Residents concerned about Waltham Forest's 'low quality housing in areas with highest crime, antisocial behaviour and welfare dependency'

Concerned residents David Gardiner and Adele Tinman in Hoe Street, Walthamstow.

Concerned residents David Gardiner and Adele Tinman in Hoe Street, Walthamstow.

First published in News
Last updated
East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

Housing plans concentrating on areas with the most crime, antisocial behaviour and welfare dependency will lead to “designer slums”, residents claim.

Theey say over 11,000 new homes will be built where transport, education and health infrastructure are already “overstressed”.

Waltham Forest Council acknowledged that most development will take place in densely populated areas, but claimed this was largely due to the borough’s character and existing land uses, and said new people moving to Waltham Forest stimulate regeneration.

David Gardiner who lives in Elmsdale Road, Walthamstow, said he fears the new housing will worsen the situation.

“You’ll have huge blocks of housing with kids who can’t get out and you’re bound to have more crime,” the 66-year-old retired teacher said.

“It’ll just be a designer slum.”

Speaking on behalf of a group of around 10 residents who met with council officers this week Mr Gardiner said they fear the housing, which is comprised mainly of low-quality medium-rise flats with minimal amenities, will resemble the “ill-fated” high-rise experiments of the 1960s.

Nearly all development will take place on brownfield sites south of the North Circular, they say.

“There’s no reason why you couldn’t have more housing in Chingford, there’s lots of open spaces and access to Epping Forest,” Mr Gardiner added.

The council says Chingford has less development opportunities than other parts of the borough, but urged residents to notify the authority of potential improvement sites.

National planning policies limit local authority powers and housing targets are set by the Mayor’s office.

Currently Waltham Forest’s target is 760 new homes per year.

A council spokesman said: “New homes and people moving into the area is good for Waltham Forest and plays a key role in stimulating the regeneration of areas such as Walthamstow Town Centre and Leyton.  Developer contributions (in the form of Section 106 Agreements) also help provide essential infrastructure such as schools, health facilities and highway improvements.”

The residents, who hope to become a formal group and hold larger meetings, can be reached at sirat@davidgardiner.net.

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:10pm Wed 5 Mar 14

livedheretoolong says...

"The council says Chingford has less development opportunities than other parts of the borough..."

Is it any coincidence that Chingford is almost entirely represented by Conservative councillors?
"The council says Chingford has less development opportunities than other parts of the borough..." Is it any coincidence that Chingford is almost entirely represented by Conservative councillors? livedheretoolong
  • Score: 18

10:26pm Wed 5 Mar 14

chingford lad says...

No, I think it is because labour have never looked after their own.
No, I think it is because labour have never looked after their own. chingford lad
  • Score: -3

10:40pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Villagecranberry says...

They have knocked down failed 60's housing disasters to make 21st century housing disasters.
They have knocked down failed 60's housing disasters to make 21st century housing disasters. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 8

6:32am Thu 6 Mar 14

stickmanny says...

Sounds like a load of moaning from those that already have what others want.
Sounds like a load of moaning from those that already have what others want. stickmanny
  • Score: -7

9:28am Thu 6 Mar 14

myopinioncounts says...

£millions was spent demolishing tower blocks that proved to be unpopular for family life. Now we see the return of high rise living, firstly with 3/4 storeys increasing with each planning application. We will soon be back to the 20 storey blocks with women having to plead feeling suicidal in order for their doctor to support a request to be rehoused. In my circle of friends I knew of at least 3 who went that route to get out.
£millions was spent demolishing tower blocks that proved to be unpopular for family life. Now we see the return of high rise living, firstly with 3/4 storeys increasing with each planning application. We will soon be back to the 20 storey blocks with women having to plead feeling suicidal in order for their doctor to support a request to be rehoused. In my circle of friends I knew of at least 3 who went that route to get out. myopinioncounts
  • Score: 11

11:19am Thu 6 Mar 14

mdj says...

'We will soon be back to the 20 storey blocks ..'
Seen Tottenham Hale lately? The product of an unholy league between developers with intimate contacts with the council, and a council stuffed with buy-to-let landlords, who have no interest in promoting home ownership - for others, that is.
'We will soon be back to the 20 storey blocks ..' Seen Tottenham Hale lately? The product of an unholy league between developers with intimate contacts with the council, and a council stuffed with buy-to-let landlords, who have no interest in promoting home ownership - for others, that is. mdj
  • Score: 13

11:36am Thu 6 Mar 14

PsiMonk says...

Stickmanny: "Sounds like a load of moaning from those that already have what others want."

Hardly. They're saying that we're putting all the highest densities of housing in all the poorest and most overcrowded bits of Waltham Forest. I'm not entirely sure what that would be - but their analysis does seem accurate.

Either way, the current boom in flat building is market forces gone mad. We don't have a shortage of small flats in the borough - we we have a surplus. What all the housing lists, rental and purchase experts are telling us is where the shortage is, is medium-large sized family homes for four or more people.

Instead of building those (and the schools, GP surgeries and hospitals that those homes will obviously need), we're building one bedroom, single occupant flats. Because they sell for more money per square foot, basically.

I'm also not sure this is an "unholy league" as mdj puts it. It's more likely a simple lack of resources for a skeletal council that is just buffeted by large-scale market forces and governmental interference - our council will be heavily fined if it doesn't match the London Plan for housing figures, for instance.

