News RSS Feed


WALTHAM FOREST: Loakes and Rayner clash over tower blocks

11:48am Wednesday 6th February 2008

comment Comments (22)   Have your say »


THE council leader and his deputy clashed over whether tower blocks should be built to solve Waltham Forest's housing crisis.

Labour chief Clyde Loakes supported the use of high-rise buildings, while Liberal Democrat Keith Rayner said lessons should be learned from the failed development policies of the 1970s.

According to official esimates 20,000 extra people are expected to be living in the borough in 2026, while 12,000 new homes need to be built for families and young professionals in the same period.

Speaking at the annual State of the Borough debate at Chingford Assembly Hall on Tuesday, Cllr Loakes insisted building tower blocks would give families a great new home.

He said: "A lot has been learnt about tower blocks. They are places people looking for a new home will want to live in and new tower blocks have been built.

"But we need to have a sensible discussion about height."

But Cllr Rayner disagreed.

He said: "One of my first experiences of Waltham Forest came in 1975 when I was in a tower block that didn't have a lift that worked.

"The stairs smelt like a public urinal and on the seventh floor, I saw a small four year-old girl cowering by the door. We should not make this same mistake again."

Cllr Rayner added: "If we want a sustainable community we have to deal with tough decisions."

Print article » Email to a friend »

Your Say YourEast London and West Essex Guardian Series

AM, E10 says...
1:01pm Wed 6 Feb 08

Clyde Loakes is clearly barking mad. Labour councillors would do well to think about their prospects at the next election if he stays as leader.

Report this post »

Sceptic, E17 says...
4:19pm Wed 6 Feb 08

WF's tame LibDems speaking out against a barking-mad council policy? Wonders will never cease.

Report this post »

Carole Vincent for Leyton ward supporter, Waltham Forest says...
4:21pm Wed 6 Feb 08

Surely this doesn't signal the end of the Loakes/Rayner honey moon? Their public 'debating' displays against each other are a total sham. Someone should ask Mr Loakes about his disgraceful boasts in this week's LGA 'First' magazine about the £23 million pounds of "efficiency savings" he has put Mr Rayner - the so called "opposition" party leader Mr Rayner "in charge" of. Disgusting. If you live in ward, vote for Carole Vincent on the 14th of February. Carole is the only candidate opposing this corrupt Lib/Lab Labour council and the idiots called Loakes and Rayner running it.

Report this post »

Sam, Walthamstow says...
4:25pm Wed 6 Feb 08

This is the first time I've heard of the LibDems standing up to the Labour group on anything important. Maybe they're starting to notice how unpopular the council is these days. Let's encourage it. Maybe their independence will spread to oppsing other abuses, like closing libraries and pulping books.

Report this post »

Sceptic, E17 says...
4:33pm Wed 6 Feb 08

Or maybe the LibDems realise they're going to be swept out of power along with their Newlabour mates, because of all the damage they've jointly inflicted on this innocent borough's culture and services.

Or maybe this is softening us up for a "debate" in which they'll "compromise" on slightly lower tower blocks.

Or maybe the LibDem councillors will think about the £900,000 we spend on councillors' allowances and they'll all shout "Dammit, I refuse to take the fat pay rise I voted myself last year - I'm going to put it towards the services we've cut."

OK, scrub that third option.

Report this post »

Dave, Chingford says...
6:06pm Wed 6 Feb 08

Wow will wonders never cease in LBWF, the deputy actually standing up to the "Dear Leader"

What next? comments about the Library Fiasco and the 'Book Burning'

Report this post »

mdj, e10 says...
8:31pm Wed 6 Feb 08

Mr Loakes has rightly complained that our central funding is unfairly low, because current figures don't truly state the numbers living in this Borough now. So where does this 20k figure come from? They may already be here, for all we know: it feels that way. Does this debate include any choice about whether we actually want to live in a place so congested? Another point is that current planning is all for housing, which always takes place at the expense of workplaces: think of all the small factories, corner shops, petrol stations even ,let alone Hawker Siddeley, Shadbolt &c. Do we want to live in a commuter dormitory for the low-waged: are we being offered any choice? Do not confuse these public debates for any real interest in our opinions on government's part.

Report this post »

Sue, Highams Park says...
8:41pm Wed 6 Feb 08

"Mr Loakes has rightly complained that our central funding is unfairly low, because current figures don't truly state the numbers living in this Borough now. So where does this 20k figure come from? They may already be here, for all we know: it feels that way. Does this debate include any choice about whether we actually want to live in a place so congested? Another point is that current planning is all for housing, which always takes place at the expense of workplaces: think of all the small factories, corner shops, petrol stations even ,let alone Hawker Siddeley, Shadbolt &c. Do we want to live in a commuter dormitory for the low-waged: are we being offered any choice? Do not confuse these public debates for any real interest in our opinions on government's part."

Could you rewrite that IN ENGLISH please?

You sound like the inarticulate oaf Clyde Loakes!

Report this post »

mdj, e10 says...
9:25pm Wed 6 Feb 08

Sorry Sue,
I thought it was fairly clear, but I'll try again. Even our Council leader (who I'm no great fan of), admits that current funding is based on outdated statistics, which mean we suffer financially, because central government funding is lower than our real population warrants. So, given that we don't know who's living here already, how on earth has a prediction of another 20,000 by 2026 been worked out?
Point 2 is quite easy: if planning policy favours housing above all else, to meet this projected demand, we run out of local work places. LBWF already has one of the highest percentages of people having to leave their borough to find work, which doesn't make for a healthy community, surely?
Thirdly, my fear is that these 'debates' are more like PR exercises to get us used to the idea of changes that will be inflicted on us regardless of what we want.
Did you have any actual thoughts on what the Councillors said, such as the need for 'tough decisions ' from Mr Rayner, who very toughly decided to vote himself a large pay rise?

Report this post »

Danny, London says...
9:56pm Wed 6 Feb 08

Why is there a housing crisis it's because of Labour and it's open door policy this government is a joke why don't we just build on all our green land.

Report this post »

Observer, says...
10:10pm Wed 6 Feb 08

Oh dear - when thieves fall out!!!

Loakes is Brown's lackey (he was Blair's) and the slimy LibDems are now pulling the rug before they are blamed for too much at the 2010 polls. LBWF deserves better than either of these shoddy parties.

Report this post »

Carole Vincent for Leyton ward supporter, Waltham Forest says...
11:02pm Wed 6 Feb 08

"LBWF deserves better than either of these shoddy parties".

That's for sure. Vote Carole VINCENT on the 14th of February!

Report this post »

Sceptic, E17 says...
10:51am Thu 7 Feb 08

Mdj's comment looked clear to me, Sue, and are worth thinking about.

I'd add that more housing will attract more people to a place that is already becoming stiflingly overcrowded.

It's like the claim that a new road or bypass is needed to accommodate extra traffic, whereas studies show that traffic increases more steeply after it's built. In other words, the existence of the new road attracts a lot more traffic.

And for once, this isn't Waltham Forest council's doing. It's just cravenly obeying central government, where several councillors hope to reap their rewards eventually as MPs.

Report this post »

Walthamstow resident, E17 says...
10:54am Thu 7 Feb 08

If Loakes had actually lived in a Tower Block he wouldn't be saying this!!

They could start by using the arcade space for housing rather than putting an 8 screen cinema in the place of flats - when the EMD cinema could be re-established.


Report this post »

Caroline, Walthamstow says...
11:05am Thu 7 Feb 08

I've worked as a housing officer in tower blocks and in my experience, once they go above 5 storeys high, they generally aren't desirable places to live - they certainly don't have any sense of community as people feel cut off from the world around them. The council is also allowing developers to get away with building almost all small studio or 1-2 bedroom properties in these new developments, and hardly any family sized properties, which doesn't exactly make for a stable community either. Clearly Loakes doesn't care about community - so long as we stay indoors like good boys and girls and pay our council taxes that's all they want us to do. However i'm not convinced by Keith Rayner - yet. It would be nice to see the Lib Dems being a lot less vague and saying where they really stand on specific major plans such as the 15+ storey, mega high density tower blocks planned for the Blackhorse Rd area (not to mention building a PFI school on the playing field and flood plain next door!). Just slagging off Loakes is easy (so easy!), but if the Lib Dems want to win back any real credibility with electorate they're going to have to get off the fence, and be a lot more supportive to residents who are campaigning against Loakes and co's madder schemes.

Report this post »

Anita, UK says...
9:25am Fri 8 Feb 08

Try and fill the empty blocks of flats and houses that are littered around the borough and there will be less need for more hideous tower blocks!

Report this post »

Caramel Quin, Walthamstow says...
11:04am Fri 8 Feb 08

Let's hope that Cllr Rayner wins this debate before the council ruins our borough with poor-quality skyscrapers. The plan to put an 18-storey gherkin on the Arcade site is ridiculously out of proportion with the area.

Report this post »

Alan Smith, says...
4:42pm Fri 8 Feb 08

"Vote Carole VINCENT on the 14th of February!"

I might have given this some thought if one of the founding members of Respect wasn't a laughing stock with an ego the size of jupiter.

Report this post »

Helen, walthamstow says...
12:41am Sun 10 Feb 08

The only tower blocks anyone would want to live in are those with fantastic facilities like concierges/gymns/poo
lssecure carparking/ but this isn't Docklands and local people couldn't possibly afford the price tags of these 'designer' flats.
What will be built if everyone doesnt stand up to Loakes and our rotten council are bog standard towers which will quickly have the smelly stairwells/ broken lifts and graffiti that no- one should have to live with. No facilities except perhaps Tesco Metro and certainly no community spaces.
We need houses for families and developments which encourage sustainable communities.

Report this post »

lillian mitchell, waltham abbey says...
9:46pm Wed 27 Feb 08

As a campaigner in the late 1980 Against high rise blocks,I know the pit falls of living in a tower block , which was having to use my then young legs to walk up a few flights of stairs or suffer some unmentionable odours
Prior- TO THAT I LIVED IN A LARGE ROOM WITH TWO CHILDREN NO LIFT NO SMELLS NOBODY TO TALK TO
NO ONE TO HELP
NO ONE WHO CARED..
I also know In my tower block I had good friends a great caretaker and we looked after our elderly
later i was rehoused in a nice 3 bedroomed house.
Looking back. tower blocks served their purpose and in some other boroughs are still doing so.
With advanced technology, improved building methods and forward planning
five stories high blocks,
of economic, affordable housing with complete in-house health centres- are achievable for the growing population of young families and our elderly. cllr Loakes if five stores were built with underground car parking ,intercom doors and communal play room monitored by parents. with a drop a health centre attached to
10 blocks of flats with a central communal garden 10
block per complex which could comprise of=

first floor 8 - 1 bed flats
Second floor 4- 2 bed flats
Last three floores 3- 3 bedroom
SWEDEN CAN MANAGE THESE SCHEMES WHY NOT US
THINK SMALL BUT THINK BIG
cllr loakes you have the right idea but the wrong deputy

Report this post »

Adam, E17 says...
11:12pm Thu 27 Mar 08

There's an awful lot of whinging on here. Surely people realise that walthamstow needs to move on. It needs more places to go, pubs to visit, restaurants to eat in and shops to shop in. And houses to live in. If commercial forces dictate those terms then so be it. The days of stanley baldwin and 1930s public housing are long past. Similarly the EMD was great for the fab4 - but the building is no longer viable. Wake up! Move on people. And stop carping at those that are trying.

Report this post »

Sceptic, E17 says...
7:57pm Thu 17 Apr 08

Come off it, Adam. How is cramming Walthamstow with cheap and shoddy tower blocks 'moving on'?

People have made sensible points: that any housing development needs facilities built along with it - shops, healthcare, entertainment, workplaces etc. These are not being planned for. Social disaster in one easy step.

As for the EMD: several cinema operators have shown an interest in buying and reopening it. But the owners won't sell and the council has reneged on its promise to do a compulsory purchase and sell it on. Similar independent cinemas like the Genesis and Ritzy are highly successful.

The council is now going to pay St Modwen £880,000 of our money to build a cinema next door. What sort of financial sense is that?

Report this post »

Comments are closed on this article.

In this section

Essential Links

Sponsored Links



Local Advertisers


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »