keep up.[/p][/quote]Yes. The ones quoted stink, but has anyone been successfully banged up for the mere allegations? I think not. Apart from Miranda Grell, (who is now back in a well paid job in Islington) everyone seems to walk on water. Cornbeefur

10:17pm Wed 7 Nov 12

mdj says...

'Dr Foster
O-Regen
EduAction
Better Neighbourhoods Initiative
Worknet
Independent Panel Report...

Not to mention:

Muslim Burial Ground gift;
Leyton Town Hall giveaway;
Arcade site failure;
Ascham Homes £5 million leaseholder fiasco;
Leyton Market debacle;
High St Ward 125% turnout;
North London Business, the Council-funded cheerleader for favoured local private developers;
The Kier £1 million business waste fraud ;
The Kier street services contract, which lost 150 jobs and cost more than the in-house service;
The Olympic basketball site;
Essex Wharf;
Miranda Grell; Matthew Garness.

Feel free to contribute your own list.

Good luck with appealing to Pickles: when chapter and verse of the 'papers in the basement' scandal was sent him, the reply was to raise it with the Council! Local government seems to be the only area of life where the suspects are obliged by law to investigate themselves.
'Dr Foster O-Regen EduAction Better Neighbourhoods Initiative Worknet Independent Panel Report... Not to mention: Muslim Burial Ground gift; Leyton Town Hall giveaway; Arcade site failure; Ascham Homes £5 million leaseholder fiasco; Leyton Market debacle; High St Ward 125% turnout; North London Business, the Council-funded cheerleader for favoured local private developers; The Kier £1 million business waste fraud ; The Kier street services contract, which lost 150 jobs and cost more than the in-house service; The Olympic basketball site; Essex Wharf; Miranda Grell; Matthew Garness. Feel free to contribute your own list. Good luck with appealing to Pickles: when chapter and verse of the 'papers in the basement' scandal was sent him, the reply was to raise it with the Council! Local government seems to be the only area of life where the suspects are obliged by law to investigate themselves. mdj

10:38pm Wed 7 Nov 12

SXH says...

mdj wrote:
'Dr Foster O-Regen EduAction Better Neighbourhoods Initiative Worknet Independent Panel Report... Not to mention: Muslim Burial Ground gift; Leyton Town Hall giveaway; Arcade site failure; Ascham Homes £5 million leaseholder fiasco; Leyton Market debacle; High St Ward 125% turnout; North London Business, the Council-funded cheerleader for favoured local private developers; The Kier £1 million business waste fraud ; The Kier street services contract, which lost 150 jobs and cost more than the in-house service; The Olympic basketball site; Essex Wharf; Miranda Grell; Matthew Garness. Feel free to contribute your own list. Good luck with appealing to Pickles: when chapter and verse of the 'papers in the basement' scandal was sent him, the reply was to raise it with the Council! Local government seems to be the only area of life where the suspects are obliged by law to investigate themselves.
well said mdj "WALTHAM FOREST: Kier fraud claims 'reported to police'
ALLEGATIONS of fraud at the Waltham Forest Council's street cleaning and rubbish contractors have been referred to police.
reported in the Guardian Thursday 12th July 2012
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: 'Dr Foster O-Regen EduAction Better Neighbourhoods Initiative Worknet Independent Panel Report... Not to mention: Muslim Burial Ground gift; Leyton Town Hall giveaway; Arcade site failure; Ascham Homes £5 million leaseholder fiasco; Leyton Market debacle; High St Ward 125% turnout; North London Business, the Council-funded cheerleader for favoured local private developers; The Kier £1 million business waste fraud ; The Kier street services contract, which lost 150 jobs and cost more than the in-house service; The Olympic basketball site; Essex Wharf; Miranda Grell; Matthew Garness. Feel free to contribute your own list. Good luck with appealing to Pickles: when chapter and verse of the 'papers in the basement' scandal was sent him, the reply was to raise it with the Council! Local government seems to be the only area of life where the suspects are obliged by law to investigate themselves.[/p][/quote]well said mdj "WALTHAM FOREST: Kier fraud claims 'reported to police' ALLEGATIONS of fraud at the Waltham Forest Council's street cleaning and rubbish contractors have been referred to police. reported in the Guardian Thursday 12th July 2012 SXH

11:13pm Wed 7 Nov 12

HottRedMan says...

I sense there has been backhanders given out by L&Q, maybe gifts and other incentives to LBWF.
Im sure the so called money being used to improve the surrounding area would stretch to other deals.
I sense there has been backhanders given out by L&Q, maybe gifts and other incentives to LBWF. Im sure the so called money being used to improve the surrounding area would stretch to other deals. HottRedMan

11:26pm Wed 7 Nov 12

SXH says...

