MPs will meet Pickles to discuss Stow's future

East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Protesters at Walthamstow Stadium. Protesters at Walthamstow Stadium.

TWO of the borough's MPs are to meet with the government's communities secretary Eric Pickles to discuss the future of Walthamstow Stadium.


Controversial plans to build 294 homes at the iconic former dog racing track were given initial approval by councillors earlier this year before being rubber stamped by Mayor of London Boris Johnson.


Campaigners had been clinging to hope that Mr Pickles would intervene but the council completed the final paperwork to grant planning permission within 48 hours of Mr Johnson's decision, leaving the government powerless to block the development.
 

Whitehall described the move as "unreasonable" but the council said it acted perfectly legally and that there had never been any indication that Mr Pickles was going to intervene.


The Department for Communities and Local Government said it would look into the matter further but stopped short of announcing an investigation.
 

Now Chingford MP Iain Duncan Smith and Walthamstow MP Stella Creasy are to meet with Mr Pickles on Tuesday (November 13) as part of last-ditch efforts to get the government to intervene.
 

The announcement came as dozens of protesters, including former footballer Teddy Sheringham and 'Allo Allo actress Vicky Michelle, held a static demonstration outside the stadium, in Chingford Road, Chingford, on Saturday (November 10).


The Walthamstow Area Residents Association has begun initial legal proceedings for a judicial review of the planning decision and is hoping to raise funds for a full case.
 

Campaigners say the housing will look like a "slum" and insist it would be viable to reopen the stadium with greyhound racing, although developers London and Quadrant (L&Q) dispute this.
 

Meanwhile L&Q has said it is keen to start building the housing as quickly as possible.
 

Andy Rowland, Land and Projects Director at L&Q, said: “Now that Waltham Forest Council and the Mayor of London have approved our proposals for the Walthamstow Stadium site, we look forward to beginning work as soon as we can, subject to meeting the remaining conditions in the planning process.
 

“We will build 294 much-needed, high quality homes for people on a range of incomes...[and]  will preserve the architectural heritage of this iconic and historic site for the whole community.”

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:30pm Sun 11 Nov 12

HITCHIN47 says...

Not surprised Council signed documents quickly, they appear to be money obsessed, could be a few bulging back pockets 'allegedly'. Personally as an ex-greyhound owner who raced at The Stow would love to see it restored to a dog-track. Do we honestly need more housing? WF is vastly overcrowded.
Not surprised Council signed documents quickly, they appear to be money obsessed, could be a few bulging back pockets 'allegedly'. Personally as an ex-greyhound owner who raced at The Stow would love to see it restored to a dog-track. Do we honestly need more housing? WF is vastly overcrowded. HITCHIN47
  • Score: 0

7:27pm Sun 11 Nov 12

Ian RS2000 says...

Well done L&Q hurry up and start building
Well done L&Q hurry up and start building Ian RS2000
  • Score: 0

8:17pm Sun 11 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

Ian RS2000 wrote:
Well done L&Q hurry up and start building
Most of these dreamers lost the chance to go to the Dogs and the other half are fearful of the Social Housing Community that have been earmarked for the Bowels of Walthamstow.

Nimbism at it's best.
[quote][p][bold]Ian RS2000[/bold] wrote: Well done L&Q hurry up and start building[/p][/quote]Most of these dreamers lost the chance to go to the Dogs and the other half are fearful of the Social Housing Community that have been earmarked for the Bowels of Walthamstow. Nimbism at it's best. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

9:33pm Sun 11 Nov 12

sensibility says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
Ian RS2000 wrote:
Well done L&Q hurry up and start building
Most of these dreamers lost the chance to go to the Dogs and the other half are fearful of the Social Housing Community that have been earmarked for the Bowels of Walthamstow.

Nimbism at it's best.
What social housing? Thats one of the points. The L&Q proposal doesnt go anywhere near near meeting the social housing quota they should be providing.

As for the bowels of Walthamstow well - How many times do people have to be told?????

Walthamstow Stadium is actually in Chingford.

If the plans had been of houses of similar height as those that surround the stadium it would have been built by now.

Yesterday Iain Duncan-Smith said something along the lines that L&Q is a company who is supposed to be a social housing provider acting as a commercial developer and apparently using taxpayer/public money to do it.

I believe he is right on this occasion. I would expect a social housing provider to provide social housing.

Boris Johnson was quoted as asking L&Q to ensure they listened to local residents but they didnt and Waltham Forest Council acted so quickly that even if Eric Pickles had wanted to intervene he couldnt.
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian RS2000[/bold] wrote: Well done L&Q hurry up and start building[/p][/quote]Most of these dreamers lost the chance to go to the Dogs and the other half are fearful of the Social Housing Community that have been earmarked for the Bowels of Walthamstow. Nimbism at it's best.[/p][/quote]What social housing? Thats one of the points. The L&Q proposal doesnt go anywhere near near meeting the social housing quota they should be providing. As for the bowels of Walthamstow well - How many times do people have to be told????? Walthamstow Stadium is actually in Chingford. If the plans had been of houses of similar height as those that surround the stadium it would have been built by now. Yesterday Iain Duncan-Smith said something along the lines that L&Q is a company who is supposed to be a social housing provider acting as a commercial developer and apparently using taxpayer/public money to do it. I believe he is right on this occasion. I would expect a social housing provider to provide social housing. Boris Johnson was quoted as asking L&Q to ensure they listened to local residents but they didnt and Waltham Forest Council acted so quickly that even if Eric Pickles had wanted to intervene he couldnt. sensibility
  • Score: 0

10:33pm Sun 11 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

sensibility wrote:
Cornbeefur wrote:
Ian RS2000 wrote:
Well done L&Q hurry up and start building
Most of these dreamers lost the chance to go to the Dogs and the other half are fearful of the Social Housing Community that have been earmarked for the Bowels of Walthamstow.

Nimbism at it's best.
What social housing? Thats one of the points. The L&Q proposal doesnt go anywhere near near meeting the social housing quota they should be providing.

As for the bowels of Walthamstow well - How many times do people have to be told?????

Walthamstow Stadium is actually in Chingford.

If the plans had been of houses of similar height as those that surround the stadium it would have been built by now.

Yesterday Iain Duncan-Smith said something along the lines that L&Q is a company who is supposed to be a social housing provider acting as a commercial developer and apparently using taxpayer/public money to do it.

I believe he is right on this occasion. I would expect a social housing provider to provide social housing.

Boris Johnson was quoted as asking L&Q to ensure they listened to local residents but they didnt and Waltham Forest Council acted so quickly that even if Eric Pickles had wanted to intervene he couldnt.
Technically in Chingford. The Worse part.

They would never have got a look in, in North Chingford of course.
[quote][p][bold]sensibility[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian RS2000[/bold] wrote: Well done L&Q hurry up and start building[/p][/quote]Most of these dreamers lost the chance to go to the Dogs and the other half are fearful of the Social Housing Community that have been earmarked for the Bowels of Walthamstow. Nimbism at it's best.[/p][/quote]What social housing? Thats one of the points. The L&Q proposal doesnt go anywhere near near meeting the social housing quota they should be providing. As for the bowels of Walthamstow well - How many times do people have to be told????? Walthamstow Stadium is actually in Chingford. If the plans had been of houses of similar height as those that surround the stadium it would have been built by now. Yesterday Iain Duncan-Smith said something along the lines that L&Q is a company who is supposed to be a social housing provider acting as a commercial developer and apparently using taxpayer/public money to do it. I believe he is right on this occasion. I would expect a social housing provider to provide social housing. Boris Johnson was quoted as asking L&Q to ensure they listened to local residents but they didnt and Waltham Forest Council acted so quickly that even if Eric Pickles had wanted to intervene he couldnt.[/p][/quote]Technically in Chingford. The Worse part. They would never have got a look in, in North Chingford of course. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

11:29pm Sun 11 Nov 12

bishbosh says...

Housing Associations have a major part to play in providing social housing as over the years council budgets have been slashed and although they still have a duty to provide such housing they cannot build anymore themselves. HA are allowed to property speculate but plough the surplus back into social housing provision and charitable causes if they enjoy charitable status. L and Q have been doing this but recently have decided to protect their reserves and credit rating (they have to borrow vast sums to finance their programs) by massively reducing their interests in social housing provision. They will say the government no longer provides sufficient kick start funding to warrant their investment in social housing. I guess you could say market forces are prevailing. This was never the case with councils having to provide housing themselves. No longer..so who builds the social housing??? It is without doubt this development will never show a surplus to plough back into social housing... so why are a major housing association pushing on with it?. The answers are simple (1) The board of directors made a massive error off judgement when purchasing..caught out by a failing market..they can hardly admit this error and sell at a massive loss. (2) L and Q have created their own construction arm to carry out such builds. L and Q may make a loss but their construction arm will make a nice surplus with all the association performance related benefits. (3) Improved cash flows. The council have renaged on their duty to provide proper social and affordable housing by ignoring public opinion and being very creative with planning and democratic process. This needs to be examined by an independant review as excellent arguments and alternative proposlas have been consistently ignored. The council will say they have negotiated nearly 4 million under S106 for local needs most of this is payable after various phases of the build. There is no doubt they have worked very closely on this and whats to stop them doing the same by a fresh application being submitted in a couple of years time once market values have picked up with even more dense housing. The councils excuse would be we need more social housing. Remember L and Q wanted 500 units on the site in the beginning. L and Q and the Council have ignored the Heritage, tourism and visitor and acknowledged planning and viability arguments. They apparently will do most things to the detriment of local opinion to push this through. Promises were made back in 2007 that have to be kept. The residents who will have five and eight story blocks overlooking their gardens are not dreaming they are having nightmares.
Housing Associations have a major part to play in providing social housing as over the years council budgets have been slashed and although they still have a duty to provide such housing they cannot build anymore themselves. HA are allowed to property speculate but plough the surplus back into social housing provision and charitable causes if they enjoy charitable status. L and Q have been doing this but recently have decided to protect their reserves and credit rating (they have to borrow vast sums to finance their programs) by massively reducing their interests in social housing provision. They will say the government no longer provides sufficient kick start funding to warrant their investment in social housing. I guess you could say market forces are prevailing. This was never the case with councils having to provide housing themselves. No longer..so who builds the social housing??? It is without doubt this development will never show a surplus to plough back into social housing... so why are a major housing association pushing on with it?. The answers are simple (1) The board of directors made a massive error off judgement when purchasing..caught out by a failing market..they can hardly admit this error and sell at a massive loss. (2) L and Q have created their own construction arm to carry out such builds. L and Q may make a loss but their construction arm will make a nice surplus with all the association performance related benefits. (3) Improved cash flows. The council have renaged on their duty to provide proper social and affordable housing by ignoring public opinion and being very creative with planning and democratic process. This needs to be examined by an independant review as excellent arguments and alternative proposlas have been consistently ignored. The council will say they have negotiated nearly 4 million under S106 for local needs most of this is payable after various phases of the build. There is no doubt they have worked very closely on this and whats to stop them doing the same by a fresh application being submitted in a couple of years time once market values have picked up with even more dense housing. The councils excuse would be we need more social housing. Remember L and Q wanted 500 units on the site in the beginning. L and Q and the Council have ignored the Heritage, tourism and visitor and acknowledged planning and viability arguments. They apparently will do most things to the detriment of local opinion to push this through. Promises were made back in 2007 that have to be kept. The residents who will have five and eight story blocks overlooking their gardens are not dreaming they are having nightmares. bishbosh
  • Score: 0

12:00am Mon 12 Nov 12

Don't Give Up says...

I'm glad bishbosh has raised item (2), as I'm told L&Q set up Quadrant Construction via a £50 million on-loan fund facility. So, I guess that if any profit is to be made, the construction company will reap the benefits.
It also begs the question of how many local people will actually be employed on the site when under construction, if they get the ultimate go ahead?
I'm glad bishbosh has raised item (2), as I'm told L&Q set up Quadrant Construction via a £50 million on-loan fund facility. So, I guess that if any profit is to be made, the construction company will reap the benefits. It also begs the question of how many local people will actually be employed on the site when under construction, if they get the ultimate go ahead? Don't Give Up
  • Score: 0

7:33am Mon 12 Nov 12

Isaythat says...

If tomorrows meeting is unsuccessful and the scheme goes ahead (hopefully they at least refuse permission to build 8 storey high) shouldn't the government make three alterations to the agreement.
1. L & Q have to deal with infrastructure and leisure/track improvements first, completing same before touching The Stow ground.
2. Completion date to be agreed and binding.
3. A legally binding daily (substantial) financial penalty clause, should these agreements be broken.

Am I being naive to think it can that simple?
If tomorrows meeting is unsuccessful and the scheme goes ahead (hopefully they at least refuse permission to build 8 storey high) shouldn't the government make three alterations to the agreement. 1. L & Q have to deal with infrastructure and leisure/track improvements first, completing same before touching The Stow ground. 2. Completion date to be agreed and binding. 3. A legally binding daily (substantial) financial penalty clause, should these agreements be broken. Am I being naive to think it can that simple? Isaythat
  • Score: 0

9:55am Mon 12 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

Isaythat wrote:
If tomorrows meeting is unsuccessful and the scheme goes ahead (hopefully they at least refuse permission to build 8 storey high) shouldn't the government make three alterations to the agreement.
1. L & Q have to deal with infrastructure and leisure/track improvements first, completing same before touching The Stow ground.
2. Completion date to be agreed and binding.
3. A legally binding daily (substantial) financial penalty clause, should these agreements be broken.

Am I being naive to think it can that simple?
Yes
[quote][p][bold]Isaythat[/bold] wrote: If tomorrows meeting is unsuccessful and the scheme goes ahead (hopefully they at least refuse permission to build 8 storey high) shouldn't the government make three alterations to the agreement. 1. L & Q have to deal with infrastructure and leisure/track improvements first, completing same before touching The Stow ground. 2. Completion date to be agreed and binding. 3. A legally binding daily (substantial) financial penalty clause, should these agreements be broken. Am I being naive to think it can that simple?[/p][/quote]Yes Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

11:08am Mon 12 Nov 12

red37red says...

the new build papermill place phase 3 in walthamstow has many builders who are europeon not really local jobs is it!

and the same will be at the stadium. mostly built buy cheap labour from abroad
the new build papermill place phase 3 in walthamstow has many builders who are europeon not really local jobs is it! and the same will be at the stadium. mostly built buy cheap labour from abroad red37red
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Mon 12 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

red37red wrote:
the new build papermill place phase 3 in walthamstow has many builders who are europeon not really local jobs is it!

and the same will be at the stadium. mostly built buy cheap labour from abroad
They are local jobs if the East Europeans you refer to live locally as many of them do.
[quote][p][bold]red37red[/bold] wrote: the new build papermill place phase 3 in walthamstow has many builders who are europeon not really local jobs is it! and the same will be at the stadium. mostly built buy cheap labour from abroad[/p][/quote]They are local jobs if the East Europeans you refer to live locally as many of them do. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Mon 12 Nov 12

sensibility says...

To quote cornbeefur "They would never have got a look in, in North Chingford of course."

They have, Walton House another L&Q over dense build, yet it was approved and yes they have demolished Walton House.

As for our area of chingford being the "worse" we have a lovely area and good neighbours and a good and kind spirited community.
To quote cornbeefur "They would never have got a look in, in North Chingford of course." They have, Walton House another L&Q over dense build, yet it was approved and yes they have demolished Walton House. As for our area of chingford being the "worse" we have a lovely area and good neighbours and a good and kind spirited community. sensibility
  • Score: 0

1:55pm Mon 12 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

sensibility wrote:
To quote cornbeefur "They would never have got a look in, in North Chingford of course."

They have, Walton House another L&Q over dense build, yet it was approved and yes they have demolished Walton House.

As for our area of chingford being the "worse" we have a lovely area and good neighbours and a good and kind spirited community.
Hopefully, being all good neighbours and kind hearted and public spirited, you will all welcome your new neighbours with open arms?
[quote][p][bold]sensibility[/bold] wrote: To quote cornbeefur "They would never have got a look in, in North Chingford of course." They have, Walton House another L&Q over dense build, yet it was approved and yes they have demolished Walton House. As for our area of chingford being the "worse" we have a lovely area and good neighbours and a good and kind spirited community.[/p][/quote]Hopefully, being all good neighbours and kind hearted and public spirited, you will all welcome your new neighbours with open arms? Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

2:34pm Mon 12 Nov 12

Isaythat says...

sensibility, I second that. Crnbfur's views are obviously of someone who does not live in, or visit that part of Chingford, thankfully........
sensibility, I second that. Crnbfur's views are obviously of someone who does not live in, or visit that part of Chingford, thankfully........ Isaythat
  • Score: 0

2:47pm Mon 12 Nov 12

E17_er says...

Isaythat wrote:
sensibility, I second that. Crnbfur's views are obviously of someone who does not live in, or visit that part of Chingford, thankfully........
Is "views" the correct term? Perhaps "tics". His comments seem like a particularly nasty form of Tourettes.
[quote][p][bold]Isaythat[/bold] wrote: sensibility, I second that. Crnbfur's views are obviously of someone who does not live in, or visit that part of Chingford, thankfully........[/p][/quote]Is "views" the correct term? Perhaps "tics". His comments seem like a particularly nasty form of Tourettes. E17_er
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Mon 12 Nov 12

sensibility says...

Being a good neighbour Ive always welcomed all those who have moved in near me as do others.

If L&Q wanted to be good neighbours they would have been more considerate of existing neighbours privacy and wishes and concerns.

Younger residents organised street parties again this year and I am sure no one is stupid enough to blame those that rent or buy from L&Q.

If I cant get out to shop one of the neighbours will help, that doesnt happen everywhere.

I quite resent what your last post implies cornbeefur. Perhaps you should come and rent somewhere near us for a month or two to find out what you are missing out on.
Being a good neighbour Ive always welcomed all those who have moved in near me as do others. If L&Q wanted to be good neighbours they would have been more considerate of existing neighbours privacy and wishes and concerns. Younger residents organised street parties again this year and I am sure no one is stupid enough to blame those that rent or buy from L&Q. If I cant get out to shop one of the neighbours will help, that doesnt happen everywhere. I quite resent what your last post implies cornbeefur. Perhaps you should come and rent somewhere near us for a month or two to find out what you are missing out on. sensibility
  • Score: 0

5:01pm Mon 12 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

sensibility wrote:
Being a good neighbour Ive always welcomed all those who have moved in near me as do others.

If L&Q wanted to be good neighbours they would have been more considerate of existing neighbours privacy and wishes and concerns.

Younger residents organised street parties again this year and I am sure no one is stupid enough to blame those that rent or buy from L&Q.

If I cant get out to shop one of the neighbours will help, that doesnt happen everywhere.

I quite resent what your last post implies cornbeefur. Perhaps you should come and rent somewhere near us for a month or two to find out what you are missing out on.
But L&Q are not going to be your neighbours, rather your landlords who will deal with any unfounded concerns that you may have.

I am sure that any of the new 300 families that move in will be more than helpful to do errands as your current ones do, even if some will be on Benefits and you should at least give them a chance.

In answer to the views expressed by Isayanyoltosh, I do not need to reside in Stow area to know what it is like as the area you mention is not the only part of London with Community Spirit.

I do not need to rent a place around there, I accept that you have community spirit. Please let some needy families experience some community spirit also.
[quote][p][bold]sensibility[/bold] wrote: Being a good neighbour Ive always welcomed all those who have moved in near me as do others. If L&Q wanted to be good neighbours they would have been more considerate of existing neighbours privacy and wishes and concerns. Younger residents organised street parties again this year and I am sure no one is stupid enough to blame those that rent or buy from L&Q. If I cant get out to shop one of the neighbours will help, that doesnt happen everywhere. I quite resent what your last post implies cornbeefur. Perhaps you should come and rent somewhere near us for a month or two to find out what you are missing out on.[/p][/quote]But L&Q are not going to be your neighbours, rather your landlords who will deal with any unfounded concerns that you may have. I am sure that any of the new 300 families that move in will be more than helpful to do errands as your current ones do, even if some will be on Benefits and you should at least give them a chance. In answer to the views expressed by Isayanyoltosh, I do not need to reside in Stow area to know what it is like as the area you mention is not the only part of London with Community Spirit. I do not need to rent a place around there, I accept that you have community spirit. Please let some needy families experience some community spirit also. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

5:49pm Mon 12 Nov 12

E17_er says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
sensibility wrote:
Being a good neighbour Ive always welcomed all those who have moved in near me as do others.

If L&Q wanted to be good neighbours they would have been more considerate of existing neighbours privacy and wishes and concerns.

Younger residents organised street parties again this year and I am sure no one is stupid enough to blame those that rent or buy from L&Q.

If I cant get out to shop one of the neighbours will help, that doesnt happen everywhere.

I quite resent what your last post implies cornbeefur. Perhaps you should come and rent somewhere near us for a month or two to find out what you are missing out on.
But L&Q are not going to be your neighbours, rather your landlords who will deal with any unfounded concerns that you may have.

I am sure that any of the new 300 families that move in will be more than helpful to do errands as your current ones do, even if some will be on Benefits and you should at least give them a chance.

In answer to the views expressed by Isayanyoltosh, I do not need to reside in Stow area to know what it is like as the area you mention is not the only part of London with Community Spirit.

I do not need to rent a place around there, I accept that you have community spirit. Please let some needy families experience some community spirit also.
L&Q are going to be your landlords....

Apparently they're buying the whole area now including all the neighboring houses.

Take a bit more time reading and a bit less time coming up with juvenile misspellings of names
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensibility[/bold] wrote: Being a good neighbour Ive always welcomed all those who have moved in near me as do others. If L&Q wanted to be good neighbours they would have been more considerate of existing neighbours privacy and wishes and concerns. Younger residents organised street parties again this year and I am sure no one is stupid enough to blame those that rent or buy from L&Q. If I cant get out to shop one of the neighbours will help, that doesnt happen everywhere. I quite resent what your last post implies cornbeefur. Perhaps you should come and rent somewhere near us for a month or two to find out what you are missing out on.[/p][/quote]But L&Q are not going to be your neighbours, rather your landlords who will deal with any unfounded concerns that you may have. I am sure that any of the new 300 families that move in will be more than helpful to do errands as your current ones do, even if some will be on Benefits and you should at least give them a chance. In answer to the views expressed by Isayanyoltosh, I do not need to reside in Stow area to know what it is like as the area you mention is not the only part of London with Community Spirit. I do not need to rent a place around there, I accept that you have community spirit. Please let some needy families experience some community spirit also.[/p][/quote]L&Q are going to be your landlords.... Apparently they're buying the whole area now including all the neighboring houses. Take a bit more time reading and a bit less time coming up with juvenile misspellings of names E17_er
  • Score: 0

6:53pm Mon 12 Nov 12

sensibility says...

L&Q will never be my landlord - over my dead body !!!!!
L&Q will never be my landlord - over my dead body !!!!! sensibility
  • Score: 0

10:53pm Mon 12 Nov 12

richard codd says...

i yesterday emailed the rt hon eric pickles to ask for a royal commision as i believe my evidence will show corruption took place between the chandler family and simon baxter and lq housing
i yesterday emailed the rt hon eric pickles to ask for a royal commision as i believe my evidence will show corruption took place between the chandler family and simon baxter and lq housing richard codd
  • Score: 0

10:57pm Mon 12 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

richard codd wrote:
i yesterday emailed the rt hon eric pickles to ask for a royal commision as i believe my evidence will show corruption took place between the chandler family and simon baxter and lq housing
Do not worry, Mr Pickles knows his onions and will leave no stone unturned to get to the bottom of the dogs.

If any wrongdoing is found by the Baxter's then they for sure will be in the soup with Chandler.
[quote][p][bold]richard codd[/bold] wrote: i yesterday emailed the rt hon eric pickles to ask for a royal commision as i believe my evidence will show corruption took place between the chandler family and simon baxter and lq housing[/p][/quote]Do not worry, Mr Pickles knows his onions and will leave no stone unturned to get to the bottom of the dogs. If any wrongdoing is found by the Baxter's then they for sure will be in the soup with Chandler. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

12:53am Tue 13 Nov 12

Stow Residents/Community Association says...

richard codd wrote:
i yesterday emailed the rt hon eric pickles to ask for a royal commision as i believe my evidence will show corruption took place between the chandler family and simon baxter and lq housing
Hi Richard

If you have evidence you believe we could include in our judicial review case, you are welcome to email it to stow.residents@yahoo
.com
[quote][p][bold]richard codd[/bold] wrote: i yesterday emailed the rt hon eric pickles to ask for a royal commision as i believe my evidence will show corruption took place between the chandler family and simon baxter and lq housing[/p][/quote]Hi Richard If you have evidence you believe we could include in our judicial review case, you are welcome to email it to stow.residents@yahoo .com Stow Residents/Community Association
  • Score: 0

3:40am Tue 13 Nov 12

richard codd says...

i richard codd call upon the chandler clan simon baxter and lq housing to reply to my call that you acted corruptly in the sale of the track please bring it on if you have got the stomach for it
i richard codd call upon the chandler clan simon baxter and lq housing to reply to my call that you acted corruptly in the sale of the track please bring it on if you have got the stomach for it richard codd
  • Score: 0

7:44am Tue 13 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

richard codd wrote:
i richard codd call upon the chandler clan simon baxter and lq housing to reply to my call that you acted corruptly in the sale of the track please bring it on if you have got the stomach for it
Watch out for the empty email.
[quote][p][bold]richard codd[/bold] wrote: i richard codd call upon the chandler clan simon baxter and lq housing to reply to my call that you acted corruptly in the sale of the track please bring it on if you have got the stomach for it[/p][/quote]Watch out for the empty email. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

8:32am Tue 13 Nov 12

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY says...

richard codd - i hope u have got the evidence.

IF u have:

1. why have u held onto it for so long?
2. why havent u passed it onto SOS?
3. get it over ASAP.

IF u havent:

dont give decent, hardworking, very stressed and emotional people false hope.
richard codd - i hope u have got the evidence. IF u have: 1. why have u held onto it for so long? 2. why havent u passed it onto SOS? 3. get it over ASAP. IF u havent: dont give decent, hardworking, very stressed and emotional people false hope. L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY
  • Score: 0

11:51am Tue 13 Nov 12

bishbosh says...

Thick vegetable soup and cornbeef hash on the same menu,,,yummy!!
Thick vegetable soup and cornbeef hash on the same menu,,,yummy!! bishbosh
  • Score: 0

10:14pm Tue 13 Nov 12

richard codd says...

to the gutless person who replied to my email havent you got the guts to put your name where your mouth is i again stand by my claim and will give my evidence to any goverment inquiry
to the gutless person who replied to my email havent you got the guts to put your name where your mouth is i again stand by my claim and will give my evidence to any goverment inquiry richard codd
  • Score: 0

10:21pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

richard codd wrote:
to the gutless person who replied to my email havent you got the guts to put your name where your mouth is i again stand by my claim and will give my evidence to any goverment inquiry
What was the email, pray?
[quote][p][bold]richard codd[/bold] wrote: to the gutless person who replied to my email havent you got the guts to put your name where your mouth is i again stand by my claim and will give my evidence to any goverment inquiry[/p][/quote]What was the email, pray? Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

10:23pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

richard codd wrote:
to the gutless person who replied to my email havent you got the guts to put your name where your mouth is i again stand by my claim and will give my evidence to any goverment inquiry
Please put in your piece, Mr Codd?
[quote][p][bold]richard codd[/bold] wrote: to the gutless person who replied to my email havent you got the guts to put your name where your mouth is i again stand by my claim and will give my evidence to any goverment inquiry[/p][/quote]Please put in your piece, Mr Codd? Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

8:22pm Wed 14 Nov 12

KWyatt-Lown says...

As anyone who may have read the exchanges after the article ; http://www.guardian-
series.co.uk/your_lo
cal_areas/10022892.N
ew_Tesco__making_ind
ependent_traders_los
e_out_/ will be aware, I have been seeking a simple response from Cornbeefur to two very straightforward questions. Why he elects to hide behind his self-confessed “user name” and what, indeed, his real name is.

Having been challenged by him on these same issues I was happy to provide an open and honest response. He has now spent the last seven days evading the questions himself, occasionally providing somewhat insulting and, indeed, frankly juvenile postings (I think we all might agree that “my dad’s bigger than your dad” hardly raises the bar on reasoned debate) that do little to enhance any reputation he might possibly seek to establish or maintain as a worthwhile contributor to grown-up and rational discussion within these pages.

So, Cornbeefur, I ask you once again: please have the good grace to return my courtesy and answer my unambiguous questions. Thank you.
As anyone who may have read the exchanges after the article ; http://www.guardian- series.co.uk/your_lo cal_areas/10022892.N ew_Tesco__making_ind ependent_traders_los e_out_/ will be aware, I have been seeking a simple response from Cornbeefur to two very straightforward questions. Why he elects to hide behind his self-confessed “user name” and what, indeed, his real name is. Having been challenged by him on these same issues I was happy to provide an open and honest response. He has now spent the last seven days evading the questions himself, occasionally providing somewhat insulting and, indeed, frankly juvenile postings (I think we all might agree that “my dad’s bigger than your dad” hardly raises the bar on reasoned debate) that do little to enhance any reputation he might possibly seek to establish or maintain as a worthwhile contributor to grown-up and rational discussion within these pages. So, Cornbeefur, I ask you once again: please have the good grace to return my courtesy and answer my unambiguous questions. Thank you. KWyatt-Lown
  • Score: 0

9:35am Thu 15 Nov 12

mazdaman says...

Once again, i have been following this story......
I have one simple question......if L and Q state they will not lose money on this venture as they will top up with cash reserves from other sites.......why are they still given tax payers money?
if they have a pot of gold.....it may be nice to give it back to the people it came from or at the very least, stop taking more ???
Once again, i have been following this story...... I have one simple question......if L and Q state they will not lose money on this venture as they will top up with cash reserves from other sites.......why are they still given tax payers money? if they have a pot of gold.....it may be nice to give it back to the people it came from or at the very least, stop taking more ??? mazdaman
  • Score: 0

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