CHINGFORD: Stow £14.5m loss revealed - as Boris decision delayed

East London and West Essex Guardian Series: CHINGFORD: Stow '£14.5m' loss revealed - as Boris decision delayed CHINGFORD: Stow '£14.5m' loss revealed - as Boris decision delayed

A HOUSING association partly funded by the taxpayer could lose at least £14.5million from building a housing estate at Walthamstow Stadium, it has emerged.


Newly released figures also confirm that developers London and Quadrant (L&Q) bought the iconic site in Chingford Road for £18million in 2008, but the land is now valued at around £7million.


The revelations come from L&Q's own viability assessment of its plans, which Waltham Forest Council has finally made public after a Freedom of Information battle with campaigners.


The authority originally refused to release the documents, saying they were “commercially sensitive” to L&Q, but the government's Information Commissioner ordered their publication.

L&Q said it did not consider the shortfall to be a "loss" because it would be funded by its reserves.

A spokesman said as a not-for-proft group it invested long-term on housing to generate a surplus which was then re-invested.


The news comes as the council announced today that a final decision on the plans by London Mayor Boris Johnson will be delayed by a week.

Labour councillors approved L&Q's planning application to build 294 homes at the former dog racing venue in May but Mr Johnson has the final say due to the size of the development.

He was due to make a decision next Wednesday (October 24) but it has now been delayed until Tuesday October 30.

A council spokesman said: "we have been advised that the Mayor of London could no longer consider the application on the 24th October due to [a] personal holiday commitment.

"In the spirit of cooperation, our referral of the application has been withdrawn but has subsequently been resubmitted, giving the Greater London Assembly a further 14 days to determine the application".


Campaigners from Save Our Stow (SOS), which wants to see a return of greyhound racing at the stadium, said the revelations about the potential losses to L&Q demonstrated why Mr Johnson should reject the scheme.


SOS previously estimated L&Q's losses at £26million but spokesman Ricky Holloway said the £14.5million figure was misleading because the viability document was drawn up back in July 2011.


He claims the actual loss to L&Q is now around £24million, including £3.8million in 'section 106' community grant money L&Q is paying the council.


SOS estimates that flood relief work and other additional works identified after the viability assessment was completed have cost around £1.1million, that planning revisions would have cost an additional £500,000 and that L&Q were also likely to have spent £2.8million on holding costs while the site has been empty.


They say the £1.4million that L&Q expects to receive in grant money is “unreasonable” and believe that should also be counted towards the housing association's losses.


Mr Holloway said: “Boris Johnson now has very little choice but to call in the doomed site from the ill-run local council.

"Boris has stated that one of his main concerns is viability and his preferred option has always been greyhound racing and a mixed use site to which L&Q plans do not offer but create a public purse scandal of a £24.1 million loss."


The viability document estimates that the development will cost around £81million to build but £66.4million will be clawed back in payment from its new residents and grant money.

A L&Q spokesman said there was no cost to the taxpayer other than via the grant received from the government.

He added: “We look forward to the London Mayor's decision on our Walthamstow Stadium plans, which were approved by Waltham Forest Council in May.

"We propose to invest £50 million in creating 294 homes, a community-run sports centre, pocket allotments and a children's nursery.

"This regeneration scheme would create up to 250 jobs and would bring the architectural heritage of the site back into use for the whole community.”

Comments (66)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:58pm Thu 18 Oct 12

waltham says...

How did labour pass this application.

This council should be ashamed 500 people lost their jobs.

This council must go- the application was a total "fix" and L&Q want the tax payer to foot the 24 million loss .

Where are the tory & lib dem councillors !! - demand an enquiry
How did labour pass this application. This council should be ashamed 500 people lost their jobs. This council must go- the application was a total "fix" and L&Q want the tax payer to foot the 24 million loss . Where are the tory & lib dem councillors !! - demand an enquiry waltham

2:44pm Thu 18 Oct 12

Stow Residents/Community Association says...

A request has been submitted asking for an investigation into what the Mayor has called this "public purse scandal".

If you wish to view the viability assessment document yourselves please use the following link

http://stowresidents
.btck.co.uk/News

If you pay tax and do not want your money spent in this manner email
mayor@london.gov.uk and your councillors and MPs.

Let them know what you think.
A request has been submitted asking for an investigation into what the Mayor has called this "public purse scandal". If you wish to view the viability assessment document yourselves please use the following link http://stowresidents .btck.co.uk/News If you pay tax and do not want your money spent in this manner email mayor@london.gov.uk and your councillors and MPs. Let them know what you think. Stow Residents/Community Association

4:22pm Thu 18 Oct 12

bullyboy says...

Totally agree with waltham on this. The quicker boris johnson puts the nail in L&Q coffin the better. The bottom line is most residents want the greyhound stadium back open so do our local mps Ian duncan smith and stella creasy. More jobs for people which is needed in this area so come on boris johnson kick these plans into the dustbin and lets have our beautiful stadium back which is world renowned
Totally agree with waltham on this. The quicker boris johnson puts the nail in L&Q coffin the better. The bottom line is most residents want the greyhound stadium back open so do our local mps Ian duncan smith and stella creasy. More jobs for people which is needed in this area so come on boris johnson kick these plans into the dustbin and lets have our beautiful stadium back which is world renowned bullyboy

4:26pm Thu 18 Oct 12

waltham says...

L&Q claim not tax payer money - they are tax payer funded from government !!

250 jobs - where ??? absolute rubbish

What is the community going to gain other than a "old style broadwater farm "

There is nothing for anybody here.

An RSL has just spent 18 million on land worth 7 million with our taxes
L&Q claim not tax payer money - they are tax payer funded from government !! 250 jobs - where ??? absolute rubbish What is the community going to gain other than a "old style broadwater farm " There is nothing for anybody here. An RSL has just spent 18 million on land worth 7 million with our taxes waltham

4:27pm Thu 18 Oct 12

TTMAN says...

Hang on a mo they haven't made a loss because they have reserves.
If I lose a pound and have one in reserve in my pocket that does not negate the fact that I lost the first one.
Hang on a mo they haven't made a loss because they have reserves. If I lose a pound and have one in reserve in my pocket that does not negate the fact that I lost the first one. TTMAN

4:56pm Thu 18 Oct 12

Trevor 2 says...

Another case of 'Where's the surprise?'. This fiasco was violin playing from the beginning with 'Robbing Robbins and his gang at the helm!!
Another case of 'Where's the surprise?'. This fiasco was violin playing from the beginning with 'Robbing Robbins and his gang at the helm!! Trevor 2

5:00pm Thu 18 Oct 12

sensibility says...

All I have are more questions and more concerns.

What sensible professional business person deliberately invests in something that is not profit making but loss making? I really dont understand the logic. Would most when a loss is spotted try to minimise the loss rather than make a bigger loss?

If L&Q have reserves why did they make so many cutbacks?

If they have reserves why do they need to apply for grants ie taxpayer money?

If they have the money in the bank then they shouldnt get any taxpayer money.

If it wasnt public money would the mayor refer to it as creating 'a public purse scandal'?

Will the section 106 money actually be paid by L&Q or will it be down to us local taxpayers to have to find it if L&Q say in the future they can no longer afford it.

All this is very worrying.
All I have are more questions and more concerns. What sensible professional business person deliberately invests in something that is not profit making but loss making? I really dont understand the logic. Would most when a loss is spotted try to minimise the loss rather than make a bigger loss? If L&Q have reserves why did they make so many cutbacks? If they have reserves why do they need to apply for grants ie taxpayer money? If they have the money in the bank then they shouldnt get any taxpayer money. If it wasnt public money would the mayor refer to it as creating 'a public purse scandal'? Will the section 106 money actually be paid by L&Q or will it be down to us local taxpayers to have to find it if L&Q say in the future they can no longer afford it. All this is very worrying. sensibility

5:12pm Thu 18 Oct 12

waltham says...

From L&Q accounts


2. The balance sheet is showing 2.5 BILLION of capital grants

3. They received £65M in grants in 2012.

Not Tax payer funded - ?????

Your robbing the borough thats why robbins & pye tried to hide this report up from the residents.

The stow was a"fix" cllr vincent sat there with no clue and she was told how to vote.
She along with her cronies on planning should resign
From L&Q accounts 2. The balance sheet is showing 2.5 BILLION of capital grants 3. They received £65M in grants in 2012. Not Tax payer funded - ????? Your robbing the borough thats why robbins & pye tried to hide this report up from the residents. The stow was a"fix" cllr vincent sat there with no clue and she was told how to vote. She along with her cronies on planning should resign waltham

5:39pm Thu 18 Oct 12

Techno3 says...

To put these figures in perspective, the council and London and Quadrant are planning to throw away around a £100 of taxpayers' hard earned money for each and every single person who lives in Waltham Forest, while wrecking the neighbourhood in the process. The sum is much greater per head if we consider just people in Walthamstow

But this money doesn't come from thin air. It had to be earned before it could be wasted.

The waste represents taxes not far off £400 per Walthamstow taxpayer.

The next time people from Walthamstow look at their payslips and see all those taxes being deducted, everyone should consider just how much better those taxes could have been spent than on this disgraceful exercise in arrogance, vanity and folly.

Think of the public toilets, the libraries, the potholes filled in that this money could have bought us. Think of the dogtrack, operating and providing employment and contributing to our local economy.

There are many people responsible at the council and at London and Quadrant but there are also four people who could have stopped this but refused to: 4 councillors were told in detail what was wrong with these plans at a planning meeting but who then ignored everything they were told and voted as a block to grant planning permission:

Asim Mahmood, Jenny Gray, Ebony Vincent and Peter Barnett.

They would all resign, if they have any personal integrity at all.




.
To put these figures in perspective, the council and London and Quadrant are planning to throw away around a £100 of taxpayers' hard earned money for each and every single person who lives in Waltham Forest, while wrecking the neighbourhood in the process. The sum is much greater per head if we consider just people in Walthamstow But this money doesn't come from thin air. It had to be earned before it could be wasted. The waste represents taxes not far off £400 per Walthamstow taxpayer. The next time people from Walthamstow look at their payslips and see all those taxes being deducted, everyone should consider just how much better those taxes could have been spent than on this disgraceful exercise in arrogance, vanity and folly. Think of the public toilets, the libraries, the potholes filled in that this money could have bought us. Think of the dogtrack, operating and providing employment and contributing to our local economy. There are many people responsible at the council and at London and Quadrant but there are also four people who could have stopped this but refused to: 4 councillors were told in detail what was wrong with these plans at a planning meeting but who then ignored everything they were told and voted as a block to grant planning permission: Asim Mahmood, Jenny Gray, Ebony Vincent and Peter Barnett. They would all resign, if they have any personal integrity at all. . Techno3

6:36pm Thu 18 Oct 12

Isaythat says...

Techno3...... explains the situation precisely.

Stow Residents/Community Association. Letter sent.
Techno3...... explains the situation precisely. Stow Residents/Community Association. Letter sent. Isaythat

7:10pm Thu 18 Oct 12

bishbosh says...

