WALTHAM FOREST: 'Horror' at secret council sell-off sites list

East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Sports clubs are concerned that swimming could suffer in the borough if any pools are closed. Sports clubs are concerned that swimming could suffer in the borough if any pools are closed.

SPORT groups have reacted with “horror” to a leaked council document which suggests that the authority could sell off the borough's leisure centres to save money.

The Guardian revealed yesterday how staff had drawn up secret lists of publicly-owned buildings and pieces of land that could be disposed of in the next five years.

The documents, handed to this newspaper by concerned sources at Waltham Forest Town Hall, include suggestions that nearly all the borough's leisure centres – including Kelmscott, Larkswood, Walthamstow Pool and Track and Leyton Leisure Lagoon – may be sold off subject to a review and possible relocation of services.

Reacting to the leak, concerned organisations in the borough say the list reflects a broader attitude in the council that sport is a "low priority".

Jim Howell, chairman of the Waltham Forest Sports Council, said: “My immediate reaction is one of horror.

“One of the big concerns we have is the loss of sports facilities generally – you only need to see what the council have been doing to places like Drapers Field [in Leyton]. The general trend in the last few years has been a loss of green spaces and facilities.

“More closures would have an enormous impact. Many clubs would have to close or move out of the borough. This is already happening with groups like the Highams Park Fencing Club, which is now based in Redbridge.

“Of course it's not just sport being affected by these cuts and we're not saying that all other community resources should be ignored, but the council needs to think very carefully of the long term ramifications of getting rid of more facilities before taking any action.”

Esther Hill, secretary of the Waltham Forest Swimming Club, said: “They shouldn't even be considering doing this.

“It's very short sighted. Some of the council's funding goes on the smallest groups in the borough, yet it's been shown that swimming is the biggest mass participation sport in the country.

“There is already a fairly bad problem with there being not much for young people to do and if they started closing down leisure facilities that would only make it worse.

“But they must know that it would be political suicide if they closed down every pool.”

Brian Kapp, who sits on a variety of sporting committees including the borough's 2012 legacy panel, said: “I'm incensed that they could even think of this.

“If you look at places like Basildon and Crawley you can see where councils have got sport as a high priority, but that just isn't the case here.

“And I doubt that if any of these pools were to close that the council would actually replace them.”

The documents also reveal that the council has decided to sell off more than a dozen car parks and offices, and is pondering disposing of Edinburgh School and Pastures Youth Centre subject to a review of school place shortages.

Many of the borough's care homes are on the second list of possible disposals, suggesting that shelved council plans in 2009 to open two new 'super' facilities and close smaller residential units could be back on the agenda in future.

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.

Click here to follow the Waltham Forest Guardian on Twitter

Comments (16)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:30pm Tue 3 Aug 10

Rodka says...

Well, sell of the sports centres that we have all paid for, to put off actually managing the borough's finances, whilst at the same time keeping all of the high paid employees on the council payroll. Lets please cut back on a few of the fat cats; they certainly havent earnt their money. A fool can just spend other peoples hard earned money and get into debt.
Well, sell of the sports centres that we have all paid for, to put off actually managing the borough's finances, whilst at the same time keeping all of the high paid employees on the council payroll. Lets please cut back on a few of the fat cats; they certainly havent earnt their money. A fool can just spend other peoples hard earned money and get into debt. Rodka
  • Score: 0

5:44pm Tue 3 Aug 10

Robert19 says...

Rodka wrote:
Well, sell of the sports centres that we have all paid for, to put off actually managing the borough's finances, whilst at the same time keeping all of the high paid employees on the council payroll. Lets please cut back on a few of the fat cats; they certainly havent earnt their money. A fool can just spend other peoples hard earned money and get into debt.
Rodka
Whilst I agree that top executive salaries are too high in local government, cutting say £20,000 off the chief executive's salary isn't going to do much to reduce the £30 million of cuts in Waltham Forest. It isn't just efficiency savings that will do, it is the wholesale closure of council services. I would normally ask posters like yourself if they had voted for the Tories as this is what they get and this is what they deserve (but not the rest of us!). However along with the Lib Dems most of what is happening was not in either of their manifestos and no-one voted for it. To say, as they did that it was a total shock how bad they economy was when they came into government is rubbish. I believe Francis Maude when he said they are doing more than Thatcher ever did. That is what it is about - a rolling back of the State. If you want swimming pools go and build your own is their attitude!
[quote][p][bold]Rodka[/bold] wrote: Well, sell of the sports centres that we have all paid for, to put off actually managing the borough's finances, whilst at the same time keeping all of the high paid employees on the council payroll. Lets please cut back on a few of the fat cats; they certainly havent earnt their money. A fool can just spend other peoples hard earned money and get into debt.[/p][/quote]Rodka Whilst I agree that top executive salaries are too high in local government, cutting say £20,000 off the chief executive's salary isn't going to do much to reduce the £30 million of cuts in Waltham Forest. It isn't just efficiency savings that will do, it is the wholesale closure of council services. I would normally ask posters like yourself if they had voted for the Tories as this is what they get and this is what they deserve (but not the rest of us!). However along with the Lib Dems most of what is happening was not in either of their manifestos and no-one voted for it. To say, as they did that it was a total shock how bad they economy was when they came into government is rubbish. I believe Francis Maude when he said they are doing more than Thatcher ever did. That is what it is about - a rolling back of the State. If you want swimming pools go and build your own is their attitude! Robert19
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Tue 3 Aug 10

Cllr Matt Davis says...

Robert, I for one am getting bored with your deliberate refusal to accept the fact that it is the gross profligacy and waste of our money under 13 years of a Labour government that is causing the current reductions in public spending and that it is an entirely Labour run Council that is deciding where it wants to make cuts.

So the question ought to be: did all of you who voted Labour at the Council elections do so in order to see your sports facilities disappear? Because that is the reality not your transparent attempt at Mandelson type spin otherwise.

It really is time that you, and the rest of the economically illiterate Labour party, accepted the responsibility you have earned for bringing our country's finances to the worst state that they have EVER been in; the biggest national debt ever and the biggest budget deficit ever.

That is totally the fault of the Labour government and is Blair and Brown's true legacy to Britain as is the now unfortunately necessary major reductions in public spending needed to return our finances to something not resembling a basket case economy.

Every Labour government throughout British history has left office having destroyed our nation's finances and the last one is no different, just a lot worse.

As ever the problem with socialism still remains that sooner or later you run out of other people's money.
Robert, I for one am getting bored with your deliberate refusal to accept the fact that it is the gross profligacy and waste of our money under 13 years of a Labour government that is causing the current reductions in public spending and that it is an entirely Labour run Council that is deciding where it wants to make cuts. So the question ought to be: did all of you who voted Labour at the Council elections do so in order to see your sports facilities disappear? Because that is the reality not your transparent attempt at Mandelson type spin otherwise. It really is time that you, and the rest of the economically illiterate Labour party, accepted the responsibility you have earned for bringing our country's finances to the worst state that they have EVER been in; the biggest national debt ever and the biggest budget deficit ever. That is totally the fault of the Labour government and is Blair and Brown's true legacy to Britain as is the now unfortunately necessary major reductions in public spending needed to return our finances to something not resembling a basket case economy. Every Labour government throughout British history has left office having destroyed our nation's finances and the last one is no different, just a lot worse. As ever the problem with socialism still remains that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. Cllr Matt Davis
  • Score: 0

7:26pm Tue 3 Aug 10

Augustus says...

"...sooner or later you run out of other people's money"? Tell that to the bankers, Councillor. And the problem with socialism is that Labour has never implemented it.
"...sooner or later you run out of other people's money"? Tell that to the bankers, Councillor. And the problem with socialism is that Labour has never implemented it. Augustus
  • Score: 0

7:40pm Tue 3 Aug 10

Robert19 says...

Cllr Matt Davis wrote:
Robert, I for one am getting bored with your deliberate refusal to accept the fact that it is the gross profligacy and waste of our money under 13 years of a Labour government that is causing the current reductions in public spending and that it is an entirely Labour run Council that is deciding where it wants to make cuts.

So the question ought to be: did all of you who voted Labour at the Council elections do so in order to see your sports facilities disappear? Because that is the reality not your transparent attempt at Mandelson type spin otherwise.

It really is time that you, and the rest of the economically illiterate Labour party, accepted the responsibility you have earned for bringing our country's finances to the worst state that they have EVER been in; the biggest national debt ever and the biggest budget deficit ever.

That is totally the fault of the Labour government and is Blair and Brown's true legacy to Britain as is the now unfortunately necessary major reductions in public spending needed to return our finances to something not resembling a basket case economy.

Every Labour government throughout British history has left office having destroyed our nation's finances and the last one is no different, just a lot worse.

As ever the problem with socialism still remains that sooner or later you run out of other people's money.
I really love people who make assumptions about other people. When did I say I was a member of the Labour Party? For your information I am not a member of any political party. I hate New Labour probably as much as you do. Blair and Brown were seduced by the City and rode on their backs in the good times, but then Brown could or would not do anything effective to deal with their excesses except to bail them out.
New Labour is partially culpable for the mess we are in. But the Banks and their responsibility for this global mess seems to have been airbrushed out of history by you and your friends.
My concern is that no-one voted for the effective privatisation of the NHS, the fiasco over emergency legislation to allow only 70 free schools to bring (low level) anarchy to the education system, the loss of local resources because of the machismo attempt to outdo Thatcher in her hatred of public services.
I assume you will defend local services like the leisure centres to the hilt in your role as a local councillor when your friends start cutting public service budgets for real from September onwards. This is not just happening in Waltham Forest however incompetent the Council is. Similar cuts are happening all over England. That is my point.
[quote][p][bold]Cllr Matt Davis[/bold] wrote: Robert, I for one am getting bored with your deliberate refusal to accept the fact that it is the gross profligacy and waste of our money under 13 years of a Labour government that is causing the current reductions in public spending and that it is an entirely Labour run Council that is deciding where it wants to make cuts. So the question ought to be: did all of you who voted Labour at the Council elections do so in order to see your sports facilities disappear? Because that is the reality not your transparent attempt at Mandelson type spin otherwise. It really is time that you, and the rest of the economically illiterate Labour party, accepted the responsibility you have earned for bringing our country's finances to the worst state that they have EVER been in; the biggest national debt ever and the biggest budget deficit ever. That is totally the fault of the Labour government and is Blair and Brown's true legacy to Britain as is the now unfortunately necessary major reductions in public spending needed to return our finances to something not resembling a basket case economy. Every Labour government throughout British history has left office having destroyed our nation's finances and the last one is no different, just a lot worse. As ever the problem with socialism still remains that sooner or later you run out of other people's money.[/p][/quote]I really love people who make assumptions about other people. When did I say I was a member of the Labour Party? For your information I am not a member of any political party. I hate New Labour probably as much as you do. Blair and Brown were seduced by the City and rode on their backs in the good times, but then Brown could or would not do anything effective to deal with their excesses except to bail them out. New Labour is partially culpable for the mess we are in. But the Banks and their responsibility for this global mess seems to have been airbrushed out of history by you and your friends. My concern is that no-one voted for the effective privatisation of the NHS, the fiasco over emergency legislation to allow only 70 free schools to bring (low level) anarchy to the education system, the loss of local resources because of the machismo attempt to outdo Thatcher in her hatred of public services. I assume you will defend local services like the leisure centres to the hilt in your role as a local councillor when your friends start cutting public service budgets for real from September onwards. This is not just happening in Waltham Forest however incompetent the Council is. Similar cuts are happening all over England. That is my point. Robert19
  • Score: 0

10:39pm Tue 3 Aug 10

Augustus says...

"I assume you will defend local services like the leisure centres to the hilt in your role as a local councillor when your friends start cutting public service budgets for real from September onwards." No, Robert19, the Councillor will blame the current Labour Council. This is known as having your cake and eating it.
"I assume you will defend local services like the leisure centres to the hilt in your role as a local councillor when your friends start cutting public service budgets for real from September onwards." No, Robert19, the Councillor will blame the current Labour Council. This is known as having your cake and eating it. Augustus
  • Score: 0

12:59am Wed 4 Aug 10

md-j says...

Ironically, Cllr Davis the Conservative leader has vocally opposed the Kier street cleaning project brought in by Labour, which has cost more than the previous in-house arrangements for a worse service, and cost well over 100 local jobs.
The axe has been overdue to fall for years, whichever government had the misfortune to wield it. It is not pleasant to see the relish with which some of the Tories are going about the task.
This isn't to argue that had the Tories been in power for the last 13 years that they'd have been less feckless: they were busy blaming Labour for not relaxing banking rules more!
Labour did at least spend some of the money they (we) didn't have on some of the poorest members of society, though very ineptly.
They can be proud of the provision they made for pensioners, though for little else.
Ironically, Cllr Davis the Conservative leader has vocally opposed the Kier street cleaning project brought in by Labour, which has cost more than the previous in-house arrangements for a worse service, and cost well over 100 local jobs. The axe has been overdue to fall for years, whichever government had the misfortune to wield it. It is not pleasant to see the relish with which some of the Tories are going about the task. This isn't to argue that had the Tories been in power for the last 13 years that they'd have been less feckless: they were busy blaming Labour for not relaxing banking rules more! Labour did at least spend some of the money they (we) didn't have on some of the poorest members of society, though very ineptly. They can be proud of the provision they made for pensioners, though for little else. md-j
  • Score: 0

9:20am Wed 4 Aug 10

Augustus says...

What surprises and disappoints me, md-j, is not the relish of the Tories for these cuts (no surprise there) but the apparent eagerness of the Labour Council to make itself complicit in them. Resistance is not necessarily futile, especially wehere there is a clear moral imperative.
What surprises and disappoints me, md-j, is not the relish of the Tories for these cuts (no surprise there) but the apparent eagerness of the Labour Council to make itself complicit in them. Resistance is not necessarily futile, especially wehere there is a clear moral imperative. Augustus
  • Score: 0

3:23pm Wed 4 Aug 10

md-j says...

In the past our local Council seemed to have more spine and local spirit when in opposition to the national government. I'm thinking of the opposition to the M11 Link Road, and Neil Gerrard's huge rate hike which, whether you agreed with it or not, was based on local politics and local needs.
For the last decade Labour locally has been looking over its shoulder to see what central government wanted it to do. This is because so many Councillors are on local government salaries as well, or come from civil service and TU backgrounds, they just regard them selves as elected bureaucrats.
Let's hope the spirit of opposition rises again, but I'm not at all confident, given the tainted record and obedient culture of the present incumbents.
Given this incestuous culture between Councillors and officials, I wonder whether we'd be better off just electing the managers directly, and eliminating the tier of bogus scrutiny. These managers are highly political already, especially since now we know that the Chief Executive's post is in the personal gift of the Fuhrer - sorry, Strong Leader. I recently saw a senior official publicly tell two senior local Councillors that they had no business knowing what 'The Council' were planning regarding Drapers Field. So, who's really in charge?
In the past our local Council seemed to have more spine and local spirit when in opposition to the national government. I'm thinking of the opposition to the M11 Link Road, and Neil Gerrard's huge rate hike which, whether you agreed with it or not, was based on local politics and local needs. For the last decade Labour locally has been looking over its shoulder to see what central government wanted it to do. This is because so many Councillors are on local government salaries as well, or come from civil service and TU backgrounds, they just regard them selves as elected bureaucrats. Let's hope the spirit of opposition rises again, but I'm not at all confident, given the tainted record and obedient culture of the present incumbents. Given this incestuous culture between Councillors and officials, I wonder whether we'd be better off just electing the managers directly, and eliminating the tier of bogus scrutiny. These managers are highly political already, especially since now we know that the Chief Executive's post is in the personal gift of the Fuhrer - sorry, Strong Leader. I recently saw a senior official publicly tell two senior local Councillors that they had no business knowing what 'The Council' were planning regarding Drapers Field. So, who's really in charge? md-j
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Wed 4 Aug 10

Techno2 says...

md-j wrote:
In the past our local Council seemed to have more spine and local spirit when in opposition to the national government. I'm thinking of the opposition to the M11 Link Road, and Neil Gerrard's huge rate hike which, whether you agreed with it or not, was based on local politics and local needs. For the last decade Labour locally has been looking over its shoulder to see what central government wanted it to do. This is because so many Councillors are on local government salaries as well, or come from civil service and TU backgrounds, they just regard them selves as elected bureaucrats. Let's hope the spirit of opposition rises again, but I'm not at all confident, given the tainted record and obedient culture of the present incumbents. Given this incestuous culture between Councillors and officials, I wonder whether we'd be better off just electing the managers directly, and eliminating the tier of bogus scrutiny. These managers are highly political already, especially since now we know that the Chief Executive's post is in the personal gift of the Fuhrer - sorry, Strong Leader. I recently saw a senior official publicly tell two senior local Councillors that they had no business knowing what 'The Council' were planning regarding Drapers Field. So, who's really in charge?
I mainly agree with you there, though I don't think that Neil Gerrard's business rate hike was his finest hour in an otherwise fine career as a champion for the people in Walthamstow. Even he, though, has been strangely quiet about he corruption, mismanagement and thefts in recent years from a council he once led.
[quote][p][bold]md-j[/bold] wrote: In the past our local Council seemed to have more spine and local spirit when in opposition to the national government. I'm thinking of the opposition to the M11 Link Road, and Neil Gerrard's huge rate hike which, whether you agreed with it or not, was based on local politics and local needs. For the last decade Labour locally has been looking over its shoulder to see what central government wanted it to do. This is because so many Councillors are on local government salaries as well, or come from civil service and TU backgrounds, they just regard them selves as elected bureaucrats. Let's hope the spirit of opposition rises again, but I'm not at all confident, given the tainted record and obedient culture of the present incumbents. Given this incestuous culture between Councillors and officials, I wonder whether we'd be better off just electing the managers directly, and eliminating the tier of bogus scrutiny. These managers are highly political already, especially since now we know that the Chief Executive's post is in the personal gift of the Fuhrer - sorry, Strong Leader. I recently saw a senior official publicly tell two senior local Councillors that they had no business knowing what 'The Council' were planning regarding Drapers Field. So, who's really in charge?[/p][/quote]I mainly agree with you there, though I don't think that Neil Gerrard's business rate hike was his finest hour in an otherwise fine career as a champion for the people in Walthamstow. Even he, though, has been strangely quiet about he corruption, mismanagement and thefts in recent years from a council he once led. Techno2
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Wed 4 Aug 10

rubberneck says...

Nobody can ever take anything you say seriously anymore, you criticised the libdems for years and your party have sold all the tory voters out by jumping into bed with them as a coalition orgy which has decieved the millions of votors so i kindly ask you to stop commenting until you and your party sort yourselves out. Pathetic!
Nobody can ever take anything you say seriously anymore, you criticised the libdems for years and your party have sold all the tory voters out by jumping into bed with them as a coalition orgy which has decieved the millions of votors so i kindly ask you to stop commenting until you and your party sort yourselves out. Pathetic! rubberneck
  • Score: 0

7:16am Thu 5 Aug 10

blackandtan says...

Alex Savine of the ODA planning decisions team has told me(12/07/10 at 15.56 ) that under normal circumstances when the ODA no longer need to use a piece of land they would, in accordance with the contract, return it as it originally was or in an improved state.

However, Waltham Forest Council has yet to decide how they want Drapers Field returned. They are to carry out a consultation and then decide what to do. Having said that, the local councillors seem determined to persuade residents to have a “lovely park”. They have not mentioned the plans for their “lovely park” are enclosed on 2 sides by tower blocks, (they appear to be 8-10 storeys high).

If they succeed in convincing people locally to vote for a “lovely park” the recreation ground we presently have with the protection of ppg17 planning guidance will be lost. As a park they will find it much easier to get around the law and build flats.

Waltham Forest Council is free to ask at the time of drawing up the contract for the field to be returned in whatever state they wish. The decision is up to the council.

Alex Savine also told me that Ralph Luck, director of property for the ODA ,was the man to speak to concerning negotiations on this matter with the council. Ralph Luck has been unavailable for comment for several days. Perhaps the Guardian may have better luck in contacting Mr Luck to establish the facts than I have had.

I suspect the council want to turn the recreation ground into a park to engineer a change of use blaming the Olympics for losing this facility. I also suspect part of the deal will include selling part of Drapers Field for building flats. The Northern Olympic Fringe Master Plan states “Drapers Field area could be packaged up as a single opportunity with a disposal to the market subject to a planning framework in place”. The link below shows how the flats on Drapers Field could be envisaged. This is part of a document produced by The London School of Economics. It is the Northern Olympic Fringe Urban Co-production.
http://i908.photobuc

ket.com/albums/ac290

/drapersfield/draper

spark1.jpg
The Northern Olympic Fringe Master Plan first showed the flats in their proposals as can be seen in the link below. The full version of this document has since been removed from the council web site.

http://i908.photobuc

ket.com/albums/ac290

/drapersfield/draper

spark2.jpg
Alex Savine of the ODA planning decisions team has told me(12/07/10 at 15.56 ) that under normal circumstances when the ODA no longer need to use a piece of land they would, in accordance with the contract, return it as it originally was or in an improved state. However, Waltham Forest Council has yet to decide how they want Drapers Field returned. They are to carry out a consultation and then decide what to do. Having said that, the local councillors seem determined to persuade residents to have a “lovely park”. They have not mentioned the plans for their “lovely park” are enclosed on 2 sides by tower blocks, (they appear to be 8-10 storeys high). If they succeed in convincing people locally to vote for a “lovely park” the recreation ground we presently have with the protection of ppg17 planning guidance will be lost. As a park they will find it much easier to get around the law and build flats. Waltham Forest Council is free to ask at the time of drawing up the contract for the field to be returned in whatever state they wish. The decision is up to the council. Alex Savine also told me that Ralph Luck, director of property for the ODA ,was the man to speak to concerning negotiations on this matter with the council. Ralph Luck has been unavailable for comment for several days. Perhaps the Guardian may have better luck in contacting Mr Luck to establish the facts than I have had. I suspect the council want to turn the recreation ground into a park to engineer a change of use blaming the Olympics for losing this facility. I also suspect part of the deal will include selling part of Drapers Field for building flats. The Northern Olympic Fringe Master Plan states “Drapers Field area could be packaged up as a single opportunity with a disposal to the market subject to a planning framework in place”. The link below shows how the flats on Drapers Field could be envisaged. This is part of a document produced by The London School of Economics. It is the Northern Olympic Fringe Urban Co-production. http://i908.photobuc ket.com/albums/ac290 /drapersfield/draper spark1.jpg The Northern Olympic Fringe Master Plan first showed the flats in their proposals as can be seen in the link below. The full version of this document has since been removed from the council web site. http://i908.photobuc ket.com/albums/ac290 /drapersfield/draper spark2.jpg blackandtan
  • Score: 0

7:24am Thu 5 Aug 10

blackandtan says...

All 3 parties Conservative, Liberals and Labour want flats on Drapers Field.

If the Labour party left us in a mess surely that means the Conservatives were dysfunctional in opposition.

The idea that all 3 parties work for the public is a joke they work for the establishment.
All 3 parties Conservative, Liberals and Labour want flats on Drapers Field. If the Labour party left us in a mess surely that means the Conservatives were dysfunctional in opposition. The idea that all 3 parties work for the public is a joke they work for the establishment. blackandtan
  • Score: 0

9:44am Thu 5 Aug 10

everoptimistic says...

blackandtan thinks that all three parties want flats on Drapers field. Labour seem desperate for any bit of land to build on they can find so probably right there. The Cons probably don't even know where Drapers is as it's not in the north of the borough. The Lib Dems seem to be the only party opposed at the moment. Perhaps users of Drapers should get together to oppose the proposals like the Leyton Triangle Group did for the Leyton Cricket Ground. Strength in numbers. Funny how Stratford has got all the prestigious bits of the Olympics whilst we have a bit of paving, some lamposts and a celebrity car park. Oh joy!!
blackandtan thinks that all three parties want flats on Drapers field. Labour seem desperate for any bit of land to build on they can find so probably right there. The Cons probably don't even know where Drapers is as it's not in the north of the borough. The Lib Dems seem to be the only party opposed at the moment. Perhaps users of Drapers should get together to oppose the proposals like the Leyton Triangle Group did for the Leyton Cricket Ground. Strength in numbers. Funny how Stratford has got all the prestigious bits of the Olympics whilst we have a bit of paving, some lamposts and a celebrity car park. Oh joy!! everoptimistic
  • Score: 0

9:21pm Mon 9 Aug 10

blackandtan says...

I went to see a representative of the Leyton and Wanstead Tory party after contacting their office. I showed him a document proposing flats on Drapers Field, part of the Northern Olympic Fringe. He said, “The government want flats.”

I am a Leyton resident and have never been contacted by the Tory party since. So, I don’t think Mr Northover will be fighting against the flats on Drapers Field.
I went to see a representative of the Leyton and Wanstead Tory party after contacting their office. I showed him a document proposing flats on Drapers Field, part of the Northern Olympic Fringe. He said, “The government want flats.” I am a Leyton resident and have never been contacted by the Tory party since. So, I don’t think Mr Northover will be fighting against the flats on Drapers Field. blackandtan
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Tue 10 Aug 10

Mr Bernard says...

Blackandtan - I am a member of the Leyton and Wanstead Conservatives and I for one will definately be opposing plans to build flats on Drapers Field. There is so little open space in the south of the borough that I think places such as these should not be built on for no reason, especially not for more flats.
Blackandtan - I am a member of the Leyton and Wanstead Conservatives and I for one will definately be opposing plans to build flats on Drapers Field. There is so little open space in the south of the borough that I think places such as these should not be built on for no reason, especially not for more flats. Mr Bernard
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree