WALTHAM FOREST: Secret council sell-off sites revealed

WALTHAM FOREST: Leak reveals secret council plans to sell off sites

WALTHAM FOREST: Leak reveals secret council plans to sell off sites

First published in News East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Photograph of the Author by , Senior reporter

SCHOOLS, leisure centres and care homes may be sold off by the council to help it cut costs, leaked documents have revealed.

Confidential papers obtained by the Guardian from concerned sources at Waltham Forest Town Hall show the authority is in the process of selling more than a dozen of its office buildings and patches of land in the borough to raise money.

Staff have also drawn up a second list which identifies sites which could potentially be “disposed” of in the next five years subject to reviews of services.

It includes all the borough's public swimming pools - Leyton Leisure Lagoon, Walthamstow Pool and Track, Kelmscott Leisure Centre, Cathall Leisure Centre and Larkswood Leisure Centre – along with dozens of other buildings and car parks.

The proposals were discussed in secret at a cabinet meeting last month after the public and press were ordered to leave the room because the items were exempt and “not in the public interest”.

But this newspaper has now obtained the documents that were discussed, which reveal the true extent of the options the council is considering.

It comes ahead of council predictions that it must cut at least £30million from its budgets in the next two financial years.

The authority has already said it needs to make savings of £7.2million this year following a reduction in central Government funding and a budget overspend of nearly £5million.

Among the sites the council has definitely agreed to dispose of is land in Coppermill Lane, Walthamstow, Stanley Road, Chingford, and Connaught Road, Walthamstow.

Also on the list is Chestnut House in Walthamstow and Pastures Youth Centre in Davies Lane, Leytonstone, although it could be used for helping to ease the borough's school places shortage.

The list also reveals that the council plans to sell Edinburgh Primary School in Edinburgh Road, Walthamstow - subject to a review of school place shortages.

Sites in Sutherland Road in Walthamstow could also go, subject to a review of plans for the redevelopment of the Blackhorse Road area.

Meanwhile the second list contains sites that “may be affected by service reviews or relocation of services” and ponders sell-offs that councillors might have to face in future years.

The list includes the former Warwick School For Boys site in Walthamstow, which the papers state could still be used for an expansion of secondary school places, and Aveling Park School in Walthamstow, which could be used as a new primary school.

Other possible disposals, subject to a review of services, include care homes such as Francis House, George Mason Lodge, Mapleton Road, Alliston House, Flaxen House and the units in Markhouse Road, Trumpington Road and May Road.

Car parks in Palmerston Road, Walthamstow, St James Street, Walthamstow, Brandon Road, Walthamstow, Lindford Road, Walthamstow, Garfield Road, Chingford, Richmond Road, Chingford, and Stanley Road, Chingford, which could be used for a new primary school, have also been identified as possible disposals.

Leisure users will not be surprised by the revelation that Pool and Track is being considered as a possible site to sell.

A council report in September 2009 let slip that it could be sold off to fund the redevelopment of the Arcade site in Walthamstow, although council leader Chris Robbins pledged it would not be shut down until a new, comparative facility was opened in its place.

What do you think? Leave your comments below or contact reporter Daniel Binns on 0779 547 6625 or via email at dbinns@london.newsquest.co.uk

Click here to follow the Waltham Forest Guardian on Twitter

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:23pm Mon 2 Aug 10

md-j says...

Given these predictable developments, can someone on the Council justify the gift to the Waltham Forest Muslim Burial Trust of several acres of land, with a minimum value - as cemetery space- of £1 million per acre? Can they explain how this land was obligingly valued as being of Nil Value, identify the religion of the officer responsible for valuation, and confirm the whether the Chair of the Trust at the time of the decision was the then Mayor?
It is still possible to purchase compulsorily this land at the original valuation, ie Nil, and regrant it at a sensible price.
Given these predictable developments, can someone on the Council justify the gift to the Waltham Forest Muslim Burial Trust of several acres of land, with a minimum value - as cemetery space- of £1 million per acre? Can they explain how this land was obligingly valued as being of Nil Value, identify the religion of the officer responsible for valuation, and confirm the whether the Chair of the Trust at the time of the decision was the then Mayor? It is still possible to purchase compulsorily this land at the original valuation, ie Nil, and regrant it at a sensible price. md-j
  • Score: 0

8:34pm Mon 2 Aug 10

Tom Thumb says...

There are also questions surrounding the disposal of public land on Forest Road between Chatham Road and Higham Hill Road. It was given away for nothing to a Housing Trust, which then decided not to build on the site but to sell the land instead. The site is visible from the road, hidden away behind fencing.

One obvious choice for savings is to get rid of the Council's fortnightly newspaper, which has nothing in worth reading and simply exists to heap praise on the Council.
There are also questions surrounding the disposal of public land on Forest Road between Chatham Road and Higham Hill Road. It was given away for nothing to a Housing Trust, which then decided not to build on the site but to sell the land instead. The site is visible from the road, hidden away behind fencing. One obvious choice for savings is to get rid of the Council's fortnightly newspaper, which has nothing in worth reading and simply exists to heap praise on the Council. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 1

10:45pm Mon 2 Aug 10

Heartlysmum says...

Robbins Rag?
Robbins Rag? Heartlysmum
  • Score: 0

11:34pm Mon 2 Aug 10

Robert19 says...

There are greater issues at stake than those mentioned above. I'm not sure the production costs of the council's newspaper is going to solve this crisis to be honest. These sell offs and cut backs are not just happening in Waltham Forest they are happening across the land. These are seen as soft options as they bring in one off capital receipts but, as pointed out above, can attract controversy. Once they are gone it is very unlikely they will be back in the Council's ownership. That is deeply worrying as rent will have to be paid on these assets and I suspect many will close down like old people's homes, swimming pools libraries etc.
This crisis has been caused by the over zealous cuts brought on by the Con Dem Government. Before anyone else mentions it, yes in part due to the previous Government. But what is not mentioned these days is that the Banks also had something to do with the world wide recession. Their profits being announced just now will show that they have very little social conscience and are beyond government control unless something is done to make them work more for society than just to cater for their own greedy profits and bonuses.
We will know more when the spending review takes place in September/October. But this is a plan by this awful government to virtually close down local authorities - with no mandate. This is what to expect with 25-30% cuts. Worse to follow.
There are greater issues at stake than those mentioned above. I'm not sure the production costs of the council's newspaper is going to solve this crisis to be honest. These sell offs and cut backs are not just happening in Waltham Forest they are happening across the land. These are seen as soft options as they bring in one off capital receipts but, as pointed out above, can attract controversy. Once they are gone it is very unlikely they will be back in the Council's ownership. That is deeply worrying as rent will have to be paid on these assets and I suspect many will close down like old people's homes, swimming pools libraries etc. This crisis has been caused by the over zealous cuts brought on by the Con Dem Government. Before anyone else mentions it, yes in part due to the previous Government. But what is not mentioned these days is that the Banks also had something to do with the world wide recession. Their profits being announced just now will show that they have very little social conscience and are beyond government control unless something is done to make them work more for society than just to cater for their own greedy profits and bonuses. We will know more when the spending review takes place in September/October. But this is a plan by this awful government to virtually close down local authorities - with no mandate. This is what to expect with 25-30% cuts. Worse to follow. Robert19
  • Score: 0

5:22am Tue 3 Aug 10

Investigations says...

Plans for the disposal of "care homes" prompts the question of what will be done with their present occupants? No doubt this forward looking council will offer cut price euthanasia or one-way tickets to Zimbabwe to those who may find themselves on the streets!
Better elect some capable human beings a.s.a.p.
Plans for the disposal of "care homes" prompts the question of what will be done with their present occupants? No doubt this forward looking council will offer cut price euthanasia or one-way tickets to Zimbabwe to those who may find themselves on the streets! Better elect some capable human beings a.s.a.p. Investigations
  • Score: 0

8:07am Tue 3 Aug 10

UKIP-local says...

It is clear that selling off capital assets and renting them back cannot save the budget shortfall now add to any spending cuts - quite the reverse.

As an earlier contributor said, it simply adds to the cash flow.

The proceeds of any such a disposal ought to be used to pay down borrowings. Otherwise the Council ends up having spend the cash from the sale and still owes both the borrowings and the rental on buildings.

Please may we have an update on the pension scheme deficit, calculated according to UK Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and commercial actuarial methods?
It is clear that selling off capital assets and renting them back cannot save the budget shortfall now add to any spending cuts - quite the reverse. As an earlier contributor said, it simply adds to the cash flow. The proceeds of any such a disposal ought to be used to pay down borrowings. Otherwise the Council ends up having spend the cash from the sale and still owes both the borrowings and the rental on buildings. Please may we have an update on the pension scheme deficit, calculated according to UK Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and commercial actuarial methods? UKIP-local
  • Score: 0

10:38am Tue 3 Aug 10

marsdan says...

Are we forgetting that the reason we are in this situation is that One prime minister led as into the war wasting billions than they other one let the banks loose to rip as of.
Are we forgetting that the reason we are in this situation is that One prime minister led as into the war wasting billions than they other one let the banks loose to rip as of. marsdan
  • Score: 0

10:41am Tue 3 Aug 10

Techno2 says...

Robert19 wrote:
There are greater issues at stake than those mentioned above. I'm not sure the production costs of the council's newspaper is going to solve this crisis to be honest. These sell offs and cut backs are not just happening in Waltham Forest they are happening across the land. These are seen as soft options as they bring in one off capital receipts but, as pointed out above, can attract controversy. Once they are gone it is very unlikely they will be back in the Council's ownership. That is deeply worrying as rent will have to be paid on these assets and I suspect many will close down like old people's homes, swimming pools libraries etc. This crisis has been caused by the over zealous cuts brought on by the Con Dem Government. Before anyone else mentions it, yes in part due to the previous Government. But what is not mentioned these days is that the Banks also had something to do with the world wide recession. Their profits being announced just now will show that they have very little social conscience and are beyond government control unless something is done to make them work more for society than just to cater for their own greedy profits and bonuses. We will know more when the spending review takes place in September/October. But this is a plan by this awful government to virtually close down local authorities - with no mandate. This is what to expect with 25-30% cuts. Worse to follow.
There is no particular reason why rents would be paid on any of these 'assets' once they are sold. Whoever buys them would be under no obligation to rent them back to the council at all, though of course the prospect of having a captive tenant may be one of the attractions for some firms who know how to squeeze the max. out of ineffective councils like ours.

Once sold, we should really assume these properties will be gone for good.

I for one am that sure the production costs of the council's newspaper is going to contribute to solviong this crisis. First, any waste should be cut to the bone, not just because the council is broke but because it is wrong for the council to have such a massive propaganda department anyway. Their capacity to spin lies about their activities, avoid proper scrutiny and live in a self-created echo chamber of self-congratulatory hogwash is one of the reasons this council has been allowed to become as inefficient, wasteful and corrupt as it has, and this will have undoubtedly contributed to the dire financial straights they have got themselves into. The actual costs of this spin machine is also considerable. The council should be happy with the small number of staff required to run its website and the rest of its spin machine should be cut entirely.

I do agree that we should be looking at the big picture and that bigger cuts could follow. The fact is that the last 13 years of Labour msirule have brought about a 3.8 trillion pound debt burden to the country which we can't afford to service unless significant cuts are made. The council, of course, is staffed by people at the top with no vested interest in cutting their over-inflated salaries and other benefits, so they are trying to flog off the public's assets instead. It would be far better to grasp the nettle now and deal with the inflated salaries - then maybe some of these 'assets', such as the care homes and spotrs facilities can be saved.

It may be that we will still have to sell off land and buildings, but I think that should only happen once the top salary in the council has been reduced to somewhere round the £80000 a year level first. Senior officers who think they can get more elsewhere in the current climate should be free to leave and see how marketable their 2-star council skills really are - and by the way, as an anti-fraud protection, we also need a firm rule that any company subsequently employing any of our current senior council officers (or members of their families) should be banned from bidding for any new contracts with our council for at least three years.
[quote][p][bold]Robert19[/bold] wrote: There are greater issues at stake than those mentioned above. I'm not sure the production costs of the council's newspaper is going to solve this crisis to be honest. These sell offs and cut backs are not just happening in Waltham Forest they are happening across the land. These are seen as soft options as they bring in one off capital receipts but, as pointed out above, can attract controversy. Once they are gone it is very unlikely they will be back in the Council's ownership. That is deeply worrying as rent will have to be paid on these assets and I suspect many will close down like old people's homes, swimming pools libraries etc. This crisis has been caused by the over zealous cuts brought on by the Con Dem Government. Before anyone else mentions it, yes in part due to the previous Government. But what is not mentioned these days is that the Banks also had something to do with the world wide recession. Their profits being announced just now will show that they have very little social conscience and are beyond government control unless something is done to make them work more for society than just to cater for their own greedy profits and bonuses. We will know more when the spending review takes place in September/October. But this is a plan by this awful government to virtually close down local authorities - with no mandate. This is what to expect with 25-30% cuts. Worse to follow.[/p][/quote]There is no particular reason why rents would be paid on any of these 'assets' once they are sold. Whoever buys them would be under no obligation to rent them back to the council at all, though of course the prospect of having a captive tenant may be one of the attractions for some firms who know how to squeeze the max. out of ineffective councils like ours. Once sold, we should really assume these properties will be gone for good. I for one am that sure the production costs of the council's newspaper is going to contribute to solviong this crisis. First, any waste should be cut to the bone, not just because the council is broke but because it is wrong for the council to have such a massive propaganda department anyway. Their capacity to spin lies about their activities, avoid proper scrutiny and live in a self-created echo chamber of self-congratulatory hogwash is one of the reasons this council has been allowed to become as inefficient, wasteful and corrupt as it has, and this will have undoubtedly contributed to the dire financial straights they have got themselves into. The actual costs of this spin machine is also considerable. The council should be happy with the small number of staff required to run its website and the rest of its spin machine should be cut entirely. I do agree that we should be looking at the big picture and that bigger cuts could follow. The fact is that the last 13 years of Labour msirule have brought about a 3.8 trillion pound debt burden to the country which we can't afford to service unless significant cuts are made. The council, of course, is staffed by people at the top with no vested interest in cutting their over-inflated salaries and other benefits, so they are trying to flog off the public's assets instead. It would be far better to grasp the nettle now and deal with the inflated salaries - then maybe some of these 'assets', such as the care homes and spotrs facilities can be saved. It may be that we will still have to sell off land and buildings, but I think that should only happen once the top salary in the council has been reduced to somewhere round the £80000 a year level first. Senior officers who think they can get more elsewhere in the current climate should be free to leave and see how marketable their 2-star council skills really are - and by the way, as an anti-fraud protection, we also need a firm rule that any company subsequently employing any of our current senior council officers (or members of their families) should be banned from bidding for any new contracts with our council for at least three years. Techno2
  • Score: 0

10:44am Tue 3 Aug 10

Rodka says...

md-j wrote:
Given these predictable developments, can someone on the Council justify the gift to the Waltham Forest Muslim Burial Trust of several acres of land, with a minimum value - as cemetery space- of £1 million per acre? Can they explain how this land was obligingly valued as being of Nil Value, identify the religion of the officer responsible for valuation, and confirm the whether the Chair of the Trust at the time of the decision was the then Mayor? It is still possible to purchase compulsorily this land at the original valuation, ie Nil, and regrant it at a sensible price.
Tokenism ! keep sweet to keep power!
[quote][p][bold]md-j[/bold] wrote: Given these predictable developments, can someone on the Council justify the gift to the Waltham Forest Muslim Burial Trust of several acres of land, with a minimum value - as cemetery space- of £1 million per acre? Can they explain how this land was obligingly valued as being of Nil Value, identify the religion of the officer responsible for valuation, and confirm the whether the Chair of the Trust at the time of the decision was the then Mayor? It is still possible to purchase compulsorily this land at the original valuation, ie Nil, and regrant it at a sensible price.[/p][/quote]Tokenism ! keep sweet to keep power! Rodka
  • Score: 0

10:48am Tue 3 Aug 10

Rodka says...

Its a shame that council members do not have management skills. Economise and cut back on waste and nonsense projects. If good management was employed, selling off the public assets would be unnecessary.
Its a shame that council members do not have management skills. Economise and cut back on waste and nonsense projects. If good management was employed, selling off the public assets would be unnecessary. Rodka
  • Score: 0

10:58am Tue 3 Aug 10

Techno2 says...

Rodka wrote:
Its a shame that council members do not have management skills. Economise and cut back on waste and nonsense projects. If good management was employed, selling off the public assets would be unnecessary.
Even mediocre management would be better than what we have, provided we had only responsible councillors who know what they were supposed to be doing when it comes to scrutinising the officers and holding them properly to account on behalf of the public.
[quote][p][bold]Rodka[/bold] wrote: Its a shame that council members do not have management skills. Economise and cut back on waste and nonsense projects. If good management was employed, selling off the public assets would be unnecessary.[/p][/quote]Even mediocre management would be better than what we have, provided we had only responsible councillors who know what they were supposed to be doing when it comes to scrutinising the officers and holding them properly to account on behalf of the public. Techno2
  • Score: 0

12:29pm Tue 3 Aug 10

Tom Thumb says...

Isn't the council currently advertising for a new chief executive at £180,000 a year?
As the Taxpayers Alliance has shown, the council employs a number of officers on absurdly over-inflated salaries, which is even more unacceptable given the council's poor performance across a wide area.
The councillors who vote for cuts are raking in £30,000 a year or more. I think the council was much better when councillors got almost nothing, at least no one in those days could accuse them of being motivated by self-interest.
I would agree that the problem also derives from national governments, both past and present.
And the banks. The bonuses are back, the champagne is flowing, and a ferocious attack on the poor, the vulnerable and public services is about to begin.
Isn't the council currently advertising for a new chief executive at £180,000 a year? As the Taxpayers Alliance has shown, the council employs a number of officers on absurdly over-inflated salaries, which is even more unacceptable given the council's poor performance across a wide area. The councillors who vote for cuts are raking in £30,000 a year or more. I think the council was much better when councillors got almost nothing, at least no one in those days could accuse them of being motivated by self-interest. I would agree that the problem also derives from national governments, both past and present. And the banks. The bonuses are back, the champagne is flowing, and a ferocious attack on the poor, the vulnerable and public services is about to begin. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Tue 3 Aug 10

highstreetvoiceofreason says...

http://truthwillouti
nwalthamforest.wordp
ress.com/2010/08/02/
the-emperors-new-off
ice/
Interesting if true!
http://truthwillouti nwalthamforest.wordp ress.com/2010/08/02/ the-emperors-new-off ice/ Interesting if true! highstreetvoiceofreason
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Tue 3 Aug 10

Robert19 says...

This issue is much bigger than the efficiencies or otherwise of Waltham Forest Council. All local authorities in England will have to make cuts of 25-30%. This is the second attempt to do this albeit in secret by this Council. We have already have one round of cuts four months into this financial year. I've assumed that what is proposed is the sale of a number of assets to lease them back . But you may be right Techno2 they may be sale of closed assets. We need clarification. What is possibly mooted for instance is the closure of all leisure centres and swimming pools. If correct, a wonderful advert for an Olympic borough. We already have a school places crisis already. Selling school sites off is lunacy.
This issue is much bigger than the efficiencies or otherwise of Waltham Forest Council. All local authorities in England will have to make cuts of 25-30%. This is the second attempt to do this albeit in secret by this Council. We have already have one round of cuts four months into this financial year. I've assumed that what is proposed is the sale of a number of assets to lease them back . But you may be right Techno2 they may be sale of closed assets. We need clarification. What is possibly mooted for instance is the closure of all leisure centres and swimming pools. If correct, a wonderful advert for an Olympic borough. We already have a school places crisis already. Selling school sites off is lunacy. Robert19
  • Score: 0

8:02pm Tue 3 Aug 10

Augustus says...

This is going to be a fire-sale. Publicly-owned assets will be flogged off to carpetbaggers at bargain basement prices who will then make a killing when the market picks up. Who says the council has to make £30m-worth of cuts anyway? The Con Dem government? Any self-respecting Labour-controlled council should dare them to send in the administrators to do their own dirty work.
This is going to be a fire-sale. Publicly-owned assets will be flogged off to carpetbaggers at bargain basement prices who will then make a killing when the market picks up. Who says the council has to make £30m-worth of cuts anyway? The Con Dem government? Any self-respecting Labour-controlled council should dare them to send in the administrators to do their own dirty work. Augustus
  • Score: 0

10:02pm Tue 3 Aug 10

Techno2 says...

Augustus wrote:
This is going to be a fire-sale. Publicly-owned assets will be flogged off to carpetbaggers at bargain basement prices who will then make a killing when the market picks up. Who says the council has to make £30m-worth of cuts anyway? The Con Dem government? Any self-respecting Labour-controlled council should dare them to send in the administrators to do their own dirty work.
I would not find that too aweful a prospect, though probably not for the reasons you are thinking of. I's quite like it if the central government, suitably accompanied by the police and some forensic accountants were to enter the doors of our Town Hall and have a really good and thorough look at the books and all those dodgy contracts - and also to examine the private bank accounts and assets of many of our pesent and former councillors as well as some of the senior officers and their families and friends.

We might then have a chance of finding out where all the missing money has gone.
[quote][p][bold]Augustus[/bold] wrote: This is going to be a fire-sale. Publicly-owned assets will be flogged off to carpetbaggers at bargain basement prices who will then make a killing when the market picks up. Who says the council has to make £30m-worth of cuts anyway? The Con Dem government? Any self-respecting Labour-controlled council should dare them to send in the administrators to do their own dirty work.[/p][/quote]I would not find that too aweful a prospect, though probably not for the reasons you are thinking of. I's quite like it if the central government, suitably accompanied by the police and some forensic accountants were to enter the doors of our Town Hall and have a really good and thorough look at the books and all those dodgy contracts - and also to examine the private bank accounts and assets of many of our pesent and former councillors as well as some of the senior officers and their families and friends. We might then have a chance of finding out where all the missing money has gone. Techno2
  • Score: 0

10:56pm Tue 3 Aug 10

Tom Thumb says...

Robert19Leytonstone, "We need clarification".

**** right we do. But don't expect to get it from our councillors or officers. Murk, mist, muddied waters and muddle will remain the order of the day, an ever-present miasma over the muck.
Robert19Leytonstone, "We need clarification". **** right we do. But don't expect to get it from our councillors or officers. Murk, mist, muddied waters and muddle will remain the order of the day, an ever-present miasma over the muck. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 0

11:18pm Tue 3 Aug 10

Augustus says...

Nikolai Gogol's 'The Government Inspector' probably gives a flavour of what such an intervention would be like in Waltham Forest, Techno2.
Nikolai Gogol's 'The Government Inspector' probably gives a flavour of what such an intervention would be like in Waltham Forest, Techno2. Augustus
  • Score: 0

6:28pm Wed 4 Aug 10

Techno2 says...

Augustus wrote:
Nikolai Gogol's 'The Government Inspector' probably gives a flavour of what such an intervention would be like in Waltham Forest, Techno2.
I have nothing against Eastern Europeans participating in the scrutiny of our local government provided they hold a valid EU passport or work permit.
[quote][p][bold]Augustus[/bold] wrote: Nikolai Gogol's 'The Government Inspector' probably gives a flavour of what such an intervention would be like in Waltham Forest, Techno2.[/p][/quote]I have nothing against Eastern Europeans participating in the scrutiny of our local government provided they hold a valid EU passport or work permit. Techno2
  • Score: 0

9:24pm Wed 4 Aug 10

Mr Bernard says...

While most councils have to make huge cuts over the next few years I do find it ironic that predominantly labour councils, such as Waltham Forest are having to suggest cutting everything possible (then blaming the new government). Maybe if the council managed their finances better over the last 10 years rather than spend like it was going out of fashion and selling off land cheaply then the cuts wouldnt have to be so severe.

I have a few suggestions to save money in WF.
1. Cut the Waltham Forest propaganda paper.
2. Cut the top officials salaries (as they are hugely inflated anyway)
3. Cut Cllr Robbins pay (as he is not good value for money)
4. hire a good accountant who can chase all the missing funds that was supposed to be spent on regeneration in the borough.
While most councils have to make huge cuts over the next few years I do find it ironic that predominantly labour councils, such as Waltham Forest are having to suggest cutting everything possible (then blaming the new government). Maybe if the council managed their finances better over the last 10 years rather than spend like it was going out of fashion and selling off land cheaply then the cuts wouldnt have to be so severe. I have a few suggestions to save money in WF. 1. Cut the Waltham Forest propaganda paper. 2. Cut the top officials salaries (as they are hugely inflated anyway) 3. Cut Cllr Robbins pay (as he is not good value for money) 4. hire a good accountant who can chase all the missing funds that was supposed to be spent on regeneration in the borough. Mr Bernard
  • Score: 0

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