L and Q are a particularly chameleon like organisation..one minute they are a charitable housing trust..next minute hard nosed property speculators. Housing Associations are allowed to develop full cost private sale and rent housing for the surplus to subsidise affordable and social housing provision backed up by government kick start funding. In the last few years the government have reduced this funding by 60-70%. L and Q probably intended to build maybe 40-50% affordable and social housing on the Stow but have made the decision to radically reduce this as a cost saving exercise. Waltham Forest are complicite in this through selling the affordable requirement for miserley S 106 payments e.g 1.75million for loss of leisure already earmarked as wasted on leisure consultancy. Whoever within the council members encouraged this deal should be sacked. In no way do the proposals go anywhere near meeting housing needs within the borough and to ignore local opinion in such an anti democratic way should lead to the so called socialist group being kicked out at the next election. They clearly have very little idea of what matters to local people and what a success a re vamped Stow could be with private investment. L and Q's claim that 250 sustainable jobs will be created is a lie like so many other of their claims. There are a number of reasons why Waltham Forest have been so helpful in the planning process..most of them have nothing to do with meeting the needs of the local community. L and Q have pushed forward with this as a very well paid board of directors would have to admit a massive error of investment judgement also they have Quadrant Construction waiting eagerly to make a massive development surplus. L and Q strangely enough are carrying out 22 million of cutbacks in their social housing provision with loss of jobs within their own organisation..clearl
y changing to suit the financial climate. This is also the amount they have wasted on the Stow purchase...how m uch more are they going to waste?
L and Q are a particularly chameleon like organisation..one minute they are a charitable housing trust..next minute hard nosed property speculators. Housing Associations are allowed to develop full cost private sale and rent housing for the surplus to subsidise affordable and social housing provision backed up by government kick start funding. In the last few years the government have reduced this funding by 60-70%. L and Q probably intended to build maybe 40-50% affordable and social housing on the Stow but have made the decision to radically reduce this as a cost saving exercise. Waltham Forest are complicite in this through selling the affordable requirement for miserley S 106 payments e.g 1.75million for loss of leisure already earmarked as wasted on leisure consultancy. Whoever within the council members encouraged this deal should be sacked. In no way do the proposals go anywhere near meeting housing needs within the borough and to ignore local opinion in such an anti democratic way should lead to the so called socialist group being kicked out at the next election. They clearly have very little idea of what matters to local people and what a success a re vamped Stow could be with private investment. L and Q's claim that 250 sustainable jobs will be created is a lie like so many other of their claims. There are a number of reasons why Waltham Forest have been so helpful in the planning process..most of them have nothing to do with meeting the needs of the local community. L and Q have pushed forward with this as a very well paid board of directors would have to admit a massive error of investment judgement also they have Quadrant Construction waiting eagerly to make a massive development surplus. L and Q strangely enough are carrying out 22 million of cutbacks in their social housing provision with loss of jobs within their own organisation..clearl y changing to suit the financial climate. This is also the amount they have wasted on the Stow purchase...how m uch more are they going to waste? bishbosh

7:17pm Thu 18 Oct 12

Walthamster says...

L&Q want to throw good money after bad - and it's largely public money they're throwing down the drain.

The scheme was unwanted and unnecessary from the start. Now it's a financial disaster too. This has to stop before it gets any worse.
L&Q want to throw good money after bad - and it's largely public money they're throwing down the drain. The scheme was unwanted and unnecessary from the start. Now it's a financial disaster too. This has to stop before it gets any worse. Walthamster

9:15pm Thu 18 Oct 12

mdj says...

'L&Q said it did not consider the shortfall to be a "loss" because it would be funded by its reserves.

This gives a whole new twist to the term 'Not for Profit Company': that's the only part of their business model we can rely on!
How can it be legal for a tax-payer funded outfit to propose a course of action it knows will never at best recoup more than 80% of the outlay?

As a footnote, it's interesting to see that both L+Q and ISHA, the lucky applicants for the Arcade site, are both members of the Developers Network at North London Business, a strange inbred quango partly funded by the Council, which seems to have influence without responsibility. Its Chief Executive is Gary Ince, who has quietly UN-resigned since his conflict of interest over the Leyton Market fiasco, and who spoke in favour of the L+Q scheme at the Planning meeting, though listed on the agenda as a 'member of the public'.
'L&Q said it did not consider the shortfall to be a "loss" because it would be funded by its reserves. This gives a whole new twist to the term 'Not for Profit Company': that's the only part of their business model we can rely on! How can it be legal for a tax-payer funded outfit to propose a course of action it knows will never at best recoup more than 80% of the outlay? As a footnote, it's interesting to see that both L+Q and ISHA, the lucky applicants for the Arcade site, are both members of the Developers Network at North London Business, a strange inbred quango partly funded by the Council, which seems to have influence without responsibility. Its Chief Executive is Gary Ince, who has quietly UN-resigned since his conflict of interest over the Leyton Market fiasco, and who spoke in favour of the L+Q scheme at the Planning meeting, though listed on the agenda as a 'member of the public'. mdj

10:48pm Thu 18 Oct 12

Walthamster says...

mdj wrote:
'L&Q said it did not consider the shortfall to be a "loss" because it would be funded by its reserves.

This gives a whole new twist to the term 'Not for Profit Company': that's the only part of their business model we can rely on!
How can it be legal for a tax-payer funded outfit to propose a course of action it knows will never at best recoup more than 80% of the outlay?

As a footnote, it's interesting to see that both L+Q and ISHA, the lucky applicants for the Arcade site, are both members of the Developers Network at North London Business, a strange inbred quango partly funded by the Council, which seems to have influence without responsibility. Its Chief Executive is Gary Ince, who has quietly UN-resigned since his conflict of interest over the Leyton Market fiasco, and who spoke in favour of the L+Q scheme at the Planning meeting, though listed on the agenda as a 'member of the public'.
What? L&Q is a member of this North London Business quango, whose chief executive spoke up in favour of L&Q at the committee meeting as a "member of the public"? That shouldn't be allowed.

There seems to be a whole tangled web of special interests among people in positions of power. And very strange decisions are being made for unaccountable reasons.

We need someone in authority to shine a light into this messy business.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: 'L&Q said it did not consider the shortfall to be a "loss" because it would be funded by its reserves. This gives a whole new twist to the term 'Not for Profit Company': that's the only part of their business model we can rely on! How can it be legal for a tax-payer funded outfit to propose a course of action it knows will never at best recoup more than 80% of the outlay? As a footnote, it's interesting to see that both L+Q and ISHA, the lucky applicants for the Arcade site, are both members of the Developers Network at North London Business, a strange inbred quango partly funded by the Council, which seems to have influence without responsibility. Its Chief Executive is Gary Ince, who has quietly UN-resigned since his conflict of interest over the Leyton Market fiasco, and who spoke in favour of the L+Q scheme at the Planning meeting, though listed on the agenda as a 'member of the public'.[/p][/quote]What? L&Q is a member of this North London Business quango, whose chief executive spoke up in favour of L&Q at the committee meeting as a "member of the public"? That shouldn't be allowed. There seems to be a whole tangled web of special interests among people in positions of power. And very strange decisions are being made for unaccountable reasons. We need someone in authority to shine a light into this messy business. Walthamster

10:54pm Thu 18 Oct 12

bullyboy says...

walthamster i agree with you this has been a complete shambles from the start i was at the town hall meeting the lies coming out of there mouths were disgraceful the people there were so angry at these plans i so hope boris kicks these labour councillors were it hurts and throws this finally into the dustbin our dog stadium is a national treasure
walthamster i agree with you this has been a complete shambles from the start i was at the town hall meeting the lies coming out of there mouths were disgraceful the people there were so angry at these plans i so hope boris kicks these labour councillors were it hurts and throws this finally into the dustbin our dog stadium is a national treasure bullyboy

11:37pm Thu 18 Oct 12

ElvisV says...

How many new affordable homes could be built now by L&Q, if they didn't have to use 'their reserves' to cover 'their shortfall'?
How many new affordable homes could be built now by L&Q, if they didn't have to use 'their reserves' to cover 'their shortfall'? ElvisV

12:46am Fri 19 Oct 12

waltham says...

This is a public disgrace that every resident should email the mayor and stop labour "selling " on the cheap the stadium
1,75 million s106 dont tell me david scourfield .... what a surprise ,,not..

who pulls the strings robbins loakes and pye ...

All three are the rot of the borough and they should thrown out of the labour party
This is a public disgrace that every resident should email the mayor and stop labour "selling " on the cheap the stadium 1,75 million s106 dont tell me david scourfield .... what a surprise ,,not.. who pulls the strings robbins loakes and pye ... All three are the rot of the borough and they should thrown out of the labour party waltham

6:31am Fri 19 Oct 12

Isaythat says...

This is an outrage and if people with information as above should write to Boris as a matter of urgency. My letter to Boris Johnson was sent yesterday. Email your friends, put a message on facebook, do everything to spread the word and encourage as many people as possible to give Boris whatever information they may have and to voice their opinion (we have to assume he really does not know). Anyone not speaking out now will be partly to blame for these underhand activities continuing.
This is an outrage and if people with information as above should write to Boris as a matter of urgency. My letter to Boris Johnson was sent yesterday. Email your friends, put a message on facebook, do everything to spread the word and encourage as many people as possible to give Boris whatever information they may have and to voice their opinion (we have to assume he really does not know). Anyone not speaking out now will be partly to blame for these underhand activities continuing. Isaythat

7:23am Fri 19 Oct 12

Mr Brittas says...

Whilst I agree with the comments about Cllrs Robbins, Loakes & Pye. No-one has mentioned they are specifically advised as to what decisions to make by the very highly paid Chief Executive, Director of Public Realm etc. Cllrs can be made accountable through election results. These highly paid "Mandarins" cannot be held accountable at all by the public only by the Cllrs. I think "Patients running the asylum" springs to mind.
Whilst I agree with the comments about Cllrs Robbins, Loakes & Pye. No-one has mentioned they are specifically advised as to what decisions to make by the very highly paid Chief Executive, Director of Public Realm etc. Cllrs can be made accountable through election results. These highly paid "Mandarins" cannot be held accountable at all by the public only by the Cllrs. I think "Patients running the asylum" springs to mind. Mr Brittas

7:49am Fri 19 Oct 12

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY says...

AT LAST!!! the truth is out. its been a long wait but lets just hope all the people responsible suffer the consequences.
a special mention must go to the vile CHANDLER family - people whos greed and deceit triggered all of this crap. i hope they get what they fully deserve - a visit from the fraud squad.

so, altogether now.. L&Q - PLEASE GO AWAY.
AT LAST!!! the truth is out. its been a long wait but lets just hope all the people responsible suffer the consequences. a special mention must go to the vile CHANDLER family - people whos greed and deceit triggered all of this crap. i hope they get what they fully deserve - a visit from the fraud squad. so, altogether now.. L&Q - PLEASE GO AWAY. L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY

7:54am Fri 19 Oct 12

Trevor 2 says...

Mr Brittas wrote:
Whilst I agree with the comments about Cllrs Robbins, Loakes & Pye. No-one has mentioned they are specifically advised as to what decisions to make by the very highly paid Chief Executive, Director of Public Realm etc. Cllrs can be made accountable through election results. These highly paid "Mandarins" cannot be held accountable at all by the public only by the Cllrs. I think "Patients running the asylum" springs to mind.
The WHOLE gang of violin players in the big white building on Forest Road are to blame for the state of this Borough. With all the dissatisfaction with their goings-on how the hell do they keep being voted back in!!
[quote][p][bold]Mr Brittas[/bold] wrote: Whilst I agree with the comments about Cllrs Robbins, Loakes & Pye. No-one has mentioned they are specifically advised as to what decisions to make by the very highly paid Chief Executive, Director of Public Realm etc. Cllrs can be made accountable through election results. These highly paid "Mandarins" cannot be held accountable at all by the public only by the Cllrs. I think "Patients running the asylum" springs to mind.[/p][/quote]The WHOLE gang of violin players in the big white building on Forest Road are to blame for the state of this Borough. With all the dissatisfaction with their goings-on how the hell do they keep being voted back in!! Trevor 2

8:55am Fri 19 Oct 12

Walthamster says...

Trevor 2 wrote:
Mr Brittas wrote:
Whilst I agree with the comments about Cllrs Robbins, Loakes & Pye. No-one has mentioned they are specifically advised as to what decisions to make by the very highly paid Chief Executive, Director of Public Realm etc. Cllrs can be made accountable through election results. These highly paid "Mandarins" cannot be held accountable at all by the public only by the Cllrs. I think "Patients running the asylum" springs to mind.
The WHOLE gang of violin players in the big white building on Forest Road are to blame for the state of this Borough. With all the dissatisfaction with their goings-on how the hell do they keep being voted back in!!
How do they keep getting voted back in? That's a whole other story, Trevor2. Remember the election when Liaquat Ali got 105 per cent of the vote? We have some very strange voting patterns in Waltham Forest ...
[quote][p][bold]Trevor 2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Brittas[/bold] wrote: Whilst I agree with the comments about Cllrs Robbins, Loakes & Pye. No-one has mentioned they are specifically advised as to what decisions to make by the very highly paid Chief Executive, Director of Public Realm etc. Cllrs can be made accountable through election results. These highly paid "Mandarins" cannot be held accountable at all by the public only by the Cllrs. I think "Patients running the asylum" springs to mind.[/p][/quote]The WHOLE gang of violin players in the big white building on Forest Road are to blame for the state of this Borough. With all the dissatisfaction with their goings-on how the hell do they keep being voted back in!![/p][/quote]How do they keep getting voted back in? That's a whole other story, Trevor2. Remember the election when Liaquat Ali got 105 per cent of the vote? We have some very strange voting patterns in Waltham Forest ... Walthamster

9:06am Fri 19 Oct 12

sensibility says...

Why cant anyone answer the questions I posted?

I have looked at the viability assessment. Where is the expenditure for all the things that changed after the report was issued such as the skate park and the new fangled flood defence items?

The flood stuff is far more complex that original plans?

Is this going to cost far more than their projected losses?

As for L&Q stating "We propose to invest £50 million in creating 294 homes, a community-run sports centre, pocket allotments and a children's nursery.

"This regeneration scheme would create up to 250 jobs and would bring the architectural heritage of the site back into use for the whole community.”

Is all this 50 million tax payers money?
Is another sports centre needed? There are plenty locally?

Where are the 250 jobs coming from I cant find anything on that showing 250 permanent jobs?

As for the statement saying it brings the "architectural heritage of the site back into use for the whole community.” is this not a play on words
from what I can see a great deal of the public space is private?

Can someone answer these questions please
Why cant anyone answer the questions I posted? I have looked at the viability assessment. Where is the expenditure for all the things that changed after the report was issued such as the skate park and the new fangled flood defence items? The flood stuff is far more complex that original plans? Is this going to cost far more than their projected losses? As for L&Q stating "We propose to invest £50 million in creating 294 homes, a community-run sports centre, pocket allotments and a children's nursery. "This regeneration scheme would create up to 250 jobs and would bring the architectural heritage of the site back into use for the whole community.” Is all this 50 million tax payers money? Is another sports centre needed? There are plenty locally? Where are the 250 jobs coming from I cant find anything on that showing 250 permanent jobs? As for the statement saying it brings the "architectural heritage of the site back into use for the whole community.” is this not a play on words from what I can see a great deal of the public space is private? Can someone answer these questions please sensibility

9:07am Fri 19 Oct 12

sensibility says...

oppps pushed send instead of return.

Can someone tell me where all these people will park. There doesnt seem to be enough parking spaces
oppps pushed send instead of return. Can someone tell me where all these people will park. There doesnt seem to be enough parking spaces sensibility

9:39am Fri 19 Oct 12

Mark Dawes says...

What is the alternative from the position we are in now?

If L&Q sell - ignore the £7m figure above, that is not or ever was, the market value of the land - it is still likely to be less than they paid for it so any losses will be to the tax payer following the points above anyway.

Any housing scheme would be far more financially viable than a dog track scheme so if the housing scheme is making such a loss, a dog track would make a far greater loss - the same people who did the L&Q assessment found the dog track scheme "not financially viable (by a significant margin).” So even before the animal cruelty of dog racing, problems of gambling are considered, any scheme involving a dog track would have to be ruled out on economic grounds.

The only way to reduce the loss would therefore be a housing scheme with significantly more housing than the L&Q scheme but is that what residents want? I doubt it.
What is the alternative from the position we are in now? If L&Q sell - ignore the £7m figure above, that is not or ever was, the market value of the land - it is still likely to be less than they paid for it so any losses will be to the tax payer following the points above anyway. Any housing scheme would be far more financially viable than a dog track scheme so if the housing scheme is making such a loss, a dog track would make a far greater loss - the same people who did the L&Q assessment found the dog track scheme "not financially viable (by a significant margin).” So even before the animal cruelty of dog racing, problems of gambling are considered, any scheme involving a dog track would have to be ruled out on economic grounds. The only way to reduce the loss would therefore be a housing scheme with significantly more housing than the L&Q scheme but is that what residents want? I doubt it. Mark Dawes

9:52am Fri 19 Oct 12

sensibility says...

@mark dawes

as a taxpayer I would like to see minimal losses rather than greater losses.

If L&Q were providing loads of social housing and reducing waiting lists in the borough dramatically I am sure there would be some sympathy but thats not the case.

This was L&Qs view initially they focused on homelessness. They stated they were provide homes for those who desperately needed them but didnt deliver.

For a reminder listen here:

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=6XOKtx-x3
XA

as for 4 bedroom properties at over £400,000 I would be surprised to see them sell quickly
@mark dawes as a taxpayer I would like to see minimal losses rather than greater losses. If L&Q were providing loads of social housing and reducing waiting lists in the borough dramatically I am sure there would be some sympathy but thats not the case. This was L&Qs view initially they focused on homelessness. They stated they were provide homes for those who desperately needed them but didnt deliver. For a reminder listen here: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=6XOKtx-x3 XA as for 4 bedroom properties at over £400,000 I would be surprised to see them sell quickly sensibility

9:53am Fri 19 Oct 12

sensibility says...

@ mark dawes, I forgot to ask, can you answer the questions I need answers to?

You appear a little knowledgeable on this
@ mark dawes, I forgot to ask, can you answer the questions I need answers to? You appear a little knowledgeable on this sensibility

12:28pm Fri 19 Oct 12

waltham says...

Mark Dawes once again the green party get it wrong

Government inspector ruling -" L&Q have failed to show the dog track as not viable " Paul Clarke govt inspector

The track is viable and L&Q scheme is not - FACT

Please get your facts correct before your remarks are made on a public forum
Mark Dawes once again the green party get it wrong Government inspector ruling -" L&Q have failed to show the dog track as not viable " Paul Clarke govt inspector The track is viable and L&Q scheme is not - FACT Please get your facts correct before your remarks are made on a public forum waltham

12:30pm Fri 19 Oct 12

red37red says...

l&q would be very happy if the place went up in flames so they can get there ghetto estate built on the grounds!

just hope boris keeps to his word!
l&q would be very happy if the place went up in flames so they can get there ghetto estate built on the grounds! just hope boris keeps to his word! red37red

1:13pm Fri 19 Oct 12

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY says...

the dog track was viable.

the only reason it showed a loss was because the chandlers salted away millions in the pension fund for 3 years - thus showing the place was making a loss for the necessary time period to get change of usage.

im sure 1 of the chaps from SOS will provide the correct figures, but i think their pension fund copped in excess of 3m over those 3 years. before pension payments, the place made over 2m in that 3 year period - despite it being run into the ground by THAT family. check the accounts for accurate figures.

btw - this has ceased to be about 'do u want a dog track or not' any longer. this is about a council and a housing association thinking they are untouchable.

the total council have been dictatorial over this matter.
are they doing what their residents/voters want? NO
have they behaved democratically? NO

THEY HAVE DONE WHAT THEY WANT AND FECK THE LOT OF YOU.

remember that come voting time.
the dog track was viable. the only reason it showed a loss was because the chandlers salted away millions in the pension fund for 3 years - thus showing the place was making a loss for the necessary time period to get change of usage. im sure 1 of the chaps from SOS will provide the correct figures, but i think their pension fund copped in excess of 3m over those 3 years. before pension payments, the place made over 2m in that 3 year period - despite it being run into the ground by THAT family. check the accounts for accurate figures. btw - this has ceased to be about 'do u want a dog track or not' any longer. this is about a council and a housing association thinking they are untouchable. the total council have been dictatorial over this matter. are they doing what their residents/voters want? NO have they behaved democratically? NO THEY HAVE DONE WHAT THEY WANT AND FECK THE LOT OF YOU. remember that come voting time. L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY

3:10pm Fri 19 Oct 12

mickthemiller says...

Techno3 is absolutely right ! and L&Q PLEASEGOAWAY is right as well ! greyhound racing is viable, its a great night out., provided entertainment for all,
It also provided jobs for all locals, and trade for local business. The Stow was 2nd to none for the best greyhound welfare scheme ! I sincerely hope the Mayor does the right thing and calls in the site. I would like to see an investigation into the local councils dealings with L&Q what has gone on is NOT right. Where are the rights of residents of Waltham Forest, why has the council not listened to them? Thank goodness for the SaveourStow team.
Techno3 is absolutely right ! and L&Q PLEASEGOAWAY is right as well ! greyhound racing is viable, its a great night out., provided entertainment for all, It also provided jobs for all locals, and trade for local business. The Stow was 2nd to none for the best greyhound welfare scheme ! I sincerely hope the Mayor does the right thing and calls in the site. I would like to see an investigation into the local councils dealings with L&Q what has gone on is NOT right. Where are the rights of residents of Waltham Forest, why has the council not listened to them? Thank goodness for the SaveourStow team. mickthemiller

5:31pm Fri 19 Oct 12

bishbosh says...

@sensibility..the viability we are now being allowed to see was set in June 2011. Since then the plans have changed and other matters have come to light requiring extra expenditure such as environmental costs relating to the River Ching and removal of contaminated land. These extra costs are not shown in the viability that was allowed to go forward through the process..this is of course disgraceful as it is intended to mislead. It is certain the development will cost more than the stated 81 million... L and Q are not worried as their construction arm will do the work. Check out who are the directors. There will never be 250 sustainable jobs created by this development. Not all construction money will be taxpayers as the kick start funding has been dramatically reduced to build affordable homes...however L and Q have over the years have amassed a a large property portfolio due to massive injections of government cash for them to provide affordable and social housing. Both they and the pathetically
undemocratic local council are failing miserably the housing needs of the local community. Even after all this time some on these threads do not get what is going on. The Stow would be a massively viable business with the far side being developed for genuine affordable and social housing with hundreds of local sustainable jobs being returned to boost the local economy.
@sensibility..the viability we are now being allowed to see was set in June 2011. Since then the plans have changed and other matters have come to light requiring extra expenditure such as environmental costs relating to the River Ching and removal of contaminated land. These extra costs are not shown in the viability that was allowed to go forward through the process..this is of course disgraceful as it is intended to mislead. It is certain the development will cost more than the stated 81 million... L and Q are not worried as their construction arm will do the work. Check out who are the directors. There will never be 250 sustainable jobs created by this development. Not all construction money will be taxpayers as the kick start funding has been dramatically reduced to build affordable homes...however L and Q have over the years have amassed a a large property portfolio due to massive injections of government cash for them to provide affordable and social housing. Both they and the pathetically undemocratic local council are failing miserably the housing needs of the local community. Even after all this time some on these threads do not get what is going on. The Stow would be a massively viable business with the far side being developed for genuine affordable and social housing with hundreds of local sustainable jobs being returned to boost the local economy. bishbosh

7:06pm Fri 19 Oct 12

bullyboy says...

mickthemiller i second that we cannot let our track go its world renowned this cannot happen we want it back and boris should stick to what he said and also agree with our mp ian duncan smith the track is a national treasure i so hope to neon lights shine again
mickthemiller i second that we cannot let our track go its world renowned this cannot happen we want it back and boris should stick to what he said and also agree with our mp ian duncan smith the track is a national treasure i so hope to neon lights shine again bullyboy

11:55pm Fri 19 Oct 12

Mark Dawes says...

@Sensibility

Some of your questions would need to be answered by L&Q and issues around why the scheme may lose over £14m but in answer to some of your questions.

Housing providers would have reserves as a lot of the costs – building etc – would be up front and the returns – house sales, rent – would come in later.

Government grants would be to provide social housing which make less money than non-social housing but these grants would be earmarked and would not go to L&Q for other purposes like towards losses on housing schemes.

The Section 106 would be paid by L&Q regardless of the scheme making a loss and presumably would come out of their reserves.

The £50m L&Q are investing is not public money (aside from earmarked grants) but money from their business.

There are certainly wider issues about the provision of social housing and the lack of social housing of being built and I would not agree with the way housing associations are being encouraged to act more in the free market. The current Government have effectively ended support for new social housing which makes Iain Duncan Smith attacks on L&Q's lack of social housing strange as he is part of the Government!

There is a lot of misinformation being put out on this issue:- the tax payer will NOT foot the “24 million loss”- losses will come of out L&Q reserves.

As regards viability, the L&Q scheme may make a loss but will still be viable and whilst people are saying a dog track is viable, the evidence would strongly suggest it is not. As said, an assessment into the viability of a dog track found a dog track is "not financially viable (by a significant margin).”

This should not be a surprise as dog racing is a dying sport, there used to be 33 dog tracks in London, now it is down to three and tracks have closed elsewhere. Of course, Walthamstow itself closed with dwindling attendance and this was before the global recession and the harder economic times we have now. There are reasons for this: dog racing is part of the gambling industry and has been hit by internet gambling where people can bet on sporting events around the globe, people are far more aware of the cruelty to animals involved in dog racing, dog racing has less appeal to younger people etc

With this trend, it would be very unrealistic to expect a dog track to be economically viable if it ever reopened at Walthamstow.
@Sensibility Some of your questions would need to be answered by L&Q and issues around why the scheme may lose over £14m but in answer to some of your questions. Housing providers would have reserves as a lot of the costs – building etc – would be up front and the returns – house sales, rent – would come in later. Government grants would be to provide social housing which make less money than non-social housing but these grants would be earmarked and would not go to L&Q for other purposes like towards losses on housing schemes. The Section 106 would be paid by L&Q regardless of the scheme making a loss and presumably would come out of their reserves. The £50m L&Q are investing is not public money (aside from earmarked grants) but money from their business. There are certainly wider issues about the provision of social housing and the lack of social housing of being built and I would not agree with the way housing associations are being encouraged to act more in the free market. The current Government have effectively ended support for new social housing which makes Iain Duncan Smith attacks on L&Q's lack of social housing strange as he is part of the Government! There is a lot of misinformation being put out on this issue:- the tax payer will NOT foot the “24 million loss”- losses will come of out L&Q reserves. As regards viability, the L&Q scheme may make a loss but will still be viable and whilst people are saying a dog track is viable, the evidence would strongly suggest it is not. As said, an assessment into the viability of a dog track found a dog track is "not financially viable (by a significant margin).” This should not be a surprise as dog racing is a dying sport, there used to be 33 dog tracks in London, now it is down to three and tracks have closed elsewhere. Of course, Walthamstow itself closed with dwindling attendance and this was before the global recession and the harder economic times we have now. There are reasons for this: dog racing is part of the gambling industry and has been hit by internet gambling where people can bet on sporting events around the globe, people are far more aware of the cruelty to animals involved in dog racing, dog racing has less appeal to younger people etc With this trend, it would be very unrealistic to expect a dog track to be economically viable if it ever reopened at Walthamstow. Mark Dawes

10:06am Sat 20 Oct 12

Techno3 says...

Mark Dawes wrote:
@Sensibility

Some of your questions would need to be answered by L&Q and issues around why the scheme may lose over £14m but in answer to some of your questions.

Housing providers would have reserves as a lot of the costs – building etc – would be up front and the returns – house sales, rent – would come in later.

Government grants would be to provide social housing which make less money than non-social housing but these grants would be earmarked and would not go to L&Q for other purposes like towards losses on housing schemes.

The Section 106 would be paid by L&Q regardless of the scheme making a loss and presumably would come out of their reserves.

The £50m L&Q are investing is not public money (aside from earmarked grants) but money from their business.

There are certainly wider issues about the provision of social housing and the lack of social housing of being built and I would not agree with the way housing associations are being encouraged to act more in the free market. The current Government have effectively ended support for new social housing which makes Iain Duncan Smith attacks on L&Q's lack of social housing strange as he is part of the Government!

There is a lot of misinformation being put out on this issue:- the tax payer will NOT foot the “24 million loss”- losses will come of out L&Q reserves.

As regards viability, the L&Q scheme may make a loss but will still be viable and whilst people are saying a dog track is viable, the evidence would strongly suggest it is not. As said, an assessment into the viability of a dog track found a dog track is "not financially viable (by a significant margin).”

This should not be a surprise as dog racing is a dying sport, there used to be 33 dog tracks in London, now it is down to three and tracks have closed elsewhere. Of course, Walthamstow itself closed with dwindling attendance and this was before the global recession and the harder economic times we have now. There are reasons for this: dog racing is part of the gambling industry and has been hit by internet gambling where people can bet on sporting events around the globe, people are far more aware of the cruelty to animals involved in dog racing, dog racing has less appeal to younger people etc

With this trend, it would be very unrealistic to expect a dog track to be economically viable if it ever reopened at Walthamstow.
Mark, your green party have nothing to contribute in this community except negativity and higher taxes on people who can't afford them.

May I suggest that you stop spending your time pretending you know the first thing about viable businesses and where money comes from? Please also stop talking down everyone else's ideas to bring back employment and jobs.

If you want to help, set up one of your 'green' companies (using your own money and not asking the taxpayer for hand-outs or relying on legislation to force your competitors out of business or fines to bring you custimers) and demonstrate your ability to achieve things with your ideas.

What we need locally are people generating about 5000 jobs. There are about 5000 people looking for work in Walthamstow at the moment and they can't all get jobs wearing hi-viz jackets and carrying clipboards about to tell each other to wrap up warm and looking in other people's dustbins.
[quote][p][bold]Mark Dawes[/bold] wrote: @Sensibility Some of your questions would need to be answered by L&Q and issues around why the scheme may lose over £14m but in answer to some of your questions. Housing providers would have reserves as a lot of the costs – building etc – would be up front and the returns – house sales, rent – would come in later. Government grants would be to provide social housing which make less money than non-social housing but these grants would be earmarked and would not go to L&Q for other purposes like towards losses on housing schemes. The Section 106 would be paid by L&Q regardless of the scheme making a loss and presumably would come out of their reserves. The £50m L&Q are investing is not public money (aside from earmarked grants) but money from their business. There are certainly wider issues about the provision of social housing and the lack of social housing of being built and I would not agree with the way housing associations are being encouraged to act more in the free market. The current Government have effectively ended support for new social housing which makes Iain Duncan Smith attacks on L&Q's lack of social housing strange as he is part of the Government! There is a lot of misinformation being put out on this issue:- the tax payer will NOT foot the “24 million loss”- losses will come of out L&Q reserves. As regards viability, the L&Q scheme may make a loss but will still be viable and whilst people are saying a dog track is viable, the evidence would strongly suggest it is not. As said, an assessment into the viability of a dog track found a dog track is "not financially viable (by a significant margin).” This should not be a surprise as dog racing is a dying sport, there used to be 33 dog tracks in London, now it is down to three and tracks have closed elsewhere. Of course, Walthamstow itself closed with dwindling attendance and this was before the global recession and the harder economic times we have now. There are reasons for this: dog racing is part of the gambling industry and has been hit by internet gambling where people can bet on sporting events around the globe, people are far more aware of the cruelty to animals involved in dog racing, dog racing has less appeal to younger people etc With this trend, it would be very unrealistic to expect a dog track to be economically viable if it ever reopened at Walthamstow.[/p][/quote]Mark, your green party have nothing to contribute in this community except negativity and higher taxes on people who can't afford them. May I suggest that you stop spending your time pretending you know the first thing about viable businesses and where money comes from? Please also stop talking down everyone else's ideas to bring back employment and jobs. If you want to help, set up one of your 'green' companies (using your own money and not asking the taxpayer for hand-outs or relying on legislation to force your competitors out of business or fines to bring you custimers) and demonstrate your ability to achieve things with your ideas. What we need locally are people generating about 5000 jobs. There are about 5000 people looking for work in Walthamstow at the moment and they can't all get jobs wearing hi-viz jackets and carrying clipboards about to tell each other to wrap up warm and looking in other people's dustbins. Techno3

10:14am Sat 20 Oct 12

bishbosh says...

Friday and Saturday nights at Hall Green, Belle Vue, Sittingbourne and most other venues are rammed. Properly run tracks are completely viable. This is a no brainer. The last six years of Walthamstow accounts show where a 2 million profit each year went and that is without proper marketing. It is true it would not be all taxpayers money but L and Q have amassed a large portfolio on the basis of public money to provide affordable and social housing. This development fails miserably to provide this. I have no argument with properly run housing associations developing for profit and the private market to subsidise the provision of the real housing need in London. How can the Stow proposals meet any of the housing need when they want to provided next to nothing in affordable and social housing and NOT make any surplus to re invest for the next 30 years. Can you imagine the housing need in London in 30 years if this model were allowed to be repeated. Thousand more private landlords, extortionate rents, and property values sky high...maybe that is what this is all about...self interest. Some of the S106 payments will not be made until certain phases of the development are completed and anyone out there believes that the 1.75 million will go directly to improving the pool and track live in cloud cookoo land. How can anyone make a statement a development that will make at least 14 million loss be viable and a closed track employing over 300 people with a minimum profit of 1 million per annum be non viable?. Let us not forget that L and Q announced a 22 million cut back mainly in their social housing provision with the loss of jobs within their own organisation. About the same amount they have wasted trashing a perfectly viable business employing local people and contributing to the nightime economy. We can only guess at why they have carried on with this devlopment..it is definitely a case of making the best of a bad job and probably job retention of those directors who made the decision in the first place. Oh and spare a though for the elected member(s) who encouraged the deal in the first place..should this fail with all the loss of public money and political criticism..how would they survive...does anyone out there believe the member(s) have the best interest in mind of those that elected them.
Friday and Saturday nights at Hall Green, Belle Vue, Sittingbourne and most other venues are rammed. Properly run tracks are completely viable. This is a no brainer. The last six years of Walthamstow accounts show where a 2 million profit each year went and that is without proper marketing. It is true it would not be all taxpayers money but L and Q have amassed a large portfolio on the basis of public money to provide affordable and social housing. This development fails miserably to provide this. I have no argument with properly run housing associations developing for profit and the private market to subsidise the provision of the real housing need in London. How can the Stow proposals meet any of the housing need when they want to provided next to nothing in affordable and social housing and NOT make any surplus to re invest for the next 30 years. Can you imagine the housing need in London in 30 years if this model were allowed to be repeated. Thousand more private landlords, extortionate rents, and property values sky high...maybe that is what this is all about...self interest. Some of the S106 payments will not be made until certain phases of the development are completed and anyone out there believes that the 1.75 million will go directly to improving the pool and track live in cloud cookoo land. How can anyone make a statement a development that will make at least 14 million loss be viable and a closed track employing over 300 people with a minimum profit of 1 million per annum be non viable?. Let us not forget that L and Q announced a 22 million cut back mainly in their social housing provision with the loss of jobs within their own organisation. About the same amount they have wasted trashing a perfectly viable business employing local people and contributing to the nightime economy. We can only guess at why they have carried on with this devlopment..it is definitely a case of making the best of a bad job and probably job retention of those directors who made the decision in the first place. Oh and spare a though for the elected member(s) who encouraged the deal in the first place..should this fail with all the loss of public money and political criticism..how would they survive...does anyone out there believe the member(s) have the best interest in mind of those that elected them. bishbosh

12:56pm Sat 20 Oct 12

ElvisV says...

I would have thought the green party would also have recognised the positive contribution to the environment that the retention and re-use of the existing listed fabric would make? Refurbishment and re-use preserves the buildings and their embodied carbon. A brand new build scheme uses many of the earth's precious resources, and in the case of L&Q's scheme puts a significant flood risk issue into the area and the surrounding existing homes.
I would have thought the green party would also have recognised the positive contribution to the environment that the retention and re-use of the existing listed fabric would make? Refurbishment and re-use preserves the buildings and their embodied carbon. A brand new build scheme uses many of the earth's precious resources, and in the case of L&Q's scheme puts a significant flood risk issue into the area and the surrounding existing homes. ElvisV

1:42pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Walthamster says...

I've never understood why the local Green Party opposes the Stow and supports L&Q. The only element I understand is that they think greyhound racing is cruel; I'd rather see racing continue with any cruelty cleaned up, but fair enough, they have a point.

But why the support for unwanted flats in an overcrowded area? Why the disdain for local people's views? Are they taking to stop anyone voting for them?
I've never understood why the local Green Party opposes the Stow and supports L&Q. The only element I understand is that they think greyhound racing is cruel; I'd rather see racing continue with any cruelty cleaned up, but fair enough, they have a point. But why the support for unwanted flats in an overcrowded area? Why the disdain for local people's views? Are they taking to stop anyone voting for them? Walthamster

6:25pm Sat 20 Oct 12

sensibility says...

thank you all for your replies, I am still a little confused.

Arent L&Q reserves funded by public money?
thank you all for your replies, I am still a little confused. Arent L&Q reserves funded by public money? sensibility

12:29am Sun 21 Oct 12

waltham says...

mark Dawes your the only misinformed person - L&Q reserves are tax payer money that have been raised from government grants used to build other developments that have built.and then sold.

How can an RSL be allowed to have no social rent ?
How are L&Q helping the homeless of this borough ?
mark Dawes your the only misinformed person - L&Q reserves are tax payer money that have been raised from government grants used to build other developments that have built.and then sold. How can an RSL be allowed to have no social rent ? How are L&Q helping the homeless of this borough ? waltham

11:46am Sun 21 Oct 12

Walthamster says...

Walthamster wrote:
I've never understood why the local Green Party opposes the Stow and supports L&Q. The only element I understand is that they think greyhound racing is cruel; I'd rather see racing continue with any cruelty cleaned up, but fair enough, they have a point.

But why the support for unwanted flats in an overcrowded area? Why the disdain for local people's views? Are they taking to stop anyone voting for them?
Ooops, I meant are they trying to stop anyone voting for them.

We really need a political alternative in this borough, with its hopeless Labour party permanently entrenched because no one wants the Tories. But where is any alternative party that actually cares about the area, its environment and its people?
[quote][p][bold]Walthamster[/bold] wrote: I've never understood why the local Green Party opposes the Stow and supports L&Q. The only element I understand is that they think greyhound racing is cruel; I'd rather see racing continue with any cruelty cleaned up, but fair enough, they have a point. But why the support for unwanted flats in an overcrowded area? Why the disdain for local people's views? Are they taking to stop anyone voting for them?[/p][/quote]Ooops, I meant are they trying to stop anyone voting for them. We really need a political alternative in this borough, with its hopeless Labour party permanently entrenched because no one wants the Tories. But where is any alternative party that actually cares about the area, its environment and its people? Walthamster

1:29pm Sun 21 Oct 12

Isaythat says...

No party can do a worse job that is being done now!. Someone said If the new boundary plans go ahead it would change the majority and that's the reason for doing it. Do you think it is realistically possible for Conservatives to then win the next election in WF?
No party can do a worse job that is being done now!. Someone said If the new boundary plans go ahead it would change the majority and that's the reason for doing it. Do you think it is realistically possible for Conservatives to then win the next election in WF? Isaythat

2:52pm Sun 21 Oct 12

waltham says...

what are the tories & lib Dem doing - this topic must be a vote winner

A labour council has just passed a loss to the tax payer of 22.1 million pounds

That is a public disgrace and shows the scheme was fixed by a few in labour

Why dont the labour group make a statement - they approved this !!!

he dare break the code of robbins & co.

speak out now - tell us how it was fixed you owe it to the borough
what are the tories & lib Dem doing - this topic must be a vote winner A labour council has just passed a loss to the tax payer of 22.1 million pounds That is a public disgrace and shows the scheme was fixed by a few in labour Why dont the labour group make a statement - they approved this !!! he dare break the code of robbins & co. speak out now - tell us how it was fixed you owe it to the borough waltham

4:21pm Sun 21 Oct 12

Walthamster says...

Isaythat wrote:
No party can do a worse job that is being done now!. Someone said If the new boundary plans go ahead it would change the majority and that's the reason for doing it. Do you think it is realistically possible for Conservatives to then win the next election in WF?
Isaythat, I think the boundary changes only affect parliamentary boundaries. So Walthamstow could lose its genuinely useful Labour MP, Stella Creasy. But we're still stuck with the lousy Labour council!
[quote][p][bold]Isaythat[/bold] wrote: No party can do a worse job that is being done now!. Someone said If the new boundary plans go ahead it would change the majority and that's the reason for doing it. Do you think it is realistically possible for Conservatives to then win the next election in WF?[/p][/quote]Isaythat, I think the boundary changes only affect parliamentary boundaries. So Walthamstow could lose its genuinely useful Labour MP, Stella Creasy. But we're still stuck with the lousy Labour council! Walthamster

4:50pm Sun 21 Oct 12

Isaythat says...

Thanks for replying Walthamster. Wish it had been a different answer though :-).
Thanks for replying Walthamster. Wish it had been a different answer though :-). Isaythat

7:58pm Sun 21 Oct 12

Mark Dawes says...

@Sensibility

L&Q reserves are not public money but from their business. If the L&Q scheme goes ahead, the tax payer will only contribute towards grants towards social housing, this amount would be same regardless whether the scheme made a loss or not. The tax payer will not pay towards any losses of the scheme.

In response to other points people have made to me:

@Techno3

The Greens support a Green New Deal to create jobs and we were on the TUC demonstration yesterday marching for jobs and against the austerity policies of this Government. We are just against the dog racing business because it is cruel to animals. And there are concerns about the gambling industry too – a recent Channel 4 Dispatches program revealed that annually an estimated £75 million is betted on dog racing by people with a gambling problem.

@bishbosh

A number of points you make on L&Q are more related to Government policy on the issue – for instance, cutting grants to social housing - and it is Government policy that needs to change to provide more social housing and social rents.

@Walthamster

Unfortunately dog racing just cannot be cruelty free which is why we oppose the dog track scheme. I have concerns about the L&Q scheme on local facilities, lack of social housing etc but we do need more housing in the borough.

On the issue of dog racing, there are people who are not going to agree with us – although a number do – but we would try to persuade people to our position. The alternative would be to change our policies to whatever we thought was popular but then people would accuse us of having no principles.
@Sensibility L&Q reserves are not public money but from their business. If the L&Q scheme goes ahead, the tax payer will only contribute towards grants towards social housing, this amount would be same regardless whether the scheme made a loss or not. The tax payer will not pay towards any losses of the scheme. In response to other points people have made to me: @Techno3 The Greens support a Green New Deal to create jobs and we were on the TUC demonstration yesterday marching for jobs and against the austerity policies of this Government. We are just against the dog racing business because it is cruel to animals. And there are concerns about the gambling industry too – a recent Channel 4 Dispatches program revealed that annually an estimated £75 million is betted on dog racing by people with a gambling problem. @bishbosh A number of points you make on L&Q are more related to Government policy on the issue – for instance, cutting grants to social housing - and it is Government policy that needs to change to provide more social housing and social rents. @Walthamster Unfortunately dog racing just cannot be cruelty free which is why we oppose the dog track scheme. I have concerns about the L&Q scheme on local facilities, lack of social housing etc but we do need more housing in the borough. On the issue of dog racing, there are people who are not going to agree with us – although a number do – but we would try to persuade people to our position. The alternative would be to change our policies to whatever we thought was popular but then people would accuse us of having no principles. Mark Dawes

8:21pm Sun 21 Oct 12

bishbosh says...

How can a development that will make an initial loss of at least 14.1 million and almost certainly a lot more be viable when it will take by their own admission 30 years to break even. L and Q made a 95 million surplus last year. The surplus clearly is not going toward social and affordable housing provision but developing further their private enterprise such as 50% partnership with Barratts Homes to complete over 375 flats at the Emirates...all luxury non for social housing. L and Q cut 22 million and a lot of jobs in their social housing provision. Is this purely because the government have cut subsidies???. WF claim they have a massive social housing problem and were voted in on this mandate. To vote this through without social housing is a complete waste. To sell out this requirement on a pathetic miserly amount under S106 suggests complicity for alternative motives. It is a duty for local authorities.to provide housing for those in need. WF are a disgrace. By all means blame the government policies but that is a cop out. With a 95 million surplus part created by public money more should have been done for social housing..the council have let the community down with short term thinking. The alternative to bring back racing WILL return much needed jobs and social housing. Those that get hung up on greyhound cruelty and formulate their thinking and policies around such things miss the point. There is evidence that greyhound racing attendances have dwindled but it does not mean that tracks are non viable. They are just worth more for development thats why the London tracks have been sold.
How can a development that will make an initial loss of at least 14.1 million and almost certainly a lot more be viable when it will take by their own admission 30 years to break even. L and Q made a 95 million surplus last year. The surplus clearly is not going toward social and affordable housing provision but developing further their private enterprise such as 50% partnership with Barratts Homes to complete over 375 flats at the Emirates...all luxury non for social housing. L and Q cut 22 million and a lot of jobs in their social housing provision. Is this purely because the government have cut subsidies???. WF claim they have a massive social housing problem and were voted in on this mandate. To vote this through without social housing is a complete waste. To sell out this requirement on a pathetic miserly amount under S106 suggests complicity for alternative motives. It is a duty for local authorities.to provide housing for those in need. WF are a disgrace. By all means blame the government policies but that is a cop out. With a 95 million surplus part created by public money more should have been done for social housing..the council have let the community down with short term thinking. The alternative to bring back racing WILL return much needed jobs and social housing. Those that get hung up on greyhound cruelty and formulate their thinking and policies around such things miss the point. There is evidence that greyhound racing attendances have dwindled but it does not mean that tracks are non viable. They are just worth more for development thats why the London tracks have been sold. bishbosh

8:50pm Sun 21 Oct 12

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY says...

Housing providers would have reserves as a lot of the costs – building etc – would be up front and the returns – house sales, rent – would come in later.

Government grants would be to provide social housing which make less money than non-social housing but these grants would be earmarked and would not go to L&Q for other purposes like towards losses on housing schemes.

The Section 106 would be paid by L&Q regardless of the scheme making a loss and presumably would come out of their reserves.

The £50m L&Q are investing is not public money (aside from earmarked grants) but money from their business.

There are certainly wider issues about the provision of social housing and the lack of social housing of being built and I would not agree with the way housing associations are being encouraged to act more in the free market. The current Government have effectively ended support for new social housing which makes Iain Duncan Smith attacks on L&Q's lack of social housing strange as he is part of the Government!

There is a lot of misinformation being put out on this issue:- the tax payer will NOT foot the “24 million loss”- losses will come of out L&Q reserves.

As regards viability, the L&Q scheme may make a loss but will still be viable and whilst people are saying a dog track is viable, the evidence would strongly suggest it is not. As said, an assessment into the viability of a dog track found a dog track is "not financially viable (by a significant margin).”

----

Wow. The only long term income stream, would be from social housing rent - hardly fortunes. Once the private housing is sold, the only guaranteed earners are... The council from poll tax!


And as for the stadium not being viable - please go away and check before posting such incredible inaccuracies.

Bringing back dog racing to walthamstow would provides 100s of full time jobs, boost the local areas economy and give the area it's identity back.

People travelled from 100s of miles away, just to go to THE BEST GREYHOUND STADIUM IN THE WORLD. Do u realise what the borough had - what the stow was? It was THE place to go dog racing.

The place made money DESPITE the chandlers. They wanted it to fail. Why? I dunno. There's a strong rumour that They turned down more money from ladbrokes for the place as a going concern, than l&q offered to flatten it.

As I've previously stated, this is no longer about whether the stow should have a dog track. It's about the lack of morality, honesty, democracy and common sense shown by people supposed to be in charge of running a borough.

And despite this outrageous and scandalous pantomime, they are stil bigl odds on to get their sordid and devious plans through.

What's even more worrying is that, if these are the ruling council and have been 'at it' for, it would appear a very long while - how bad must the opposition be?
Housing providers would have reserves as a lot of the costs – building etc – would be up front and the returns – house sales, rent – would come in later. Government grants would be to provide social housing which make less money than non-social housing but these grants would be earmarked and would not go to L&Q for other purposes like towards losses on housing schemes. The Section 106 would be paid by L&Q regardless of the scheme making a loss and presumably would come out of their reserves. The £50m L&Q are investing is not public money (aside from earmarked grants) but money from their business. There are certainly wider issues about the provision of social housing and the lack of social housing of being built and I would not agree with the way housing associations are being encouraged to act more in the free market. The current Government have effectively ended support for new social housing which makes Iain Duncan Smith attacks on L&Q's lack of social housing strange as he is part of the Government! There is a lot of misinformation being put out on this issue:- the tax payer will NOT foot the “24 million loss”- losses will come of out L&Q reserves. As regards viability, the L&Q scheme may make a loss but will still be viable and whilst people are saying a dog track is viable, the evidence would strongly suggest it is not. As said, an assessment into the viability of a dog track found a dog track is "not financially viable (by a significant margin).” ---- Wow. The only long term income stream, would be from social housing rent - hardly fortunes. Once the private housing is sold, the only guaranteed earners are... The council from poll tax! And as for the stadium not being viable - please go away and check before posting such incredible inaccuracies. Bringing back dog racing to walthamstow would provides 100s of full time jobs, boost the local areas economy and give the area it's identity back. People travelled from 100s of miles away, just to go to THE BEST GREYHOUND STADIUM IN THE WORLD. Do u realise what the borough had - what the stow was? It was THE place to go dog racing. The place made money DESPITE the chandlers. They wanted it to fail. Why? I dunno. There's a strong rumour that They turned down more money from ladbrokes for the place as a going concern, than l&q offered to flatten it. As I've previously stated, this is no longer about whether the stow should have a dog track. It's about the lack of morality, honesty, democracy and common sense shown by people supposed to be in charge of running a borough. And despite this outrageous and scandalous pantomime, they are stil bigl odds on to get their sordid and devious plans through. What's even more worrying is that, if these are the ruling council and have been 'at it' for, it would appear a very long while - how bad must the opposition be? L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY

8:05am Mon 22 Oct 12

Isaythat says...

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY.

With reference to your comment above, It was said years ago that Ladbrokes approached the Chandlers to purchase The Stow. It was rumoured the Stow was the only stadium which charged 1% tax an all bets but this tax was never declared as such (maybe it wasn't necessary in the first place). It was rumoured it was enough to pay for the rolls royces driven by the brothers! how could they allow it to be purchased by someone doing the same thing because in the following years when accounts were surrendered, discrepancies would stand out. All rumours..........but who knows....The Chandler's certainly were capable of being devoid of morals when they chose to. Be interesting to hear from anyone who may have better or more details than I have.
s for how bad can the opposition be - it's a good question, but we know for sure just how 'dodgy' this one is. If they are as bad, at least they aren't as stupid. Percentage wise they are generally better business people and as such make better busines decisions for the borough they support.
L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY. With reference to your comment above, It was said years ago that Ladbrokes approached the Chandlers to purchase The Stow. It was rumoured the Stow was the only stadium which charged 1% tax an all bets but this tax was never declared as such (maybe it wasn't necessary in the first place). It was rumoured it was enough to pay for the rolls royces driven by the brothers! how could they allow it to be purchased by someone doing the same thing because in the following years when accounts were surrendered, discrepancies would stand out. All rumours..........but who knows....The Chandler's certainly were capable of being devoid of morals when they chose to. Be interesting to hear from anyone who may have better or more details than I have. s for how bad can the opposition be - it's a good question, but we know for sure just how 'dodgy' this one is. If they are as bad, at least they aren't as stupid. Percentage wise they are generally better business people and as such make better busines decisions for the borough they support. Isaythat

5:01pm Mon 22 Oct 12

Nancy Taaffe says...

Something is rotten in the state of Planning.
Once again..... I suggest all those who want the Stow back stand against all those councillors who betrayed them on this land.
I think we should do the same on that monstrosity next to the tube.....I hear it's called PYE IN THE SKY after the well known councillor who sanctioned it.
What else? Will the lovely Wood Street Library end up like Chingford Bus garage i.e turned into flats.
These houses are not affordable, they are for speculators and property developers to make money.
L & Q are now a huge landlord and as such only really interested in one thing.
The council should stop the sanctioning of land deals that rob us of community services and do NOTHING to solve the housing crisis, as these homes are not affordable at all.
Something is rotten in the state of Planning. Once again..... I suggest all those who want the Stow back stand against all those councillors who betrayed them on this land. I think we should do the same on that monstrosity next to the tube.....I hear it's called PYE IN THE SKY after the well known councillor who sanctioned it. What else? Will the lovely Wood Street Library end up like Chingford Bus garage i.e turned into flats. These houses are not affordable, they are for speculators and property developers to make money. L & Q are now a huge landlord and as such only really interested in one thing. The council should stop the sanctioning of land deals that rob us of community services and do NOTHING to solve the housing crisis, as these homes are not affordable at all. Nancy Taaffe

6:05pm Mon 22 Oct 12

Isaythat says...

Mark Dawes, Do you seriously think not having Walthamstow Stadium will stop a gambler gambling?

Said above: "we need more social housing". How many people can one area carry? What we need is to give quality to the people who live here already. I live in a house with x amount of rooms. Instead of saying "I need more beds to fit more people in" - there comes a time when reluctantly I will have to say "sorry, but my house is full so you must look elsewhere". We are not helping anyone by encouraging them to live in an area that offers then a second class life. Let us improve the area, reduce crime, improve standards. Putting our house in order first must be priority, then encourage people to come here and share in something worth sharing.
Mark Dawes, Do you seriously think not having Walthamstow Stadium will stop a gambler gambling? Said above: "we need more social housing". How many people can one area carry? What we need is to give quality to the people who live here already. I live in a house with x amount of rooms. Instead of saying "I need more beds to fit more people in" - there comes a time when reluctantly I will have to say "sorry, but my house is full so you must look elsewhere". We are not helping anyone by encouraging them to live in an area that offers then a second class life. Let us improve the area, reduce crime, improve standards. Putting our house in order first must be priority, then encourage people to come here and share in something worth sharing. Isaythat

9:26pm Mon 22 Oct 12

bishbosh says...

L and Q spokesperson stated in the Evening Standard today that they do not anticipate making a loss and the release of the viability document has no implications for them. Couple of weeks ago they were claimimg how commercially sensitive the document was to them. They continually claim they are making a 50 million investment when their own viability document (now out of date with proven innacuracies) state it will cost 81 million. Chameleon like organisation who are either totally arrogant or incompetant. A registered social landlord spending at least 81 million on trashing a viable business, destroying a local community and way of life with the loss of hundreds of jobs to build houses with no social rent and very few affordable units that no one on the waiting list can afford. To continue to lie about the amount of sustainable jobs they will create is a disgrace. If the mayor does not call this in the Stow will be demolished and left empty for years until L and Q decide to go back to their socialist pals and obtain local authority permission to increase the density.
L and Q spokesperson stated in the Evening Standard today that they do not anticipate making a loss and the release of the viability document has no implications for them. Couple of weeks ago they were claimimg how commercially sensitive the document was to them. They continually claim they are making a 50 million investment when their own viability document (now out of date with proven innacuracies) state it will cost 81 million. Chameleon like organisation who are either totally arrogant or incompetant. A registered social landlord spending at least 81 million on trashing a viable business, destroying a local community and way of life with the loss of hundreds of jobs to build houses with no social rent and very few affordable units that no one on the waiting list can afford. To continue to lie about the amount of sustainable jobs they will create is a disgrace. If the mayor does not call this in the Stow will be demolished and left empty for years until L and Q decide to go back to their socialist pals and obtain local authority permission to increase the density. bishbosh

10:10pm Mon 22 Oct 12

Walthamster says...

Mark Dawes - "Unfortunately dog racing just cannot be cruelty free which is why we oppose the dog track scheme. I have concerns about the L&Q scheme on local facilities, lack of social housing etc but we do need more housing in the borough."

Other people say dog-racing can be cruelty-free - what about engaging with them? or exploring other entertainment uses?

You give no support for your claim that the area needs more social housing. On the contrary, people who live there are pleading to be allowed jobs and infrastructure instead of having more housing crammed into every space.

You come across, not as principled, but as putting your dogma above the well-being of people and their community.

And it really gets me down that this is the Green Party - the one party I thought might stand up for liveable spaces and a human-friendly environment!
Mark Dawes - "Unfortunately dog racing just cannot be cruelty free which is why we oppose the dog track scheme. I have concerns about the L&Q scheme on local facilities, lack of social housing etc but we do need more housing in the borough." Other people say dog-racing can be cruelty-free - what about engaging with them? or exploring other entertainment uses? You give no support for your claim that the area needs more social housing. On the contrary, people who live there are pleading to be allowed jobs and infrastructure instead of having more housing crammed into every space. You come across, not as principled, but as putting your dogma above the well-being of people and their community. And it really gets me down that this is the Green Party - the one party I thought might stand up for liveable spaces and a human-friendly environment! Walthamster

7:59am Tue 23 Oct 12

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY says...

i say that:
With reference to your comment above, It was said years ago that Ladbrokes approached the Chandlers to purchase The Stow. It was rumoured the Stow was the only stadium which charged 1% tax an all bets but this tax was never declared as such (maybe it wasn't necessary in the first place). It was rumoured it was enough to pay for the rolls royces driven by the brothers! how could they allow it to be purchased by someone doing the same thing because in the following years when accounts were surrendered, discrepancies would stand out. All rumours..........but who knows....The Chandler's certainly were capable of being devoid of morals when they chose to.

--------------

ah yes - i remember that!!! it was supposed to go towards 'welfare and stadium improvements', wasnt it????

what ive never understood is how the chandlers havent been dragged back into this. why havent they been investigated for the movement of cash to their company pension fund, thus showing the company and its accounts in a false light?

i hope that boris does the right thing. by putting a block on this, he is basically giving a vote of no confidence in a council that has been shown to be rotten to the core.

if he allows this disgraceful sham to go ahead, he is effectively giving councils the green light to do what they want.

finally, a big thankyou to ricky, barrie, kh and the rest of the kids at SOS for all your time and hard work. you really deserve the track back.

good luck, boys. you're nearly there.
i say that: With reference to your comment above, It was said years ago that Ladbrokes approached the Chandlers to purchase The Stow. It was rumoured the Stow was the only stadium which charged 1% tax an all bets but this tax was never declared as such (maybe it wasn't necessary in the first place). It was rumoured it was enough to pay for the rolls royces driven by the brothers! how could they allow it to be purchased by someone doing the same thing because in the following years when accounts were surrendered, discrepancies would stand out. All rumours..........but who knows....The Chandler's certainly were capable of being devoid of morals when they chose to. -------------- ah yes - i remember that!!! it was supposed to go towards 'welfare and stadium improvements', wasnt it???? what ive never understood is how the chandlers havent been dragged back into this. why havent they been investigated for the movement of cash to their company pension fund, thus showing the company and its accounts in a false light? i hope that boris does the right thing. by putting a block on this, he is basically giving a vote of no confidence in a council that has been shown to be rotten to the core. if he allows this disgraceful sham to go ahead, he is effectively giving councils the green light to do what they want. finally, a big thankyou to ricky, barrie, kh and the rest of the kids at SOS for all your time and hard work. you really deserve the track back. good luck, boys. you're nearly there. L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY

8:54am Tue 23 Oct 12

red37red says...

walthamstow guardian should ask people who live on l&q propertys what they think of there service! many complaits on building standards and very bad maintenance service..
weeks to wait for repairs and never keep to there word.

check google for l&q problems
walthamstow guardian should ask people who live on l&q propertys what they think of there service! many complaits on building standards and very bad maintenance service.. weeks to wait for repairs and never keep to there word. check google for l&q problems red37red

11:08am Tue 23 Oct 12

Bernard 87 says...

I will keep saying it until folk realise the only reason that L&Q want to build here is to encourage more Labour votes in a Tory part of the borough. This has long been a tactic of Labour for decades. Build estates, which will go on to be crime ridden hotspots, in Tory dominated areas. That way Tory voters start moving out and all that is left is a bunch of left wing voters.

Another reason why Labour do not mind this plan is that as a party, both locally and nationally, they have a total disregard for history. They do not like anything that is uniquely British as they know that their new core vote have no interest in such things.

Having gone to see an L&Q property myself a couple years ago in Barking I can confidently say that we were the only people who could describe themselves as having a strong grasp of the English language and had been in the country longer than a year.

The Labour council should be disgusted with itself for passing this plan but it was only a matter of time that Labour started attacking Chingford.

Unfortunately we all know that the rest of Waltham Forest will vote for the Labour Party regardless of them failing to improve the borough time and time again.
I will keep saying it until folk realise the only reason that L&Q want to build here is to encourage more Labour votes in a Tory part of the borough. This has long been a tactic of Labour for decades. Build estates, which will go on to be crime ridden hotspots, in Tory dominated areas. That way Tory voters start moving out and all that is left is a bunch of left wing voters. Another reason why Labour do not mind this plan is that as a party, both locally and nationally, they have a total disregard for history. They do not like anything that is uniquely British as they know that their new core vote have no interest in such things. Having gone to see an L&Q property myself a couple years ago in Barking I can confidently say that we were the only people who could describe themselves as having a strong grasp of the English language and had been in the country longer than a year. The Labour council should be disgusted with itself for passing this plan but it was only a matter of time that Labour started attacking Chingford. Unfortunately we all know that the rest of Waltham Forest will vote for the Labour Party regardless of them failing to improve the borough time and time again. Bernard 87

11:59am Tue 23 Oct 12

Walthamster says...

Bernard 87 wrote:
I will keep saying it until folk realise the only reason that L&Q want to build here is to encourage more Labour votes in a Tory part of the borough. This has long been a tactic of Labour for decades. Build estates, which will go on to be crime ridden hotspots, in Tory dominated areas. That way Tory voters start moving out and all that is left is a bunch of left wing voters.

Another reason why Labour do not mind this plan is that as a party, both locally and nationally, they have a total disregard for history. They do not like anything that is uniquely British as they know that their new core vote have no interest in such things.

Having gone to see an L&Q property myself a couple years ago in Barking I can confidently say that we were the only people who could describe themselves as having a strong grasp of the English language and had been in the country longer than a year.

The Labour council should be disgusted with itself for passing this plan but it was only a matter of time that Labour started attacking Chingford.

Unfortunately we all know that the rest of Waltham Forest will vote for the Labour Party regardless of them failing to improve the borough time and time again.
Bernard, there are many problems in getting rid of Waltham Forest's failed Labour council.

First, most people don't keep up with the news unless something happens to them personally. The council's propaganda sheet WFN is delivered to every household, full of reassurance that everything is just fine.

Our borough is famous for its strange voting patterns. We have high rates of postal votes, which of course can be filled in by anyone. And remember Cllr Liaquat Ali getting 105% of the vote in 2010? All very odd.

And where's the opposition? The LibDems imploded before the 2010 election, when a group including Johar Khan (who has now joined Labour anyway) ousted the leader John Macklin. Macklin and James O'Rourke were LibDem councillors who did actually do their best for the area, but they're out now and the LibDems hardly count in Waltham Forest any more.

That leaves the Tories, who control Chingford, but they're aren't many councillors and we don't hear much from them.
[quote][p][bold]Bernard 87[/bold] wrote: I will keep saying it until folk realise the only reason that L&Q want to build here is to encourage more Labour votes in a Tory part of the borough. This has long been a tactic of Labour for decades. Build estates, which will go on to be crime ridden hotspots, in Tory dominated areas. That way Tory voters start moving out and all that is left is a bunch of left wing voters. Another reason why Labour do not mind this plan is that as a party, both locally and nationally, they have a total disregard for history. They do not like anything that is uniquely British as they know that their new core vote have no interest in such things. Having gone to see an L&Q property myself a couple years ago in Barking I can confidently say that we were the only people who could describe themselves as having a strong grasp of the English language and had been in the country longer than a year. The Labour council should be disgusted with itself for passing this plan but it was only a matter of time that Labour started attacking Chingford. Unfortunately we all know that the rest of Waltham Forest will vote for the Labour Party regardless of them failing to improve the borough time and time again.[/p][/quote]Bernard, there are many problems in getting rid of Waltham Forest's failed Labour council. First, most people don't keep up with the news unless something happens to them personally. The council's propaganda sheet WFN is delivered to every household, full of reassurance that everything is just fine. Our borough is famous for its strange voting patterns. We have high rates of postal votes, which of course can be filled in by anyone. And remember Cllr Liaquat Ali getting 105% of the vote in 2010? All very odd. And where's the opposition? The LibDems imploded before the 2010 election, when a group including Johar Khan (who has now joined Labour anyway) ousted the leader John Macklin. Macklin and James O'Rourke were LibDem councillors who did actually do their best for the area, but they're out now and the LibDems hardly count in Waltham Forest any more. That leaves the Tories, who control Chingford, but they're aren't many councillors and we don't hear much from them. Walthamster

12:07pm Tue 23 Oct 12

mdj says...

' ..the only reason that L&Q want to build here is to encourage more Labour votes in a Tory part of the borough..' (Bernard 87)

'The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had flyers distributed in Stalin Way that said
That the People had frivolously
Thrown away the Government's Confidence
And that they could only regain it
Through Redoubled Work. But wouldn't it be
Simpler if the Government
Simply dissolved the People
And elected another?' (Bertolt Brecht)

'I'm going to build the bl**dy Tories out of inner London' (Herbert Morrison)

You're in good, or at least authoritative, company, Bernard!
' ..the only reason that L&Q want to build here is to encourage more Labour votes in a Tory part of the borough..' (Bernard 87) 'The Secretary of the Writers Union Had flyers distributed in Stalin Way that said That the People had frivolously Thrown away the Government's Confidence And that they could only regain it Through Redoubled Work. But wouldn't it be Simpler if the Government Simply dissolved the People And elected another?' (Bertolt Brecht) 'I'm going to build the bl**dy Tories out of inner London' (Herbert Morrison) You're in good, or at least authoritative, company, Bernard! mdj

12:12pm Tue 23 Oct 12

Isaythat says...

Bernard 87..........You have shocked me into realisation!!!! Dam the labour party and their policies!. I did google L & Q problems as suggested and saw just how uncaring they actually are. L & Q have already purchased land further along Chingford Mount Road - is this the end for E4?.
There are many tory voters in Highams Park, South Chingford and North Chingford living in large houses - totally unaffordable to the people you mention. How does that affect your theory?
Bernard 87..........You have shocked me into realisation!!!! Dam the labour party and their policies!. I did google L & Q problems as suggested and saw just how uncaring they actually are. L & Q have already purchased land further along Chingford Mount Road - is this the end for E4?. There are many tory voters in Highams Park, South Chingford and North Chingford living in large houses - totally unaffordable to the people you mention. How does that affect your theory? Isaythat

12:49pm Tue 23 Oct 12

Isaythat says...

L & Q should be investigated. Boroughs should compare information and if necessary appropriate action should be taken against them.
L & Q should be investigated. Boroughs should compare information and if necessary appropriate action should be taken against them. Isaythat

2:31pm Tue 23 Oct 12

Bernard 87 says...

@ Walthamster

Postal votes should be banned or anyone able to walk to the polling station. When you go to the polling station you should have either your polling card or some ID. There is clearly an issue with postal voting fraud in certain areas. Instances of such activity were also going on in Tower Hamlets and Newham.

The problem with Walthamstow for the Tories are the demographics. Labour are deep rooted in the area and Walthamstow has lost many natural Tory voters as the area has been allowed to degenerate under Labour. There are some beautiful houses in the town which should be attracting a wealthier demographic but the council do not want people with too much wealth settling here unless they are of the hypocritical socialist type that you get in Islington and Hackney. Even so Walthamstow Tories need to be more active (with the help of the Chingford cllrs) and have to constantly challenge the council in the same way that Ed Northover did on the planning committee. As for the LD's they may come back and although I cannot stand the party, any opposition is better than no opposition at all.

@Isaythat

Once cramped problem estates are allowed to go up, those people in the larger houses you refer to will sell up and move away, property values drop and a more Labour friendly owner moves in. Or worse, large family homes are then divided into flats or bedsits. History has proven this happens time and time again but Labour councils as well as left wing organisations do not mind the deliberate running down of areas all in the name of regeneration.
@ Walthamster Postal votes should be banned or anyone able to walk to the polling station. When you go to the polling station you should have either your polling card or some ID. There is clearly an issue with postal voting fraud in certain areas. Instances of such activity were also going on in Tower Hamlets and Newham. The problem with Walthamstow for the Tories are the demographics. Labour are deep rooted in the area and Walthamstow has lost many natural Tory voters as the area has been allowed to degenerate under Labour. There are some beautiful houses in the town which should be attracting a wealthier demographic but the council do not want people with too much wealth settling here unless they are of the hypocritical socialist type that you get in Islington and Hackney. Even so Walthamstow Tories need to be more active (with the help of the Chingford cllrs) and have to constantly challenge the council in the same way that Ed Northover did on the planning committee. As for the LD's they may come back and although I cannot stand the party, any opposition is better than no opposition at all. @Isaythat Once cramped problem estates are allowed to go up, those people in the larger houses you refer to will sell up and move away, property values drop and a more Labour friendly owner moves in. Or worse, large family homes are then divided into flats or bedsits. History has proven this happens time and time again but Labour councils as well as left wing organisations do not mind the deliberate running down of areas all in the name of regeneration. Bernard 87

4:17pm Tue 23 Oct 12

mdj says...

' History has proven this happens time and time again..'
It's not confined to Labour: Tory boroughs are adept at shipping out their poorer voters, as in Westminster under Shirley Porter, or Hammersmith currently by demolishing thousands of perfectly good Council homes; or by cramming as many hard-up voters into as small a space as possible, as in that awful mini-ghetto near Little Venice.

The High St fiasco was not the fault of postal votes: the votes cast were (presumably) accurately counted, but then1000 extra votes were awarded to each Labour candidate at the count, adding up to 125% of the potential full turnout. As a rookie candidate at the count, it seemed that figures were high across the board, but none of the supposedly 'professional' politicians there with their lists, polls and tellers' reports seemed to bat an eyelid, even those in the ward who had lost their seats.
Just another Waltham Forest clerical error...
' History has proven this happens time and time again..' It's not confined to Labour: Tory boroughs are adept at shipping out their poorer voters, as in Westminster under Shirley Porter, or Hammersmith currently by demolishing thousands of perfectly good Council homes; or by cramming as many hard-up voters into as small a space as possible, as in that awful mini-ghetto near Little Venice. The High St fiasco was not the fault of postal votes: the votes cast were (presumably) accurately counted, but then1000 extra votes were awarded to each Labour candidate at the count, adding up to 125% of the potential full turnout. As a rookie candidate at the count, it seemed that figures were high across the board, but none of the supposedly 'professional' politicians there with their lists, polls and tellers' reports seemed to bat an eyelid, even those in the ward who had lost their seats. Just another Waltham Forest clerical error... mdj

4:44pm Tue 23 Oct 12

Isaythat says...

mdj wrote:
' History has proven this happens time and time again..'
It's not confined to Labour: Tory boroughs are adept at shipping out their poorer voters, as in Westminster under Shirley Porter, or Hammersmith currently by demolishing thousands of perfectly good Council homes; or by cramming as many hard-up voters into as small a space as possible, as in that awful mini-ghetto near Little Venice.

The High St fiasco was not the fault of postal votes: the votes cast were (presumably) accurately counted, but then1000 extra votes were awarded to each Labour candidate at the count, adding up to 125% of the potential full turnout. As a rookie candidate at the count, it seemed that figures were high across the board, but none of the supposedly 'professional' politicians there with their lists, polls and tellers' reports seemed to bat an eyelid, even those in the ward who had lost their seats.
Just another Waltham Forest clerical error...
mdj. What?? 1000 extra votes given to each labour candidate? and nobody questioned it? I shake my head in disbelief........
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: ' History has proven this happens time and time again..' It's not confined to Labour: Tory boroughs are adept at shipping out their poorer voters, as in Westminster under Shirley Porter, or Hammersmith currently by demolishing thousands of perfectly good Council homes; or by cramming as many hard-up voters into as small a space as possible, as in that awful mini-ghetto near Little Venice. The High St fiasco was not the fault of postal votes: the votes cast were (presumably) accurately counted, but then1000 extra votes were awarded to each Labour candidate at the count, adding up to 125% of the potential full turnout. As a rookie candidate at the count, it seemed that figures were high across the board, but none of the supposedly 'professional' politicians there with their lists, polls and tellers' reports seemed to bat an eyelid, even those in the ward who had lost their seats. Just another Waltham Forest clerical error...[/p][/quote]mdj. What?? 1000 extra votes given to each labour candidate? and nobody questioned it? I shake my head in disbelief........ Isaythat

6:30pm Tue 23 Oct 12

mdj says...

' I shake my head in disbelief..'
It was only spotted later by a statistician living locally. The Lib Dems had to spend a lot of money to go to court to get the result overturned, and one of their candidates returned. Labour would have won two of them anyway.

Here's a link to one of the stories about it:
'
WALTHAM FOREST: Election blunder confirmed

11:39am Wednesday 8th September 2010 in Your Local Areas By Daniel B
' I shake my head in disbelief..' It was only spotted later by a statistician living locally. The Lib Dems had to spend a lot of money to go to court to get the result overturned, and one of their candidates returned. Labour would have won two of them anyway. Here's a link to one of the stories about it: ' WALTHAM FOREST: Election blunder confirmed 11:39am Wednesday 8th September 2010 in Your Local Areas By Daniel B mdj

7:45pm Tue 23 Oct 12

Isaythat says...

mdj, thank you for the link which I have just read through. Interesting reading! what concerns me is if people like the statistition move out of this area, who will be checking on such errors in the future? How can I trust a governing body if they can't even count!.
Have you read comments made on the subject of boundary changes recently? I am beginning to see why my mother used to say "you can't trust any of them so don't vote".
mdj, thank you for the link which I have just read through. Interesting reading! what concerns me is if people like the statistition move out of this area, who will be checking on such errors in the future? How can I trust a governing body if they can't even count!. Have you read comments made on the subject of boundary changes recently? I am beginning to see why my mother used to say "you can't trust any of them so don't vote". Isaythat

7:59pm Tue 23 Oct 12

mdj says...

', who will be checking on such errors in the future?'

It's up to us, isaythat: it always was really, , but we deluded ourselves that our betters could be trusted. A bit like the Savile business: people are realising, not that things have suddenly changed, but that their own trusting perceptions and assumptions were always horribly mistaken.
', who will be checking on such errors in the future?' It's up to us, isaythat: it always was really, , but we deluded ourselves that our betters could be trusted. A bit like the Savile business: people are realising, not that things have suddenly changed, but that their own trusting perceptions and assumptions were always horribly mistaken. mdj

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