WALTHAM FOREST: Kier fraud claims 'reported to police'
according to Kier and the council this was reported to police? but the met said they had no reports (reported in the Guardian Thursday 12th July 2012”
what happened to that £1 Million, frontline and senior officers were sacked after internal investigations? only sacked?
WALTHAM FOREST: Kier fraud claims 'reported to police' according to Kier and the council this was reported to police? but the met said they had no reports (reported in the Guardian Thursday 12th July 2012” what happened to that £1 Million, frontline and senior officers were sacked after internal investigations? only sacked? SXH

6:49am Thu 8 Nov 12

E4nanny says...

It's whhelwrightsgate all over again where are all the schools and hospital and improved road and transport systems for all these new people .the council seem determined to remove anything in the borough that gives residents any sort of feeling of community RIP Waltham Forest .
It's whhelwrightsgate all over again where are all the schools and hospital and improved road and transport systems for all these new people .the council seem determined to remove anything in the borough that gives residents any sort of feeling of community RIP Waltham Forest . E4nanny

7:55am Thu 8 Nov 12

NT says...

There are a number of other dubious episodes that might be included in the list, but two that should be mentioned because of their symbolic significance relate to previous LBWF CEOs - Andrew Kilburn who left the authority’s employment apparently because of ‘a breakdown in his working relationship with the authority's Labour leadership’, and was then paid off to the tune of £365,000; and Roger Taylor, whose employment arrangements included (to quote the WF Guardian) being ‘headhunted by a firm owned by a company he was the director of’. See

http://www.guardian-
series.co.uk/your_lo
cal_areas/8230575.WA
LTHAM_FOREST__Detail
s_of_CEO_settlement_
revealed/

and

http://www.guardian-
series.co.uk/your_lo
cal_areas/8713307.WA
LTHAM_FOREST__Former
_CEO_s_firm_paid___1
m/

Regarding fraud, I know of four complaints about the Council or its relationship with third parties made to the police in recent times, two inconclusive, one that eventually resulted in a confidential settlement, and one (I think) ongoing.

Some describe the council as corrupt or corrupted, and that is their business. However, it is risky describing a particular person as corrupt unless the evidence for that exists and is absolutely unambiguous. It goes without saying that fraud – particularly fraud involving relatively minor sums - is difficult to prove, and requires determined efforts to uncover (something that is increasingly unlikely when police resources are stretched). It should also be remembered that a public accusation of fraud without appropriate evidence is defamatory. The onus is on the accuser and not the accused, and the use of a pseudonym offers little protection.
There are a number of other dubious episodes that might be included in the list, but two that should be mentioned because of their symbolic significance relate to previous LBWF CEOs - Andrew Kilburn who left the authority’s employment apparently because of ‘a breakdown in his working relationship with the authority's Labour leadership’, and was then paid off to the tune of £365,000; and Roger Taylor, whose employment arrangements included (to quote the WF Guardian) being ‘headhunted by a firm owned by a company he was the director of’. See http://www.guardian- series.co.uk/your_lo cal_areas/8230575.WA LTHAM_FOREST__Detail s_of_CEO_settlement_ revealed/ and http://www.guardian- series.co.uk/your_lo cal_areas/8713307.WA LTHAM_FOREST__Former _CEO_s_firm_paid___1 m/ Regarding fraud, I know of four complaints about the Council or its relationship with third parties made to the police in recent times, two inconclusive, one that eventually resulted in a confidential settlement, and one (I think) ongoing. Some describe the council as corrupt or corrupted, and that is their business. However, it is risky describing a particular person as corrupt unless the evidence for that exists and is absolutely unambiguous. It goes without saying that fraud – particularly fraud involving relatively minor sums - is difficult to prove, and requires determined efforts to uncover (something that is increasingly unlikely when police resources are stretched). It should also be remembered that a public accusation of fraud without appropriate evidence is defamatory. The onus is on the accuser and not the accused, and the use of a pseudonym offers little protection. NT

9:52am Thu 8 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

mdj wrote:
'Dr Foster
O-Regen
EduAction
Better Neighbourhoods Initiative
Worknet
Independent Panel Report...

Not to mention:

Muslim Burial Ground gift;
Leyton Town Hall giveaway;
Arcade site failure;
Ascham Homes £5 million leaseholder fiasco;
Leyton Market debacle;
High St Ward 125% turnout;
North London Business, the Council-funded cheerleader for favoured local private developers;
The Kier £1 million business waste fraud ;
The Kier street services contract, which lost 150 jobs and cost more than the in-house service;
The Olympic basketball site;
Essex Wharf;
Miranda Grell; Matthew Garness.