It would be good to see the council being much more robust about where they see the need for housing, what type of housing they want to see and how happy they are with the current system. And it certainly doesn't help when they greedily see dollar signs for sites such as South Grove and just roll over and let developers build what they want in return for a few mill.
Stickmanny: "Sounds like a load of moaning from those that already have what others want." Hardly. They're saying that we're putting all the highest densities of housing in all the poorest and most overcrowded bits of Waltham Forest. I'm not entirely sure what that would be - but their analysis does seem accurate. Either way, the current boom in flat building is market forces gone mad. We don't have a shortage of small flats in the borough - we we have a surplus. What all the housing lists, rental and purchase experts are telling us is where the shortage is, is medium-large sized family homes for four or more people. Instead of building those (and the schools, GP surgeries and hospitals that those homes will obviously need), we're building one bedroom, single occupant flats. Because they sell for more money per square foot, basically. I'm also not sure this is an "unholy league" as mdj puts it. It's more likely a simple lack of resources for a skeletal council that is just buffeted by large-scale market forces and governmental interference - our council will be heavily fined if it doesn't match the London Plan for housing figures, for instance. It would be good to see the council being much more robust about where they see the need for housing, what type of housing they want to see and how happy they are with the current system. And it certainly doesn't help when they greedily see dollar signs for sites such as South Grove and just roll over and let developers build what they want in return for a few mill. PsiMonk
  • Score: 10

11:39am Thu 6 Mar 14

SillyCnut says...

What is the reason behind this massive and sudden requirement for housing? Perhaps a million immigrants arriving? any chance the two are related?
What is the reason behind this massive and sudden requirement for housing? Perhaps a million immigrants arriving? any chance the two are related? SillyCnut
  • Score: 12

11:52am Thu 6 Mar 14

PsiMonk says...

SillyCnut, as your name suggests, no, there isn't a chance the two are related.

Here's the simple answer - lots of people want to work in London, ergo lots of people need to live in London. London Mayor/Assembly decided a while ago, alongside national government, to not really try too hard to persuade people to move out of London.

Instead, they decided they need to build lots of housing in London. The "London Plan" lays out the housing targets for all of London, by borough. We are on three, at least, housing "corridors" - the M11, the Lee Valley, the Thames Gateway - all of which add to our housing targets as these are areas where the Mayor/Assembly thinks there's space, demand etc. for more housing. That means we need to build lots and lots of houses, or we don't meet the "London Plan". And that means London Assembly fines our council.

So, it's got little to do with immigrants at all. If those million immigrants (and where do you get that figure btw? Office National Statistics put annual net immigration last year as 170,000 odd) all move to London that's because the government has singly failed to make living in Sunderland, Glasgow, the Outer Hebrides or Yorkshire in any way attractive, or even possible for many people. As an example, of 400,000 people who were born or moved to the UK for the last annual set of records, a quarter of them went to London.

It's not immigration, then, it's regional issues.
SillyCnut, as your name suggests, no, there isn't a chance the two are related. Here's the simple answer - lots of people want to work in London, ergo lots of people need to live in London. London Mayor/Assembly decided a while ago, alongside national government, to not really try too hard to persuade people to move out of London. Instead, they decided they need to build lots of housing in London. The "London Plan" lays out the housing targets for all of London, by borough. We are on three, at least, housing "corridors" - the M11, the Lee Valley, the Thames Gateway - all of which add to our housing targets as these are areas where the Mayor/Assembly thinks there's space, demand etc. for more housing. That means we need to build lots and lots of houses, or we don't meet the "London Plan". And that means London Assembly fines our council. So, it's got little to do with immigrants at all. If those million immigrants (and where do you get that figure btw? Office National Statistics put annual net immigration last year as 170,000 odd) all move to London that's because the government has singly failed to make living in Sunderland, Glasgow, the Outer Hebrides or Yorkshire in any way attractive, or even possible for many people. As an example, of 400,000 people who were born or moved to the UK for the last annual set of records, a quarter of them went to London. It's not immigration, then, it's regional issues. PsiMonk
  • Score: -16

2:27pm Thu 6 Mar 14

SillyCnut says...

PsiMonk wrote:
SillyCnut, as your name suggests, no, there isn't a chance the two are related.

Here's the simple answer - lots of people want to work in London, ergo lots of people need to live in London. London Mayor/Assembly decided a while ago, alongside national government, to not really try too hard to persuade people to move out of London.

Instead, they decided they need to build lots of housing in London. The "London Plan" lays out the housing targets for all of London, by borough. We are on three, at least, housing "corridors" - the M11, the Lee Valley, the Thames Gateway - all of which add to our housing targets as these are areas where the Mayor/Assembly thinks there's space, demand etc. for more housing. That means we need to build lots and lots of houses, or we don't meet the "London Plan". And that means London Assembly fines our council.

So, it's got little to do with immigrants at all. If those million immigrants (and where do you get that figure btw? Office National Statistics put annual net immigration last year as 170,000 odd) all move to London that's because the government has singly failed to make living in Sunderland, Glasgow, the Outer Hebrides or Yorkshire in any way attractive, or even possible for many people. As an example, of 400,000 people who were born or moved to the UK for the last annual set of records, a quarter of them went to London.

It's not immigration, then, it's regional issues.
How can you possibly say that immigration has no affect on housing. Have you ever walked around Walthamstow? I did not say a "million a year", you are twisting my words. How many since 1997?
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: SillyCnut, as your name suggests, no, there isn't a chance the two are related. Here's the simple answer - lots of people want to work in London, ergo lots of people need to live in London. London Mayor/Assembly decided a while ago, alongside national government, to not really try too hard to persuade people to move out of London. Instead, they decided they need to build lots of housing in London. The "London Plan" lays out the housing targets for all of London, by borough. We are on three, at least, housing "corridors" - the M11, the Lee Valley, the Thames Gateway - all of which add to our housing targets as these are areas where the Mayor/Assembly thinks there's space, demand etc. for more housing. That means we need to build lots and lots of houses, or we don't meet the "London Plan". And that means London Assembly fines our council. So, it's got little to do with immigrants at all. If those million immigrants (and where do you get that figure btw? Office National Statistics put annual net immigration last year as 170,000 odd) all move to London that's because the government has singly failed to make living in Sunderland, Glasgow, the Outer Hebrides or Yorkshire in any way attractive, or even possible for many people. As an example, of 400,000 people who were born or moved to the UK for the last annual set of records, a quarter of them went to London. It's not immigration, then, it's regional issues.[/p][/quote]How can you possibly say that immigration has no affect on housing. Have you ever walked around Walthamstow? I did not say a "million a year", you are twisting my words. How many since 1997? SillyCnut
  • Score: 17

3:28pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Helen, Walthamstow says...

PsiMonk wrote:
SillyCnut, as your name suggests, no, there isn't a chance the two are related.

Here's the simple answer - lots of people want to work in London, ergo lots of people need to live in London. London Mayor/Assembly decided a while ago, alongside national government, to not really try too hard to persuade people to move out of London.

Instead, they decided they need to build lots of housing in London. The "London Plan" lays out the housing targets for all of London, by borough. We are on three, at least, housing "corridors" - the M11, the Lee Valley, the Thames Gateway - all of which add to our housing targets as these are areas where the Mayor/Assembly thinks there's space, demand etc. for more housing. That means we need to build lots and lots of houses, or we don't meet the "London Plan". And that means London Assembly fines our council.

So, it's got little to do with immigrants at all. If those million immigrants (and where do you get that figure btw? Office National Statistics put annual net immigration last year as 170,000 odd) all move to London that's because the government has singly failed to make living in Sunderland, Glasgow, the Outer Hebrides or Yorkshire in any way attractive, or even possible for many people. As an example, of 400,000 people who were born or moved to the UK for the last annual set of records, a quarter of them went to London.

It's not immigration, then, it's regional issues.
You're so right, PsiMonk.

Not a single government in the last 20 or 30 years has grasped the nettle - namely, that it is daft to go on pouring more and more people into London and the South East where the infrastructure is now buckling under demand.

It is the government that is the responsible body, not the local councils (infuriatingly spineless as they may be). Shifting job opportunities and homes away from this cramped corner of the country has to be a national strategy, not something that can be carried out on a local basis - though I admit I sometimes wish that all the councils in London and the South East would simply say a resounding "no" to any authority which tells forces them either with carrot or stick, to go on squeezing new homes into even inappropriate corners.

The population is growing year on year. Sooner or later our MPs will have to face up to this issues. Sooner would be better than later.
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: SillyCnut, as your name suggests, no, there isn't a chance the two are related. Here's the simple answer - lots of people want to work in London, ergo lots of people need to live in London. London Mayor/Assembly decided a while ago, alongside national government, to not really try too hard to persuade people to move out of London. Instead, they decided they need to build lots of housing in London. The "London Plan" lays out the housing targets for all of London, by borough. We are on three, at least, housing "corridors" - the M11, the Lee Valley, the Thames Gateway - all of which add to our housing targets as these are areas where the Mayor/Assembly thinks there's space, demand etc. for more housing. That means we need to build lots and lots of houses, or we don't meet the "London Plan". And that means London Assembly fines our council. So, it's got little to do with immigrants at all. If those million immigrants (and where do you get that figure btw? Office National Statistics put annual net immigration last year as 170,000 odd) all move to London that's because the government has singly failed to make living in Sunderland, Glasgow, the Outer Hebrides or Yorkshire in any way attractive, or even possible for many people. As an example, of 400,000 people who were born or moved to the UK for the last annual set of records, a quarter of them went to London. It's not immigration, then, it's regional issues.[/p][/quote]You're so right, PsiMonk. Not a single government in the last 20 or 30 years has grasped the nettle - namely, that it is daft to go on pouring more and more people into London and the South East where the infrastructure is now buckling under demand. It is the government that is the responsible body, not the local councils (infuriatingly spineless as they may be). Shifting job opportunities and homes away from this cramped corner of the country has to be a national strategy, not something that can be carried out on a local basis - though I admit I sometimes wish that all the councils in London and the South East would simply say a resounding "no" to any authority which tells forces them either with carrot or stick, to go on squeezing new homes into even inappropriate corners. The population is growing year on year. Sooner or later our MPs will have to face up to this issues. Sooner would be better than later. Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: 3

4:21pm Thu 6 Mar 14

mdj says...

' It's more likely a simple lack of resources for a skeletal council ...'
A council needs no resources to protect its stock of family homes by refusing subdivision. This used to be policy.
Psi Monk is in denial about immigration, as are many. It's not 'regional issues' that have swelled the total population by eight million in forty years. At that time the Green ideal of ZPG (Zero Population Growth) was on the brink of being achieved for the first time in centuries.
Lots of people may wish to work in London, but the number of jobs has gone down. If this borough were an independent country it would be recognised as insane to export work opportunities by building homes on work places, which imports work seekers.
A ruling party that sees itself as the protector of the poor has no motive to reduce their number, remember.
Now that many councillors come from a local government or public sector background, they simply regard their role as just another public sector job: standing up to government and saying 'No' has been bred out of them, but this what we need across London.
' It's more likely a simple lack of resources for a skeletal council ...' A council needs no resources to protect its stock of family homes by refusing subdivision. This used to be policy. Psi Monk is in denial about immigration, as are many. It's not 'regional issues' that have swelled the total population by eight million in forty years. At that time the Green ideal of ZPG (Zero Population Growth) was on the brink of being achieved for the first time in centuries. Lots of people may wish to work in London, but the number of jobs has gone down. If this borough were an independent country it would be recognised as insane to export work opportunities by building homes on work places, which imports work seekers. A ruling party that sees itself as the protector of the poor has no motive to reduce their number, remember. Now that many councillors come from a local government or public sector background, they simply regard their role as just another public sector job: standing up to government and saying 'No' has been bred out of them, but this what we need across London. mdj
  • Score: 6

4:42pm Thu 6 Mar 14

PsiMonk says...

OK, just a quick wikipedia for demographic changes in London and UK in last 40 years...

Greater London population 1971 (ie just over 40 years ago) 7.5 mill
Greater London population 2011 (ie 40 years later, last records) 8.2 mill
That's a 0.7 mill population growth in 40 years.
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Demographic
s_of_London

UK population 1973 56 mill
UK population 2012 64 mill
Natural change (ie births/deaths) 4.5 million
ie net immigration 3 million (as in there are 3 million more living people in the UK that aren't down to new births in 40 years)
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Demography_
of_the_United_Kingdo
m#UK_Population_chan
ge_over_time

In other words, the UK or London population has not swelled by "eight million in 40 years". London's population, including a presumed massive birth v deaths hike, as seen in rest of UK, has gone up 1/8th.

In the same vein, while policy to resist subdivision has recently been reinstated, that's not the issue - new build is the issue. That's where the vast majority of planning applications and home numbers is going to come from. To fight all development applications, then lose at appeal because the applications meet the London Plan on massing, transport access, density etc. would be an incredibly costly and foolish move. And I have some sympathy with the council over this.

The issues are twofold: 1. The council's greed and lack of backbone when it comes to land they own (witness South Grove). 2. The council's Local Development Plan that lists sites suitable for redevelopment currently just hands developers an open page on which to construct huge tower blocks. More robust area action plans and better defences against developers are needed.

In other words, sorry mdj, but I think you're tilting at windmills without much factual backup.
OK, just a quick wikipedia for demographic changes in London and UK in last 40 years... Greater London population 1971 (ie just over 40 years ago) 7.5 mill Greater London population 2011 (ie 40 years later, last records) 8.2 mill That's a 0.7 mill population growth in 40 years. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Demographic s_of_London UK population 1973 56 mill UK population 2012 64 mill Natural change (ie births/deaths) 4.5 million ie net immigration 3 million (as in there are 3 million more living people in the UK that aren't down to new births in 40 years) http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Demography_ of_the_United_Kingdo m#UK_Population_chan ge_over_time In other words, the UK or London population has not swelled by "eight million in 40 years". London's population, including a presumed massive birth v deaths hike, as seen in rest of UK, has gone up 1/8th. In the same vein, while policy to resist subdivision has recently been reinstated, that's not the issue - new build is the issue. That's where the vast majority of planning applications and home numbers is going to come from. To fight all development applications, then lose at appeal because the applications meet the London Plan on massing, transport access, density etc. would be an incredibly costly and foolish move. And I have some sympathy with the council over this. The issues are twofold: 1. The council's greed and lack of backbone when it comes to land they own (witness South Grove). 2. The council's Local Development Plan that lists sites suitable for redevelopment currently just hands developers an open page on which to construct huge tower blocks. More robust area action plans and better defences against developers are needed. In other words, sorry mdj, but I think you're tilting at windmills without much factual backup. PsiMonk
  • Score: -2

5:18pm Thu 6 Mar 14

mdj says...

'In other words, the UK or London population has not swelled by "eight million in 40 years...'
64 minus 56 is how much, PsiMonk?
You'll also find that a very high proportion of the new births over 40 years is to first-generation immigrants. In 2011 c.60% of births at Whipps Cross were to mothers born overseas
A council that only 20 years ago was closing schools is now throwing up portakabins in every playground.

'To fight all development applications, then lose ... would be an incredibly costly and foolish move.'
One of our most high-profile councillors, Mr Loakes, puts himself about as a big cheese at the Local Government Association, a talking shop and unofficial Lodge for policy makers.
Do they ever discuss how they could make a concerted approach to confront and change government policies that impinge negatively on their localities? or do they just meekly implement the Five Year Plan?
I might have some sympathy if they tried and failed.
For several years this Council outrightly refused to collaborate with central government on the building of the M11 Link, which they believed damaging for this area.
Whether you agree with the policy or not, that is the kind of thing elected representatives are supposed to do.
It's unimaginable nowadays.
'In other words, the UK or London population has not swelled by "eight million in 40 years...' 64 minus 56 is how much, PsiMonk? You'll also find that a very high proportion of the new births over 40 years is to first-generation immigrants. In 2011 c.60% of births at Whipps Cross were to mothers born overseas A council that only 20 years ago was closing schools is now throwing up portakabins in every playground. 'To fight all development applications, then lose ... would be an incredibly costly and foolish move.' One of our most high-profile councillors, Mr Loakes, puts himself about as a big cheese at the Local Government Association, a talking shop and unofficial Lodge for policy makers. Do they ever discuss how they could make a concerted approach to confront and change government policies that impinge negatively on their localities? or do they just meekly implement the Five Year Plan? I might have some sympathy if they tried and failed. For several years this Council outrightly refused to collaborate with central government on the building of the M11 Link, which they believed damaging for this area. Whether you agree with the policy or not, that is the kind of thing elected representatives are supposed to do. It's unimaginable nowadays. mdj
  • Score: 5

6:46pm Thu 6 Mar 14

David_Gardiner says...

I'm pleased to see that this article has sparked off such a passionate debate on the proposed new high-density housing and its likely impact on Waltham Forest. We plan to continue our campaign and would be happy to keep you informed of each new development. To do this we need a way of keeping in touch, the simplest being an email address. If you would like to email me at sirat@davidgardiner.
net I will put you on our mailing list and make sure that you are kept informed.
I'm pleased to see that this article has sparked off such a passionate debate on the proposed new high-density housing and its likely impact on Waltham Forest. We plan to continue our campaign and would be happy to keep you informed of each new development. To do this we need a way of keeping in touch, the simplest being an email address. If you would like to email me at sirat@davidgardiner. net I will put you on our mailing list and make sure that you are kept informed. David_Gardiner
  • Score: 5

6:48pm Thu 6 Mar 14

David_Gardiner says...

Sorry, incomplete email address. Correct address is: sirat@davidgardiner.
net
Sorry, incomplete email address. Correct address is: sirat@davidgardiner. net David_Gardiner
  • Score: 2

8:48pm Thu 6 Mar 14

stickmanny says...

"They're saying that we're putting all the highest densities of housing in all the poorest and most overcrowded bits of Waltham Forest"

I think they just do not want any more people living near them. Wherever housing is planned there is opposition, more so in the less dense areas where the residents are better equipped to oppose.

Accept that London is a dynamic place that will inevitably expand over time. Change with it, or ship out to the monocultured hell that is the rest of England.
"They're saying that we're putting all the highest densities of housing in all the poorest and most overcrowded bits of Waltham Forest" I think they just do not want any more people living near them. Wherever housing is planned there is opposition, more so in the less dense areas where the residents are better equipped to oppose. Accept that London is a dynamic place that will inevitably expand over time. Change with it, or ship out to the monocultured hell that is the rest of England. stickmanny
  • Score: -16

11:05pm Thu 6 Mar 14

PsiMonk says...

MDJ I'm with you on the lack of action of the council on policy. On immigration, not so much.

So you said the population of the UK "swelled by 8 million" in 40 years. My point was that only 3 million of that was immigration - yet you tried to portray that as being all immigration, or at least the majority issue being immigration.

People who live here already are responsible far more for that "swell" by making babies. So it's not immigration that's to blame - very clearly. And nice try with picking one year, one hospital ward, in one of the most mixed boroughs in London as your go-to statistic for immigrant mums giving birth btw. Show me the statistic for the last 40 years of mums who are immigrants who have given birth to children in the UK, then we might get somewhere statistically relevant.

And as I pointed out, of that 8 million "swell" a mere 0.7 mill were in London. And even if we assume London sees a greater proportion of immigrants arriving than the UK average, it means what, 0.4, 0.5 million net immigrants in 40 years. Which again hardly represents immigration as the key reason why we need more homes in London.

See here for more detail
http://www.londonspo
vertyprofile.org.uk/
indicators/topics/lo
ndons-geography-popu
lation/migration-in-
and-out-of-london/

This shows internal migration is bigger than international immigration, but that more internal migrants leave London than enter each year, while more international immigrants arrive than leave each year. Either way, immigration is not the "big" issue. It's an issue, yes, but it's not the big one. It's smaller than internal migration and people having babies while living longer. And hey, for luck, let's throw in the rise of single occupancy households - more people living for longer on their own increases demand hugely.
MDJ I'm with you on the lack of action of the council on policy. On immigration, not so much. So you said the population of the UK "swelled by 8 million" in 40 years. My point was that only 3 million of that was immigration - yet you tried to portray that as being all immigration, or at least the majority issue being immigration. People who live here already are responsible far more for that "swell" by making babies. So it's not immigration that's to blame - very clearly. And nice try with picking one year, one hospital ward, in one of the most mixed boroughs in London as your go-to statistic for immigrant mums giving birth btw. Show me the statistic for the last 40 years of mums who are immigrants who have given birth to children in the UK, then we might get somewhere statistically relevant. And as I pointed out, of that 8 million "swell" a mere 0.7 mill were in London. And even if we assume London sees a greater proportion of immigrants arriving than the UK average, it means what, 0.4, 0.5 million net immigrants in 40 years. Which again hardly represents immigration as the key reason why we need more homes in London. See here for more detail http://www.londonspo vertyprofile.org.uk/ indicators/topics/lo ndons-geography-popu lation/migration-in- and-out-of-london/ This shows internal migration is bigger than international immigration, but that more internal migrants leave London than enter each year, while more international immigrants arrive than leave each year. Either way, immigration is not the "big" issue. It's an issue, yes, but it's not the big one. It's smaller than internal migration and people having babies while living longer. And hey, for luck, let's throw in the rise of single occupancy households - more people living for longer on their own increases demand hugely. PsiMonk
  • Score: -2

11:07pm Thu 6 Mar 14

PsiMonk says...

Stickmanny: "Wherever housing is planned there is opposition, more so in the less dense areas where the residents are better equipped to oppose."

Erm, these are people you seem to be implying coming from the less dense areas that... are objecting to more housing in the more dense areas.

Either way, you seem to be saying we should all just shut up and accept the South Groves and Walthamstow Stadium developments? That the only reason people have to object to high-rise development in the poorest areas is because they're NIMBYs? Sorry, that argument makes less than zero sense.
Stickmanny: "Wherever housing is planned there is opposition, more so in the less dense areas where the residents are better equipped to oppose." Erm, these are people you seem to be implying coming from the less dense areas that... are objecting to more housing in the more dense areas. Either way, you seem to be saying we should all just shut up and accept the South Groves and Walthamstow Stadium developments? That the only reason people have to object to high-rise development in the poorest areas is because they're NIMBYs? Sorry, that argument makes less than zero sense. PsiMonk
  • Score: 2

7:18am Fri 7 Mar 14

SillyCnut says...

stickmanny wrote:
"They're saying that we're putting all the highest densities of housing in all the poorest and most overcrowded bits of Waltham Forest"

I think they just do not want any more people living near them. Wherever housing is planned there is opposition, more so in the less dense areas where the residents are better equipped to oppose.

Accept that London is a dynamic place that will inevitably expand over time. Change with it, or ship out to the monocultured hell that is the rest of England.
"mono-cultured hell" - what a strange statement. Do you mean "white"? Are you saying that living with your own kind is "hell". You are a nasty little person.
[quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: "They're saying that we're putting all the highest densities of housing in all the poorest and most overcrowded bits of Waltham Forest" I think they just do not want any more people living near them. Wherever housing is planned there is opposition, more so in the less dense areas where the residents are better equipped to oppose. Accept that London is a dynamic place that will inevitably expand over time. Change with it, or ship out to the monocultured hell that is the rest of England.[/p][/quote]"mono-cultured hell" - what a strange statement. Do you mean "white"? Are you saying that living with your own kind is "hell". You are a nasty little person. SillyCnut
  • Score: 11

9:13am Fri 7 Mar 14

artigran says...

I welcome the move by concerned residents to get organised about council policy on development. Without infrastructure and amenity, what is a small box to live in but a prison? The overcrowding of roads in the borough is already intolerable, leading to road rage near me almost daily. It gets worse year by year. Health services and schools cannot cope with increased numbers. What we have in Waltham Forest is precious, but very fragile. We need to act to protect it. The pressure of unlimited numbers arriving from Europe is palpable in many parts of the country but we have responsibility to look after our patch, say what we see.

On my first and only attendance at a planning meeting, about the high-rise development over Walthamstow Central Station, Councillor Marie Pye expressed utter contempt for those people objecting to this development. She suggested we should move to Surrey! I've lived here since 1972, and love Waltham Forest for its open skies and green spaces. But I have seen vandalism and violence in areas where kids and young people are cooped up in dense housing developments without prospects of employment or hope for a future.
I welcome the move by concerned residents to get organised about council policy on development. Without infrastructure and amenity, what is a small box to live in but a prison? The overcrowding of roads in the borough is already intolerable, leading to road rage near me almost daily. It gets worse year by year. Health services and schools cannot cope with increased numbers. What we have in Waltham Forest is precious, but very fragile. We need to act to protect it. The pressure of unlimited numbers arriving from Europe is palpable in many parts of the country but we have responsibility to look after our patch, say what we see. On my first and only attendance at a planning meeting, about the high-rise development over Walthamstow Central Station, Councillor Marie Pye expressed utter contempt for those people objecting to this development. She suggested we should move to Surrey! I've lived here since 1972, and love Waltham Forest for its open skies and green spaces. But I have seen vandalism and violence in areas where kids and young people are cooped up in dense housing developments without prospects of employment or hope for a future. artigran
  • Score: 9

12:47pm Fri 7 Mar 14

mdj says...

'And nice try with picking one year, one hospital ward, in one of the most mixed boroughs in London..'

But this is the area we are talking about, the one where we live, that is the basis of this discussion. It's the maternity hospital for the whole borough, by the way, so a good indicator of the local picture.

To summarise your position, immigration and population density are not problems we need worry about, though it's right for us all to oppose a very dense development that is proposed for ....near where you happen to live!
'And nice try with picking one year, one hospital ward, in one of the most mixed boroughs in London..' But this is the area we are talking about, the one where we live, that is the basis of this discussion. It's the maternity hospital for the whole borough, by the way, so a good indicator of the local picture. To summarise your position, immigration and population density are not problems we need worry about, though it's right for us all to oppose a very dense development that is proposed for ....near where you happen to live! mdj
  • Score: 2

12:59pm Fri 7 Mar 14

stickmanny says...

SillyCnut wrote:
stickmanny wrote:
"They're saying that we're putting all the highest densities of housing in all the poorest and most overcrowded bits of Waltham Forest"

I think they just do not want any more people living near them. Wherever housing is planned there is opposition, more so in the less dense areas where the residents are better equipped to oppose.

Accept that London is a dynamic place that will inevitably expand over time. Change with it, or ship out to the monocultured hell that is the rest of England.
"mono-cultured hell" - what a strange statement. Do you mean "white"? Are you saying that living with your own kind is "hell". You are a nasty little person.
White is my own kind? What are you even talking about?

SO happy to have annoyed you.
[quote][p][bold]SillyCnut[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: "They're saying that we're putting all the highest densities of housing in all the poorest and most overcrowded bits of Waltham Forest" I think they just do not want any more people living near them. Wherever housing is planned there is opposition, more so in the less dense areas where the residents are better equipped to oppose. Accept that London is a dynamic place that will inevitably expand over time. Change with it, or ship out to the monocultured hell that is the rest of England.[/p][/quote]"mono-cultured hell" - what a strange statement. Do you mean "white"? Are you saying that living with your own kind is "hell". You are a nasty little person.[/p][/quote]White is my own kind? What are you even talking about? SO happy to have annoyed you. stickmanny
  • Score: -13

1:19pm Fri 7 Mar 14

PsiMonk says...

MDJ: "To summarise your position, immigration and population density are not problems we need worry about, though it's right for us all to oppose a very dense development that is proposed for ....near where you happen to live!"

Is that what you really think my point is, or are you just being a bit silly?

1. I do believe that immigration is a marginal issue when compared to a) the birth rate of people already living in the UK, b) the UK population living longer, c) more of the UK population living in single occupancy homes, d) internal migration to London within the UK. I thought I'd made that clear?

2. My point was never population density is not an issue - I've never said anything like that. By all means point out to me where I did...

3. I live near the Arcade site. Our resident's association fought plans for an 18 storey tower block, but spoke in favour of "The Scene" being built there right now. I agree with their position - I'm hardly anti-development. I opposed the South Grove development because it's hugely over-dense. And to be clear I believe rampant house building anywhere in the borough - where it is massively over-intensified, where it doesn't come with appropriate other amenities etc. - doesn't make good sense. As such I've personally opposed several applications miles away from where I live. But as I said, the council is somewhat held hostage by broader London and national politics.

4. Again, I hold one year of Whipps X maternity is meaningless. The borough changes all the time and is very mixed. That doesn't portray an accurate picture of immigration. Right now, we appear to be getting a huge influx of largely white, certainly 2nd generation or later British, incomers from Hackney. Likely in the next few years they'll change the picture at Whipps X dramatically - as they're moving to Walthamstow to have space to have kids. So the picture will shift. And I bet it was very different ten years ago. Again, your figures on immigration simply don't point to immigration being the major reason why the council is being told to build loads of homes.
MDJ: "To summarise your position, immigration and population density are not problems we need worry about, though it's right for us all to oppose a very dense development that is proposed for ....near where you happen to live!" Is that what you really think my point is, or are you just being a bit silly? 1. I do believe that immigration is a marginal issue when compared to a) the birth rate of people already living in the UK, b) the UK population living longer, c) more of the UK population living in single occupancy homes, d) internal migration to London within the UK. I thought I'd made that clear? 2. My point was never population density is not an issue - I've never said anything like that. By all means point out to me where I did... 3. I live near the Arcade site. Our resident's association fought plans for an 18 storey tower block, but spoke in favour of "The Scene" being built there right now. I agree with their position - I'm hardly anti-development. I opposed the South Grove development because it's hugely over-dense. And to be clear I believe rampant house building anywhere in the borough - where it is massively over-intensified, where it doesn't come with appropriate other amenities etc. - doesn't make good sense. As such I've personally opposed several applications miles away from where I live. But as I said, the council is somewhat held hostage by broader London and national politics. 4. Again, I hold one year of Whipps X maternity is meaningless. The borough changes all the time and is very mixed. That doesn't portray an accurate picture of immigration. Right now, we appear to be getting a huge influx of largely white, certainly 2nd generation or later British, incomers from Hackney. Likely in the next few years they'll change the picture at Whipps X dramatically - as they're moving to Walthamstow to have space to have kids. So the picture will shift. And I bet it was very different ten years ago. Again, your figures on immigration simply don't point to immigration being the major reason why the council is being told to build loads of homes. PsiMonk
  • Score: -3

2:00pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Lucifer1 says...

PsiMonk, I think you may be missing the point. The problem of immigration will increase exponentially along with the growth in the general population.

Thirty or forty years ago London was much less dense with regard to population, and there were more sites available for the development of housing. Therefore, even a relatively large influx of immigrants could be safely absorbed without much of a problem. Nowadays we are bursting at the seams and do not have anywhere near the number of houses needed for even the existing population. Under these conditions even a small increase in immigrants to the area will be perceived as a much larger problem than would otherwise have been the case.

Also, we cannot go on building houses indefinitely. Sooner or later the available sites will be exhausted and we will be faced with seriously hard choices. It seems to me that it would be better if our elected representatives - at both local and national level - addressed these problems sooner rather than later.
PsiMonk, I think you may be missing the point. The problem of immigration will increase exponentially along with the growth in the general population. Thirty or forty years ago London was much less dense with regard to population, and there were more sites available for the development of housing. Therefore, even a relatively large influx of immigrants could be safely absorbed without much of a problem. Nowadays we are bursting at the seams and do not have anywhere near the number of houses needed for even the existing population. Under these conditions even a small increase in immigrants to the area will be perceived as a much larger problem than would otherwise have been the case. Also, we cannot go on building houses indefinitely. Sooner or later the available sites will be exhausted and we will be faced with seriously hard choices. It seems to me that it would be better if our elected representatives - at both local and national level - addressed these problems sooner rather than later. Lucifer1
  • Score: 5

2:27pm Fri 7 Mar 14

PsiMonk says...

Lucifer1, I agree that we're at capacity and I agree that we can't keep on building, and I agree our elected representatives are failing to deal with that (at local, London and national level). But the majority of people moving into London, into Waltham Forest, into Walthamstow aren't immigrants.

So it makes little sense to *blame* immigration on the issue. The issues are, as I've laid out in previous comments, many. Immigration is one of the issues - but it's far from the sole one and it's not the biggest one.

Blaming immigration for house building is like blaming the outcome of a football match on one player - it takes 11 people to mess a game up, or rescue it. It might be tempting, but it's not accurate.
Lucifer1, I agree that we're at capacity and I agree that we can't keep on building, and I agree our elected representatives are failing to deal with that (at local, London and national level). But the majority of people moving into London, into Waltham Forest, into Walthamstow aren't immigrants. So it makes little sense to *blame* immigration on the issue. The issues are, as I've laid out in previous comments, many. Immigration is one of the issues - but it's far from the sole one and it's not the biggest one. Blaming immigration for house building is like blaming the outcome of a football match on one player - it takes 11 people to mess a game up, or rescue it. It might be tempting, but it's not accurate. PsiMonk
  • Score: -7

3:43pm Fri 7 Mar 14

SillyCnut says...

PsiMonk wrote:
Lucifer1, I agree that we're at capacity and I agree that we can't keep on building, and I agree our elected representatives are failing to deal with that (at local, London and national level). But the majority of people moving into London, into Waltham Forest, into Walthamstow aren't immigrants.

So it makes little sense to *blame* immigration on the issue. The issues are, as I've laid out in previous comments, many. Immigration is one of the issues - but it's far from the sole one and it's not the biggest one.

Blaming immigration for house building is like blaming the outcome of a football match on one player - it takes 11 people to mess a game up, or rescue it. It might be tempting, but it's not accurate.
"But the majority of people moving into London, into Waltham Forest, into Walthamstow aren't immigrants" - have you not walked around Walthamstow lately? What do you base your statement on?
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: Lucifer1, I agree that we're at capacity and I agree that we can't keep on building, and I agree our elected representatives are failing to deal with that (at local, London and national level). But the majority of people moving into London, into Waltham Forest, into Walthamstow aren't immigrants. So it makes little sense to *blame* immigration on the issue. The issues are, as I've laid out in previous comments, many. Immigration is one of the issues - but it's far from the sole one and it's not the biggest one. Blaming immigration for house building is like blaming the outcome of a football match on one player - it takes 11 people to mess a game up, or rescue it. It might be tempting, but it's not accurate.[/p][/quote]"But the majority of people moving into London, into Waltham Forest, into Walthamstow aren't immigrants" - have you not walked around Walthamstow lately? What do you base your statement on? SillyCnut
  • Score: 7

4:00pm Fri 7 Mar 14

PsiMonk says...

SillyCnut - based on the links I provided above - those links feature what you call statistics, compiled from various sources such as census data, national insurance number applications etc. They're not totally accurate. But I'm guessing they're a hell of a lot more accurate than walking around.
SillyCnut - based on the links I provided above - those links feature what you call statistics, compiled from various sources such as census data, national insurance number applications etc. They're not totally accurate. But I'm guessing they're a hell of a lot more accurate than walking around. PsiMonk
  • Score: 0

5:17pm Fri 7 Mar 14

stickmanny says...

SillyCnut only likes his own kind. Why not build some low density housing on an island and all the SillyCnuts can live there. Its a win-win
SillyCnut only likes his own kind. Why not build some low density housing on an island and all the SillyCnuts can live there. Its a win-win stickmanny
  • Score: -13

7:28am Mon 10 Mar 14

Stevo98 says...

To blame the housing shortage on immigrants is daft, the whole economy is predicated on booming house prices, the market is distorted, Help To Buy is basically a bribe.

But I can't help thinking..

who will move into these flats? Who will move into the private new-builds in LBWF? I can see a quite large demographic shift, the changes to the benefits system combined with booming house prices in LBWF means that the demographic is changing- white middle class professionals are moving in. This could be the reversal of white flight.
To blame the housing shortage on immigrants is daft, the whole economy is predicated on booming house prices, the market is distorted, Help To Buy is basically a bribe. But I can't help thinking.. who will move into these flats? Who will move into the private new-builds in LBWF? I can see a quite large demographic shift, the changes to the benefits system combined with booming house prices in LBWF means that the demographic is changing- white middle class professionals are moving in. This could be the reversal of white flight. Stevo98
  • Score: -1

7:32am Mon 10 Mar 14

SillyCnut says...

stickmanny wrote:
SillyCnut only likes his own kind. Why not build some low density housing on an island and all the SillyCnuts can live there. Its a win-win
As long as you and your kind are banned, that is fine with me.
[quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: SillyCnut only likes his own kind. Why not build some low density housing on an island and all the SillyCnuts can live there. Its a win-win[/p][/quote]As long as you and your kind are banned, that is fine with me. SillyCnut
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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