Feel free to contribute your own list.

Good luck with appealing to Pickles: when chapter and verse of the 'papers in the basement' scandal was sent him, the reply was to raise it with the Council! Local government seems to be the only area of life where the suspects are obliged by law to investigate themselves.
What do you mean by the Leyton Town Hall 'Giveaway please?'

Was it given away?

They are trying to turn it into a pub now?
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: 'Dr Foster O-Regen EduAction Better Neighbourhoods Initiative Worknet Independent Panel Report... Not to mention: Muslim Burial Ground gift; Leyton Town Hall giveaway; Arcade site failure; Ascham Homes £5 million leaseholder fiasco; Leyton Market debacle; High St Ward 125% turnout; North London Business, the Council-funded cheerleader for favoured local private developers; The Kier £1 million business waste fraud ; The Kier street services contract, which lost 150 jobs and cost more than the in-house service; The Olympic basketball site; Essex Wharf; Miranda Grell; Matthew Garness. Feel free to contribute your own list. Good luck with appealing to Pickles: when chapter and verse of the 'papers in the basement' scandal was sent him, the reply was to raise it with the Council! Local government seems to be the only area of life where the suspects are obliged by law to investigate themselves.[/p][/quote]What do you mean by the Leyton Town Hall 'Giveaway please?' Was it given away? They are trying to turn it into a pub now? Cornbeefur

12:06pm Thu 8 Nov 12

AC1975 says...

I've lived in E17 most of my life - almost 34 years. I'm not a supporter of greyhound racing but definitely a supporter of the EMD campaign and definitely an advocate of transparency in local government. Therefore I'm a supporter of the 'Stow campaign by virtue of this. I have found the council's behaviour over the last 12 years or so absolutely abhorrent - from the Arcade site debacle - to the £5m for a bit of library extension incident (and we'll burn £3m of books in the process). Councillors need to remember who they serve - US and if there is any whiff of wrongdoing it needs to be investigated thoroughly. The problem with the current council system is that councillors have no individual accountability -there should be personal liability for wherever there is grossly negligent actions which lead to huge economic losses for the community by commission or ommission.
I've lived in E17 most of my life - almost 34 years. I'm not a supporter of greyhound racing but definitely a supporter of the EMD campaign and definitely an advocate of transparency in local government. Therefore I'm a supporter of the 'Stow campaign by virtue of this. I have found the council's behaviour over the last 12 years or so absolutely abhorrent - from the Arcade site debacle - to the £5m for a bit of library extension incident (and we'll burn £3m of books in the process). Councillors need to remember who they serve - US and if there is any whiff of wrongdoing it needs to be investigated thoroughly. The problem with the current council system is that councillors have no individual accountability -there should be personal liability for wherever there is grossly negligent actions which lead to huge economic losses for the community by commission or ommission. AC1975

12:02pm Fri 9 Nov 12

Isaythat says...

New post on saveourstow.wordpres
s.com












Just received this email:-


Special announcement to be made at tomorrow demo
by saveourstow

Iain Duncan Smith will be making a very important announcement at tomorrow’s demonstration outside Walthamstow Stadium at 1pm. The fight is not over and so we are asking everyone to show their support tomorrow.

Please Facebook this post to all your family and friends, we need everyone to attend!
New post on saveourstow.wordpres s.com Just received this email:- Special announcement to be made at tomorrow demo by saveourstow Iain Duncan Smith will be making a very important announcement at tomorrow’s demonstration outside Walthamstow Stadium at 1pm. The fight is not over and so we are asking everyone to show their support tomorrow. Please Facebook this post to all your family and friends, we need everyone to attend! Isaythat

12:20pm Fri 9 Nov 12

mdj says...

'..The problem with the current council system is that councillors have no individual accountability..'

But we DO know of one bit of very clear personal responsibility: the 'Strong Leader' has been directly instructed by the Minister to cease publication of the propaganda newspaper WF News, which costs us about £400-500,000 a year. He has defied this instruction: should he be surcharged for what this rag has cost us since that instruction was given?
'..The problem with the current council system is that councillors have no individual accountability..' But we DO know of one bit of very clear personal responsibility: the 'Strong Leader' has been directly instructed by the Minister to cease publication of the propaganda newspaper WF News, which costs us about £400-500,000 a year. He has defied this instruction: should he be surcharged for what this rag has cost us since that instruction was given? mdj

2:13pm Fri 9 Nov 12

mdj says...

My error: it's a 'voluntary code' not to publish more than four times a year..

In other words, a chocolate teapot.
My error: it's a 'voluntary code' not to publish more than four times a year.. In other words, a chocolate teapot. mdj

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree