Image of proposed mosque in High Street, Wanstead, released

East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Image of the mosque Image of the mosque

An artist's impression of the mosque a mystery group hopes to build in a high street has been released.

The image has been released by Dalco Developments, which owns the plot known as Evergreen Field in High Street, Wanstead.

The company hopes to build homes on the site, but has said it may be forced to sell to a Middle Eastern buyer, which hopes to build the place of worship, if opposition to its plans continue.

Company consultant, Dez Stowe, said he could not reveal any further details about the interested party due to confidentiality agreements.

Mr Stowe added: "Local authorities really don't like it when they get applications like this.

"The planner will just take them to the European Court of Human Rights and they will get any decision over-turned on the basis Muslims haven't been allowed to have a place of worship.

"The money spent on building mosques is unbelievable. They are all marble and absolutely beautiful."

Dalco hopes to build seven houses, two flats and two shops on the site, but is yet to put in an application to Redbridge Council.

The Wanstead Society, which opposes the plan, has submitted an alternative plan for opening the field for community use.

The council has said any development would contravene its policy on green spaces.

Comments (92)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:10pm Tue 12 Feb 13

SXH says...

I cannot see how this is in character with other buildings in surrounding area?

We have lost the UK
I cannot see how this is in character with other buildings in surrounding area? We have lost the UK SXH
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Tue 12 Feb 13

John Fish says...

SXH wrote:
I cannot see how this is in character with other buildings in surrounding area? We have lost the UK
Not really. An easy one for Redbridge - quick refusal.
[quote][p][bold]SXH[/bold] wrote: I cannot see how this is in character with other buildings in surrounding area? We have lost the UK[/p][/quote]Not really. An easy one for Redbridge - quick refusal. John Fish
  • Score: 0

12:20pm Tue 12 Feb 13

stickmanny says...

it isn't big enough :-)
it isn't big enough :-) stickmanny
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Tue 12 Feb 13

John Fish says...

Actually, initial anger turned to non-stop LOL'ing (as the youth of today would say), the more I look at the image
Actually, initial anger turned to non-stop LOL'ing (as the youth of today would say), the more I look at the image John Fish
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Wanstead High St Developer says...

We want to work with locals & give back half of the land subject to agreements & planning back to the local community

The mosque proposal is for real & the potential buyer is keen to push it.
Someone commented there isn't any muslims in Wanstead area, i suggest whoever stated that on the main initial story on this website you donot live in this area & let's hear local muslim views on this also. There are plenty of muslims all over London & living in the UK so your comment is totally incorrect

However, slanderess comments about us & our consultants does more damage & locals & Wanstead Society even though we agreed to meet on 2nd March to discuss, they (Wanstead Society) cancelled. We are no dodgy characters as blogged but have invested millions over the last 5+ years & still retain our properties of which over 60% is rented out by housing association & local councils back to the community & those on income support & low to key workers. For 50 years no one has done nothing nor has Wanstead Society. Are doors are open & have always been open to discuss being the council nor Wanstead Society have the money to do so, on behalf the developer have & suggest before people say anything detrimental to all parties discussing we suggest an open meeting with Wanstead Society immediately. You know how to contact us. D.Stowe pp Dalco Developements Ltd
We want to work with locals & give back half of the land subject to agreements & planning back to the local community The mosque proposal is for real & the potential buyer is keen to push it. Someone commented there isn't any muslims in Wanstead area, i suggest whoever stated that on the main initial story on this website you donot live in this area & let's hear local muslim views on this also. There are plenty of muslims all over London & living in the UK so your comment is totally incorrect However, slanderess comments about us & our consultants does more damage & locals & Wanstead Society even though we agreed to meet on 2nd March to discuss, they (Wanstead Society) cancelled. We are no dodgy characters as blogged but have invested millions over the last 5+ years & still retain our properties of which over 60% is rented out by housing association & local councils back to the community & those on income support & low to key workers. For 50 years no one has done nothing nor has Wanstead Society. Are doors are open & have always been open to discuss being the council nor Wanstead Society have the money to do so, on behalf the developer have & suggest before people say anything detrimental to all parties discussing we suggest an open meeting with Wanstead Society immediately. You know how to contact us. D.Stowe pp Dalco Developements Ltd Wanstead High St Developer
  • Score: 0

12:25pm Tue 12 Feb 13

solcomm says...

Its a basic piece of photoshop work, meaningless!
Its a basic piece of photoshop work, meaningless! solcomm
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Tue 12 Feb 13

T. Watts says...

Wanstead High St Developer wrote:
We want to work with locals & give back half of the land subject to agreements & planning back to the local community The mosque proposal is for real & the potential buyer is keen to push it. Someone commented there isn't any muslims in Wanstead area, i suggest whoever stated that on the main initial story on this website you donot live in this area & let's hear local muslim views on this also. There are plenty of muslims all over London & living in the UK so your comment is totally incorrect However, slanderess comments about us & our consultants does more damage & locals & Wanstead Society even though we agreed to meet on 2nd March to discuss, they (Wanstead Society) cancelled. We are no dodgy characters as blogged but have invested millions over the last 5+ years & still retain our properties of which over 60% is rented out by housing association & local councils back to the community & those on income support & low to key workers. For 50 years no one has done nothing nor has Wanstead Society. Are doors are open & have always been open to discuss being the council nor Wanstead Society have the money to do so, on behalf the developer have & suggest before people say anything detrimental to all parties discussing we suggest an open meeting with Wanstead Society immediately. You know how to contact us. D.Stowe pp Dalco Developements Ltd
What a wonderful piece of puff!!! I suggest you engage the infamous Carter Ruck Solicitors and start legal proceedings against anyone who dare disagree with you!!!

Come off it, you know this hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of being built. You're just trying to use strongarm tactics to push through your ghastly housing development.

You look like a bunch of chancers, you sound like a bunch of chancers, you act like a bunch of chancers - let's face it, you ARE a bunch of chancers who are just after a quick buck.

Jog on.
[quote][p][bold]Wanstead High St Developer[/bold] wrote: We want to work with locals & give back half of the land subject to agreements & planning back to the local community The mosque proposal is for real & the potential buyer is keen to push it. Someone commented there isn't any muslims in Wanstead area, i suggest whoever stated that on the main initial story on this website you donot live in this area & let's hear local muslim views on this also. There are plenty of muslims all over London & living in the UK so your comment is totally incorrect However, slanderess comments about us & our consultants does more damage & locals & Wanstead Society even though we agreed to meet on 2nd March to discuss, they (Wanstead Society) cancelled. We are no dodgy characters as blogged but have invested millions over the last 5+ years & still retain our properties of which over 60% is rented out by housing association & local councils back to the community & those on income support & low to key workers. For 50 years no one has done nothing nor has Wanstead Society. Are doors are open & have always been open to discuss being the council nor Wanstead Society have the money to do so, on behalf the developer have & suggest before people say anything detrimental to all parties discussing we suggest an open meeting with Wanstead Society immediately. You know how to contact us. D.Stowe pp Dalco Developements Ltd[/p][/quote]What a wonderful piece of puff!!! I suggest you engage the infamous Carter Ruck Solicitors and start legal proceedings against anyone who dare disagree with you!!! Come off it, you know this hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of being built. You're just trying to use strongarm tactics to push through your ghastly housing development. You look like a bunch of chancers, you sound like a bunch of chancers, you act like a bunch of chancers - let's face it, you ARE a bunch of chancers who are just after a quick buck. Jog on. T. Watts
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Tue 12 Feb 13

nick133 says...

"For 50 years no one has done nothing nor has Wanstead Society."

No one has built anything on there, ever, mucker.

"Are doors are open & have always been open to discuss being the council nor Wanstead Society have the money to do so, on behalf the developer have & suggest before people say anything detrimental to all parties discussing we suggest an open meeting with Wanstead Society immediately."

It's an infringment of my human rights to try and make sense of that garbled nonsense.
"For 50 years no one has done nothing nor has Wanstead Society." No one has built anything on there, ever, mucker. "Are doors are open & have always been open to discuss being the council nor Wanstead Society have the money to do so, on behalf the developer have & suggest before people say anything detrimental to all parties discussing we suggest an open meeting with Wanstead Society immediately." It's an infringment of my human rights to try and make sense of that garbled nonsense. nick133
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Richard Arnopp says...

Interesting design, in a neo-Ottoman style. I wonder where they got the image from? It hasn't been scaled down very successfully, as the doors don't seem large enough for an adult to enter without bending. :o))
Interesting design, in a neo-Ottoman style. I wonder where they got the image from? It hasn't been scaled down very successfully, as the doors don't seem large enough for an adult to enter without bending. :o)) Richard Arnopp
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Wanstead High St Developer says...

It is people like the above bloggs who have no interest in local developement & should realise how much Dal Sanger has put back into the local community
& one ponders do or will the above bloggers put there hand in their pocket to give half back to local children & future generations? I think not as they certainly haven't been any concerns over the last 50 years so why bother now? Only when a developer states he will remediate & give back almost half subject to planning to the community does it then matter !!!
It is people like the above bloggs who have no interest in local developement & should realise how much Dal Sanger has put back into the local community & one ponders do or will the above bloggers put there hand in their pocket to give half back to local children & future generations? I think not as they certainly haven't been any concerns over the last 50 years so why bother now? Only when a developer states he will remediate & give back almost half subject to planning to the community does it then matter !!! Wanstead High St Developer
  • Score: 0

12:55pm Tue 12 Feb 13

nick133 says...

You're completely right Daz, we just don't deserve this holy man. Why doesn't he disburse his sacred largesse to a more appreciative community elsewhere?
You're completely right Daz, we just don't deserve this holy man. Why doesn't he disburse his sacred largesse to a more appreciative community elsewhere? nick133
  • Score: 1

1:10pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

And did those Dalco in modern time
Walk upon Wansteads lovely green?
And was the threat of something mod
On wansteads pleasant pastures seen?
And did the councillors divine
Shine forth upon our pleading appeals?
And was Monstrosities builded here
To make many fifty quid bills?

Bring me my support , both young and old!
Get rid of the rats, pallets and tyre !
lend us and ear! They must be told!
Their proposals are dire!!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my petition sleep in my hand,
Till we have ousted them
From Wanstead's green and pleasant land.
And did those Dalco in modern time Walk upon Wansteads lovely green? And was the threat of something mod On wansteads pleasant pastures seen? And did the councillors divine Shine forth upon our pleading appeals? And was Monstrosities builded here To make many fifty quid bills? Bring me my support , both young and old! Get rid of the rats, pallets and tyre ! lend us and ear! They must be told! Their proposals are dire!! I will not cease from mental fight, Nor shall my petition sleep in my hand, Till we have ousted them From Wanstead's green and pleasant land. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

1:16pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

Wanstead High St Developer wrote:
To Nick133

Thank you for agreeing with me at lest on that point.

If you are local and have serious views we can discuss. Bloggs as above we have also researched this Cornbeefur & note many have stated his remarks do nothing but abuse the right of freedom of speech
Actually pave probably more Business Interests in Redbridge and Waltham Forest than you Sir and am entitled to object to any proposals you make, as i pay fortunes in Business Rates and Council Tax for a starters.
[quote][p][bold]Wanstead High St Developer[/bold] wrote: To Nick133 Thank you for agreeing with me at lest on that point. If you are local and have serious views we can discuss. Bloggs as above we have also researched this Cornbeefur & note many have stated his remarks do nothing but abuse the right of freedom of speech[/p][/quote]Actually pave probably more Business Interests in Redbridge and Waltham Forest than you Sir and am entitled to object to any proposals you make, as i pay fortunes in Business Rates and Council Tax for a starters. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Tue 12 Feb 13

spcdust says...

I mean, honestly, this "developer" is a laughing stock - does he really think anyone is taken in by his ridiculous Mosque "proposal". If it wasn't so side splitting funny (did he mock this up on his iPhone?) it's almost offensive as he is playing on his perceived prejudices that local people may have against a Mosque being built.
You, Mr Singh, are a transparent fool and your tactics are spectacularly back firing on you. Those in the community who weren't against some form of development of Evergreen Field will not support anything you may propose due to your idiotic tactics.
I mean, honestly, this "developer" is a laughing stock - does he really think anyone is taken in by his ridiculous Mosque "proposal". If it wasn't so side splitting funny (did he mock this up on his iPhone?) it's almost offensive as he is playing on his perceived prejudices that local people may have against a Mosque being built. You, Mr Singh, are a transparent fool and your tactics are spectacularly back firing on you. Those in the community who weren't against some form of development of Evergreen Field will not support anything you may propose due to your idiotic tactics. spcdust
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

Wanstead High St Developer wrote:
We want to work with locals & give back half of the land subject to agreements & planning back to the local community

The mosque proposal is for real & the potential buyer is keen to push it.
Someone commented there isn't any muslims in Wanstead area, i suggest whoever stated that on the main initial story on this website you donot live in this area & let's hear local muslim views on this also. There are plenty of muslims all over London & living in the UK so your comment is totally incorrect

However, slanderess comments about us & our consultants does more damage & locals & Wanstead Society even though we agreed to meet on 2nd March to discuss, they (Wanstead Society) cancelled. We are no dodgy characters as blogged but have invested millions over the last 5+ years & still retain our properties of which over 60% is rented out by housing association & local councils back to the community & those on income support & low to key workers. For 50 years no one has done nothing nor has Wanstead Society. Are doors are open & have always been open to discuss being the council nor Wanstead Society have the money to do so, on behalf the developer have & suggest before people say anything detrimental to all parties discussing we suggest an open meeting with Wanstead Society immediately. You know how to contact us. D.Stowe pp Dalco Developements Ltd
Dalco are playing High Stake Poker with a lousy hand.
[quote][p][bold]Wanstead High St Developer[/bold] wrote: We want to work with locals & give back half of the land subject to agreements & planning back to the local community The mosque proposal is for real & the potential buyer is keen to push it. Someone commented there isn't any muslims in Wanstead area, i suggest whoever stated that on the main initial story on this website you donot live in this area & let's hear local muslim views on this also. There are plenty of muslims all over London & living in the UK so your comment is totally incorrect However, slanderess comments about us & our consultants does more damage & locals & Wanstead Society even though we agreed to meet on 2nd March to discuss, they (Wanstead Society) cancelled. We are no dodgy characters as blogged but have invested millions over the last 5+ years & still retain our properties of which over 60% is rented out by housing association & local councils back to the community & those on income support & low to key workers. For 50 years no one has done nothing nor has Wanstead Society. Are doors are open & have always been open to discuss being the council nor Wanstead Society have the money to do so, on behalf the developer have & suggest before people say anything detrimental to all parties discussing we suggest an open meeting with Wanstead Society immediately. You know how to contact us. D.Stowe pp Dalco Developements Ltd[/p][/quote]Dalco are playing High Stake Poker with a lousy hand. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

1:30pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

Wanstead High St Developer wrote:
Mr Corbeefur
Your comments & remarks need keeping to Walthamstow, Waltham Forest where you reside. NOT in Wanstead. Again many do cimplain about your bloggs as you DONOT represent LOCAL interests or pay for local amenities. I researched your blogg name, why not come out of hiding with your true identity than hide behind an "aka" then as you know all our names perhaps you could be constructive rather than obtusive & rude to locals. Also you ive seen in other bloggs say you pay council tax & business rates, you certainly have time on your hand !!! Face the chalkenge Mr AKA & reveal who you really are & be a bit more constructive or take up a proper constructive job than slander anyone on this website
I pay Business Rates and Council Tax to Redbridge Council and Waltham Forest and am entitled to comment on this Public Forum.

Your ridiculous proposals have no legs, you are betting on a horse without a rider.

You are playing poker without a hand.

Your drawings are like a chocolate tea pot.

Poppycock!
[quote][p][bold]Wanstead High St Developer[/bold] wrote: Mr Corbeefur Your comments & remarks need keeping to Walthamstow, Waltham Forest where you reside. NOT in Wanstead. Again many do cimplain about your bloggs as you DONOT represent LOCAL interests or pay for local amenities. I researched your blogg name, why not come out of hiding with your true identity than hide behind an "aka" then as you know all our names perhaps you could be constructive rather than obtusive & rude to locals. Also you ive seen in other bloggs say you pay council tax & business rates, you certainly have time on your hand !!! Face the chalkenge Mr AKA & reveal who you really are & be a bit more constructive or take up a proper constructive job than slander anyone on this website[/p][/quote]I pay Business Rates and Council Tax to Redbridge Council and Waltham Forest and am entitled to comment on this Public Forum. Your ridiculous proposals have no legs, you are betting on a horse without a rider. You are playing poker without a hand. Your drawings are like a chocolate tea pot. Poppycock! Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

Wanstead High St Developer wrote:
Mr Corbeefur
Your comments & remarks need keeping to Walthamstow, Waltham Forest where you reside. NOT in Wanstead. Again many do cimplain about your bloggs as you DONOT represent LOCAL interests or pay for local amenities. I researched your blogg name, why not come out of hiding with your true identity than hide behind an "aka" then as you know all our names perhaps you could be constructive rather than obtusive & rude to locals. Also you ive seen in other bloggs say you pay council tax & business rates, you certainly have time on your hand !!! Face the chalkenge Mr AKA & reveal who you really are & be a bit more constructive or take up a proper constructive job than slander anyone on this website
My name is Mr Cornbeefur.
[quote][p][bold]Wanstead High St Developer[/bold] wrote: Mr Corbeefur Your comments & remarks need keeping to Walthamstow, Waltham Forest where you reside. NOT in Wanstead. Again many do cimplain about your bloggs as you DONOT represent LOCAL interests or pay for local amenities. I researched your blogg name, why not come out of hiding with your true identity than hide behind an "aka" then as you know all our names perhaps you could be constructive rather than obtusive & rude to locals. Also you ive seen in other bloggs say you pay council tax & business rates, you certainly have time on your hand !!! Face the chalkenge Mr AKA & reveal who you really are & be a bit more constructive or take up a proper constructive job than slander anyone on this website[/p][/quote]My name is Mr Cornbeefur. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Tue 12 Feb 13

spcdust says...

Whilst I think this Developer has now lost all credibility with this latest tactic it does raise the question of wether the greater local community are unanimously against development of Evergreen Fields. Personally I am not as I feel the site is contained in an urban location, is well serviced by local transport links and services and is not encroaching on usable green spaces. Further more it has basically sat there as a fenced of derelict site for many years and idealistic notions of making it a "community space" are likely just pipe dreams. If the correct development is built then it could add to the high Street - we cannot just turn down developments just for the sake of it. There are far more valuable local green spaces that are more worthy of protection than this particular site.
Whilst I think this Developer has now lost all credibility with this latest tactic it does raise the question of wether the greater local community are unanimously against development of Evergreen Fields. Personally I am not as I feel the site is contained in an urban location, is well serviced by local transport links and services and is not encroaching on usable green spaces. Further more it has basically sat there as a fenced of derelict site for many years and idealistic notions of making it a "community space" are likely just pipe dreams. If the correct development is built then it could add to the high Street - we cannot just turn down developments just for the sake of it. There are far more valuable local green spaces that are more worthy of protection than this particular site. spcdust
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

Wanstead High St Developer wrote:
Uumm. The Walthamstow Troll we researched with as many aka's as you prefer. Not to worry. You will be deleted
And your pipe dream proposals will be defeated
[quote][p][bold]Wanstead High St Developer[/bold] wrote: Uumm. The Walthamstow Troll we researched with as many aka's as you prefer. Not to worry. You will be deleted[/p][/quote]And your pipe dream proposals will be defeated Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

1:57pm Tue 12 Feb 13

spcdust says...

Cornbeefur, your continual efforts to derail any kind of genuine and articulate debate on local issues is tiresome. Every thread one reads on this site is populated by your input which hinders any intelligent discussion on real local matters.
I would suggest, like many of us do already do, people just ignore Cornbeefurs meaningless contributions. I'm not going to comment any further on this as I've already broken the golden rule of "never feed the troll".
Cornbeefur, your continual efforts to derail any kind of genuine and articulate debate on local issues is tiresome. Every thread one reads on this site is populated by your input which hinders any intelligent discussion on real local matters. I would suggest, like many of us do already do, people just ignore Cornbeefurs meaningless contributions. I'm not going to comment any further on this as I've already broken the golden rule of "never feed the troll". spcdust
  • Score: 0

2:17pm Tue 12 Feb 13

LakeBreeze says...

I'm local, I live in Wanstead, and you need stop being so contemptuous of this area.

Everyone knows what you're trying to do, and it's passive-aggressive tactics to get your housing pushed through.

When are you going to GET IT -- this land is protected from development for anything other than community use.

BUILD YOUR HOUSING ELSEWHERE. GO AWAY.

And I have a constitutional right to say that.
I'm local, I live in Wanstead, and you need stop being so contemptuous of this area. Everyone knows what you're trying to do, and it's passive-aggressive tactics to get your housing pushed through. When are you going to GET IT -- this land is protected from development for anything other than community use. BUILD YOUR HOUSING ELSEWHERE. GO AWAY. And I have a constitutional right to say that. LakeBreeze
  • Score: 0

2:22pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Silent Majority 2009 says...

This is appalling. Surely this piece of land should be compulsory purchased by the council and integrated into the existing splendid open space. Wanstead High Street's main asset is its wonderful views and open rural feel. Why should all land in an urban area be built on? Come on residents rise up and protect your open space. If you want the High Street to go the way of so many others - down the pan - then allow building on this site. The developers need to go and find somewhere else to make their millions!
This is appalling. Surely this piece of land should be compulsory purchased by the council and integrated into the existing splendid open space. Wanstead High Street's main asset is its wonderful views and open rural feel. Why should all land in an urban area be built on? Come on residents rise up and protect your open space. If you want the High Street to go the way of so many others - down the pan - then allow building on this site. The developers need to go and find somewhere else to make their millions! Silent Majority 2009
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

spcdust wrote:
Cornbeefur, your continual efforts to derail any kind of genuine and articulate debate on local issues is tiresome. Every thread one reads on this site is populated by your input which hinders any intelligent discussion on real local matters.
I would suggest, like many of us do already do, people just ignore Cornbeefurs meaningless contributions. I'm not going to comment any further on this as I've already broken the golden rule of "never feed the troll".
I am certainly not trying to derail any debate and just because I am not as articulate and eloquent as you. I did not know that a prerequisite condition for contributing to any thread was a Degree from some A list University or to be an Alumni from Eton.

As a vast Council tax and Business Rate payer I consider that I merit being able to voice my opinion.

It is interesting to note that you are the only person thus far who is for using this Green Field as a Building Plot.

I respect your views but am baffled at the same time.
[quote][p][bold]spcdust[/bold] wrote: Cornbeefur, your continual efforts to derail any kind of genuine and articulate debate on local issues is tiresome. Every thread one reads on this site is populated by your input which hinders any intelligent discussion on real local matters. I would suggest, like many of us do already do, people just ignore Cornbeefurs meaningless contributions. I'm not going to comment any further on this as I've already broken the golden rule of "never feed the troll".[/p][/quote]I am certainly not trying to derail any debate and just because I am not as articulate and eloquent as you. I did not know that a prerequisite condition for contributing to any thread was a Degree from some A list University or to be an Alumni from Eton. As a vast Council tax and Business Rate payer I consider that I merit being able to voice my opinion. It is interesting to note that you are the only person thus far who is for using this Green Field as a Building Plot. I respect your views but am baffled at the same time. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

2:43pm Tue 12 Feb 13

LakeBreeze says...

Silent Majority 2009 wrote:
This is appalling. Surely this piece of land should be compulsory purchased by the council and integrated into the existing splendid open space. Wanstead High Street's main asset is its wonderful views and open rural feel. Why should all land in an urban area be built on? Come on residents rise up and protect your open space. If you want the High Street to go the way of so many others - down the pan - then allow building on this site. The developers need to go and find somewhere else to make their millions!
Thank you Silent Majority 2009; indeed, the charm of Wanstead High Street is that is is not, in fact, built-up and developed right up to the back teeth.

I agree with your idea of compulsory purchase by the council and integration with Christchurch Green. If only that would happen.

The best use of this land is not to lie neglected as it has been, certainly, but not to be jammed full of bricks and mortar either.

I plan to join with Wanstead Society to get active about this site. I have no idea yet what we can do as a community but we need to do something.
[quote][p][bold]Silent Majority 2009[/bold] wrote: This is appalling. Surely this piece of land should be compulsory purchased by the council and integrated into the existing splendid open space. Wanstead High Street's main asset is its wonderful views and open rural feel. Why should all land in an urban area be built on? Come on residents rise up and protect your open space. If you want the High Street to go the way of so many others - down the pan - then allow building on this site. The developers need to go and find somewhere else to make their millions![/p][/quote]Thank you Silent Majority 2009; indeed, the charm of Wanstead High Street is that is is not, in fact, built-up and developed right up to the back teeth. I agree with your idea of compulsory purchase by the council and integration with Christchurch Green. If only that would happen. The best use of this land is not to lie neglected as it has been, certainly, but not to be jammed full of bricks and mortar either. I plan to join with Wanstead Society to get active about this site. I have no idea yet what we can do as a community but we need to do something. LakeBreeze
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Tue 12 Feb 13

LakeBreeze says...

Wanstead High St Developer wrote:
spcdust wrote:
Cornbeefur, your continual efforts to derail any kind of genuine and articulate debate on local issues is tiresome. Every thread one reads on this site is populated by your input which hinders any intelligent discussion on real local matters.
I would suggest, like many of us do already do, people just ignore Cornbeefurs meaningless contributions. I'm not going to comment any further on this as I've already broken the golden rule of "never feed the troll".
The land ISNOT protected & council cannot force a CPO

I do suggest rather than listen to certain blogs who have contempt for all matters local that as you say you are a local you assist in doing something which we are prepared to give back & pay (certainly no one else has or is over the last 50+ years) and be willing to view our proposals. The client does have an interested party to buy off him & apply for a mosque. This is no tactic & locals must realise this. Why do you think we would spend tens of thousands of pounds so far & also bring our proposals to the locals now than sit back & the client just sells it off to an overseas buyer who wants to build a mosque? Enough of the knocking of our client & constructive open discussion needs to be given. Contact Melanie the reporter as she has all our scheme proposals which isnt shown on this blog
I'm sorry, pal, but you CLEARLY are not interested in what locals desire of their high street, you CLEARLY have no intention of working with us so why should we "view your proposals" when those proposals are motivated by an increasing sense of sheer spite toward us?

Oh I AM going to assist something....I'm going to assist putting up the greatest resistance to your plans. I never saw reason to join The Wanstead Society but now, sign me up.

This isn't happening without a fight.
[quote][p][bold]Wanstead High St Developer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spcdust[/bold] wrote: Cornbeefur, your continual efforts to derail any kind of genuine and articulate debate on local issues is tiresome. Every thread one reads on this site is populated by your input which hinders any intelligent discussion on real local matters. I would suggest, like many of us do already do, people just ignore Cornbeefurs meaningless contributions. I'm not going to comment any further on this as I've already broken the golden rule of "never feed the troll".[/p][/quote]The land ISNOT protected & council cannot force a CPO I do suggest rather than listen to certain blogs who have contempt for all matters local that as you say you are a local you assist in doing something which we are prepared to give back & pay (certainly no one else has or is over the last 50+ years) and be willing to view our proposals. The client does have an interested party to buy off him & apply for a mosque. This is no tactic & locals must realise this. Why do you think we would spend tens of thousands of pounds so far & also bring our proposals to the locals now than sit back & the client just sells it off to an overseas buyer who wants to build a mosque? Enough of the knocking of our client & constructive open discussion needs to be given. Contact Melanie the reporter as she has all our scheme proposals which isnt shown on this blog[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, pal, but you CLEARLY are not interested in what locals desire of their high street, you CLEARLY have no intention of working with us so why should we "view your proposals" when those proposals are motivated by an increasing sense of sheer spite toward us? Oh I AM going to assist something....I'm going to assist putting up the greatest resistance to your plans. I never saw reason to join The Wanstead Society but now, sign me up. This isn't happening without a fight. LakeBreeze
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

'Contact Melanie the reporter as she has all our scheme proposals which isn't shown on this blog'

Yet more contrived tactics that seem to have Back-Fired, louder than a
Russian Trabant Car with a Potato up the Exhaust Pipe.
'Contact Melanie the reporter as she has all our scheme proposals which isn't shown on this blog' Yet more contrived tactics that seem to have Back-Fired, louder than a Russian Trabant Car with a Potato up the Exhaust Pipe. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

3:02pm Tue 12 Feb 13

spcdust says...

Alas, there is a dire need for more housing stock in London and local authorities are under increasing pressure from central government to grant planning permission to meet Londons Housing needs - ultimately these houses have to be built some where. Whilst maintaining green spaces is hugely important I sincerely believe that this particular site is actually a prime location for development. It meets a lot of the criteria for an appropriate development and the surrounding area is well served by open green spaces.
I use the term NIMBY with caution and no offense is intended, but being a NIMBY in this case is a luxury that London and its housing shortage cannot afford. Building on Evergreen Fields would have little direct impact on individuals or the overall local community.
Where are we to provide more housing in London - are we to ghettoise it as long as it's not in our back yard? Better to integrate it in an urban location with established transport links, shopping and local services.
My overall point being it's best to choose your battles and, despite its name, Evergreen Field is just a fenced off overgrown wasteland on a high street which will likely remain so. Still, one thing we can all agree on is Mr Singh does not seem to be a credible potential candidate for developing the site.
Alas, there is a dire need for more housing stock in London and local authorities are under increasing pressure from central government to grant planning permission to meet Londons Housing needs - ultimately these houses have to be built some where. Whilst maintaining green spaces is hugely important I sincerely believe that this particular site is actually a prime location for development. It meets a lot of the criteria for an appropriate development and the surrounding area is well served by open green spaces. I use the term NIMBY with caution and no offense is intended, but being a NIMBY in this case is a luxury that London and its housing shortage cannot afford. Building on Evergreen Fields would have little direct impact on individuals or the overall local community. Where are we to provide more housing in London - are we to ghettoise it as long as it's not in our back yard? Better to integrate it in an urban location with established transport links, shopping and local services. My overall point being it's best to choose your battles and, despite its name, Evergreen Field is just a fenced off overgrown wasteland on a high street which will likely remain so. Still, one thing we can all agree on is Mr Singh does not seem to be a credible potential candidate for developing the site. spcdust
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

Have checked with Redbridge

Dalco have not even submitted a Planning Application

This is all 'Testing the Water' as they will waste a Planning Fee as they know it will get booted out at the first hurdle.

They are scaremongering and it is cheaper to produce pretty Computer Generated Pictures for a few pounds than submit a proper application.

Does anyone think that if it was viable and had any 'legs' Higgins, who area Major House Builder would have sold the same for peanuts?
Have checked with Redbridge Dalco have not even submitted a Planning Application This is all 'Testing the Water' as they will waste a Planning Fee as they know it will get booted out at the first hurdle. They are scaremongering and it is cheaper to produce pretty Computer Generated Pictures for a few pounds than submit a proper application. Does anyone think that if it was viable and had any 'legs' Higgins, who area Major House Builder would have sold the same for peanuts? Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
Have checked with Redbridge

Dalco have not even submitted a Planning Application

This is all 'Testing the Water' as they will waste a Planning Fee as they know it will get booted out at the first hurdle.

They are scaremongering and it is cheaper to produce pretty Computer Generated Pictures for a few pounds than submit a proper application.

Does anyone think that if it was viable and had any 'legs' Higgins, who area Major House Builder would have sold the same for peanuts?
Sorry Furlongs Sold it not Higgins.

Only Application is from Wanstead Society namely


http://www.wansteadi
um.com/wp-content/up
loads/2012/11/Evergr
een-Field-design-and
-access-statement.pd
f
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: Have checked with Redbridge Dalco have not even submitted a Planning Application This is all 'Testing the Water' as they will waste a Planning Fee as they know it will get booted out at the first hurdle. They are scaremongering and it is cheaper to produce pretty Computer Generated Pictures for a few pounds than submit a proper application. Does anyone think that if it was viable and had any 'legs' Higgins, who area Major House Builder would have sold the same for peanuts?[/p][/quote]Sorry Furlongs Sold it not Higgins. Only Application is from Wanstead Society namely http://www.wansteadi um.com/wp-content/up loads/2012/11/Evergr een-Field-design-and -access-statement.pd f Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

3:18pm Tue 12 Feb 13

LakeBreeze says...

socdust, the very reason why this spot is "a fenced off overgrown wasteland" as you put it, is because this owner has allowed it to be, deliberately neglecting it just so that locals would sigh with relief at any plan for development.

Again, tactics on his part.

As for wasteland, actually this field is a beautiful spot when not full of the junk the owner apparently left there. His own lack of regular mowing has caused any rat infestation. But then, he doesn't want to maintain even the appearance of the field because, again, he would just love for it to simply become an eyesore -- he said it himself in another article late last year when he basically all but made unveiled threats to do so.
socdust, the very reason why this spot is "a fenced off overgrown wasteland" as you put it, is because this owner has allowed it to be, deliberately neglecting it just so that locals would sigh with relief at any plan for development. Again, tactics on his part. As for wasteland, actually this field is a beautiful spot when not full of the junk the owner apparently left there. His own lack of regular mowing has caused any rat infestation. But then, he doesn't want to maintain even the appearance of the field because, again, he would just love for it to simply become an eyesore -- he said it himself in another article late last year when he basically all but made unveiled threats to do so. LakeBreeze
  • Score: 0

3:27pm Tue 12 Feb 13

EWX says...

People of Wanstead - the people of Beirut want their Al Amin mosque back. You can't have it.
It's theirs.
http://www.flickrive
r.com/photos/rouatt/
2389490272/
People of Wanstead - the people of Beirut want their Al Amin mosque back. You can't have it. It's theirs. http://www.flickrive r.com/photos/rouatt/ 2389490272/ EWX
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Wanstead High St Developer says...

Just in point in rats & rubbish issues. The client does monthly rat inspections & any rubbish is not by the client !! Rubbish comes from where??? I'll leave you to decide where rubbish comes from !!!
We were at the site the other day and is at the moment clean & tidy. Any rubbish comes from where??? Certainly not the client
Just in point in rats & rubbish issues. The client does monthly rat inspections & any rubbish is not by the client !! Rubbish comes from where??? I'll leave you to decide where rubbish comes from !!! We were at the site the other day and is at the moment clean & tidy. Any rubbish comes from where??? Certainly not the client Wanstead High St Developer
  • Score: 0

3:37pm Tue 12 Feb 13

SXH says...

I thought the Guardian have a policy to posters not to post anything false?

If no planning application has gone in then why is this story here in the first place?
I thought the Guardian have a policy to posters not to post anything false? If no planning application has gone in then why is this story here in the first place? SXH
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Tue 12 Feb 13

spcdust says...

This "developer" has only owned the land for a relatively short time - how long has the plot been fenced off with no access to the public? The idea of the land being used for community use is a great theoretical one but tell me how exactly this will work? Who will fund this idealistic idea - certainly not a cash strapped local authority?Maybe we could all have a whip round to purchase the land, develop it for community use and then meet it's annual associated running costs? What are your suggestion for addressing the housing crisis facing Londoners - preserve the fanciful notion that Wanstead is a village at all costs and build housing stock in other areas as long as it's not your local area? I'm certainly not for over development but really, would actually building on this plot be over development.
This "developer" has only owned the land for a relatively short time - how long has the plot been fenced off with no access to the public? The idea of the land being used for community use is a great theoretical one but tell me how exactly this will work? Who will fund this idealistic idea - certainly not a cash strapped local authority?Maybe we could all have a whip round to purchase the land, develop it for community use and then meet it's annual associated running costs? What are your suggestion for addressing the housing crisis facing Londoners - preserve the fanciful notion that Wanstead is a village at all costs and build housing stock in other areas as long as it's not your local area? I'm certainly not for over development but really, would actually building on this plot be over development. spcdust
  • Score: 0

3:43pm Tue 12 Feb 13

SXH says...

By Dalco Developments

The image has been released by Dalco Developments, which owns the plot known as Evergreen Field in High Street, Wanstead.

The company hopes to build homes on the site, but has said it may be forced to sell to a Middle Eastern buyer, which hopes to build the place of worship, if opposition to its plans continue

I take this as a threat if you dont get your own way? childish games, this is not working in with the community.
By Dalco Developments The image has been released by Dalco Developments, which owns the plot known as Evergreen Field in High Street, Wanstead. The company hopes to build homes on the site, but has said it may be forced to sell to a Middle Eastern buyer, which hopes to build the place of worship, if opposition to its plans continue I take this as a threat if you dont get your own way? childish games, this is not working in with the community. SXH
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Tue 12 Feb 13

SXH says...

LakeBreeze wrote:
socdust, the very reason why this spot is "a fenced off overgrown wasteland" as you put it, is because this owner has allowed it to be, deliberately neglecting it just so that locals would sigh with relief at any plan for development. Again, tactics on his part. As for wasteland, actually this field is a beautiful spot when not full of the junk the owner apparently left there. His own lack of regular mowing has caused any rat infestation. But then, he doesn't want to maintain even the appearance of the field because, again, he would just love for it to simply become an eyesore -- he said it himself in another article late last year when he basically all but made unveiled threats to do so.
I actually drove past this today, your right, why have the borough not sent enforcements in for the owner to clear and keep the area tidy like they do to many others.
[quote][p][bold]LakeBreeze[/bold] wrote: socdust, the very reason why this spot is "a fenced off overgrown wasteland" as you put it, is because this owner has allowed it to be, deliberately neglecting it just so that locals would sigh with relief at any plan for development. Again, tactics on his part. As for wasteland, actually this field is a beautiful spot when not full of the junk the owner apparently left there. His own lack of regular mowing has caused any rat infestation. But then, he doesn't want to maintain even the appearance of the field because, again, he would just love for it to simply become an eyesore -- he said it himself in another article late last year when he basically all but made unveiled threats to do so.[/p][/quote]I actually drove past this today, your right, why have the borough not sent enforcements in for the owner to clear and keep the area tidy like they do to many others. SXH
  • Score: 0

4:12pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Richard Arnopp says...

EWX wrote:
People of Wanstead - the people of Beirut want their Al Amin mosque back. You can't have it.
It's theirs.
http://www.flickrive

r.com/photos/rouatt/

2389490272/
Well spotted EWX! The Mohammad Al-Amin Mosque was built between 2002 and 2007 by the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was buried beside it. According to the architect, Azmi Fakhuri, the blue-domed mosque has an Ottoman inspiration, copying the Sultan Ahmed Mosque in Istanbul.

I thought it looked familiar!
[quote][p][bold]EWX[/bold] wrote: People of Wanstead - the people of Beirut want their Al Amin mosque back. You can't have it. It's theirs. http://www.flickrive r.com/photos/rouatt/ 2389490272/[/p][/quote]Well spotted EWX! The Mohammad Al-Amin Mosque was built between 2002 and 2007 by the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was buried beside it. According to the architect, Azmi Fakhuri, the blue-domed mosque has an Ottoman inspiration, copying the Sultan Ahmed Mosque in Istanbul. I thought it looked familiar! Richard Arnopp
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Tue 12 Feb 13

ChrisDoyle1977 says...

It's good to see that the developer's crude attempt at fear-mongering was exposed by a clever reader in likely less time than the "artist" spent in Photoshopping it. In breaking news, the developer has been approached by a Las Vegas buyer who wishes to use the site to build a casino in the shape of the Great Pyramid of Giza. "Artist" impression forthcoming...
It's good to see that the developer's crude attempt at fear-mongering was exposed by a clever reader in likely less time than the "artist" spent in Photoshopping it. In breaking news, the developer has been approached by a Las Vegas buyer who wishes to use the site to build a casino in the shape of the Great Pyramid of Giza. "Artist" impression forthcoming... ChrisDoyle1977
  • Score: 0

4:41pm Tue 12 Feb 13

stickmanny says...

now that is a good idea
now that is a good idea stickmanny
  • Score: 0

4:42pm Tue 12 Feb 13

stickmanny says...

BTW when I see the words 'Cornbeefur says..." I just skip to the next post. It works a treat.
BTW when I see the words 'Cornbeefur says..." I just skip to the next post. It works a treat. stickmanny
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Wanstead High St Developer says...

We are sure that locals would prefer the client to input & inject millions into this area than any other foreign interested party.

I read alot of talk but no constructive effort apart from Wanstead Society's attempt into planning which will be no good to anyone as they dont own the land nor have the financial status or legal right even if they were given planning which is highly unlikely for many reasons.
We are sure that locals would prefer the client to input & inject millions into this area than any other foreign interested party. I read alot of talk but no constructive effort apart from Wanstead Society's attempt into planning which will be no good to anyone as they dont own the land nor have the financial status or legal right even if they were given planning which is highly unlikely for many reasons. Wanstead High St Developer
  • Score: 0

4:52pm Tue 12 Feb 13

spcdust says...

Wanstead High Street Developer - are you officially speaking on behalf of Dalco Developments? If so you may wish to adopt a different strategy as you are further damaging your clients already tattered reputation and credibility with your comments within this discussion.
Wanstead High Street Developer - are you officially speaking on behalf of Dalco Developments? If so you may wish to adopt a different strategy as you are further damaging your clients already tattered reputation and credibility with your comments within this discussion. spcdust
  • Score: 0

5:03pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

Wanstead High Street developer seems to be digging holes already..... for his Client.

There is no Planning Application made as they know it will be laughed at, will not win even on an Appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and they know that it will be money down the drain in Planning Fees to the Council.

The 'Adviser' lacks skills if this is how he directs this Client as an approach.

Certainly by his Website it seems very Amateurish, without any address or Landline Phone Number.
Wanstead High Street developer seems to be digging holes already..... for his Client. There is no Planning Application made as they know it will be laughed at, will not win even on an Appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and they know that it will be money down the drain in Planning Fees to the Council. The 'Adviser' lacks skills if this is how he directs this Client as an approach. Certainly by his Website it seems very Amateurish, without any address or Landline Phone Number. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

5:07pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Wanstead High St Developer says...

No
I am here to put my own views as a local and stop all this rubbish about certain so called locals constantly windging Get them to talk to this developer. Better than sit on their lorals doing no good at all. They moan like the Troll but will they put their hand in their own pockets. Nahhhh
Thats why after 50+ years nothings been done !!! Its not hard to work out. At least the client here is doing something & has the money to do so
No I am here to put my own views as a local and stop all this rubbish about certain so called locals constantly windging Get them to talk to this developer. Better than sit on their lorals doing no good at all. They moan like the Troll but will they put their hand in their own pockets. Nahhhh Thats why after 50+ years nothings been done !!! Its not hard to work out. At least the client here is doing something & has the money to do so Wanstead High St Developer
  • Score: 0

5:11pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

Wanstead High St Developer wrote:
No
I am here to put my own views as a local and stop all this rubbish about certain so called locals constantly windging Get them to talk to this developer. Better than sit on their lorals doing no good at all. They moan like the Troll but will they put their hand in their own pockets. Nahhhh
Thats why after 50+ years nothings been done !!! Its not hard to work out. At least the client here is doing something & has the money to do so
'Better than sit on their lorals doing no good at all day'



I love Lorals and Hardy.
[quote][p][bold]Wanstead High St Developer[/bold] wrote: No I am here to put my own views as a local and stop all this rubbish about certain so called locals constantly windging Get them to talk to this developer. Better than sit on their lorals doing no good at all. They moan like the Troll but will they put their hand in their own pockets. Nahhhh Thats why after 50+ years nothings been done !!! Its not hard to work out. At least the client here is doing something & has the money to do so[/p][/quote]'Better than sit on their lorals doing no good at all day' I love Lorals and Hardy. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Tue 12 Feb 13

spcdust says...

Now I'm completely confused - Wanstead High Street Developer has posted as if they act as the spokesman for the Developer yet now claims they are not.
Now I'm completely confused - Wanstead High Street Developer has posted as if they act as the spokesman for the Developer yet now claims they are not. spcdust
  • Score: 0

5:24pm Tue 12 Feb 13

LakeBreeze says...

Go ahead, keep digging your own grave with your combative comments about we locals.

Go right ahead.

It's very plain what a nasty attitude you have toward us. Not doing anything? The Wanstead Society FORMED in the first place for Evergreen Field, but it's the owners including you who won't let them.

And believe me, if I personally had the money I would have that field from you in a New York minute.

Instead I'll have to join with whatever other efforts are possible, but don't think for a minute that anyone's "resting" on anything, you nasty little man.
Go ahead, keep digging your own grave with your combative comments about we locals. Go right ahead. It's very plain what a nasty attitude you have toward us. Not doing anything? The Wanstead Society FORMED in the first place for Evergreen Field, but it's the owners including you who won't let them. And believe me, if I personally had the money I would have that field from you in a New York minute. Instead I'll have to join with whatever other efforts are possible, but don't think for a minute that anyone's "resting" on anything, you nasty little man. LakeBreeze
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Tue 12 Feb 13

spcdust says...

Just to stimulate debate can anyone who wishes to preserve Evergreen Field, in light of the current housing shortage in London, present an articulate a reasoned argument why it should be preserved? Can a valid and rational reason be shown why this land is so important it should be preserved or are we slightly in NIMBY territory here?
Just to stimulate debate can anyone who wishes to preserve Evergreen Field, in light of the current housing shortage in London, present an articulate a reasoned argument why it should be preserved? Can a valid and rational reason be shown why this land is so important it should be preserved or are we slightly in NIMBY territory here? spcdust
  • Score: 0

5:38pm Tue 12 Feb 13

STOWE 2 LTD says...

Dear ALL

It has been brought to our attention all the above & other blogs & blogs by Wanstead High St Developer.
Firstly for the record, we STOWE 2 LTD are the true representaives for Dalco Developements.
All matters concerning any issues with the land are to be directed via us & we note comments about us which we refute totally.
However, the main item for all in consideration is that we would like all local residents to discuss how many aspects including the ideas of Wanstead Society & local usage could be made of this land & development. Any aspects by the blogger Wanstead high st developer will be blocked with immediate effect & we must apologise if this has misdirected anyone concerned as this is not our approach or standards.
We would like to open the conversation to real practical views and how the land could be both developed and used for area as suggested by Wanstead Society which on behalf of said landowner is very keen to work with. Stowe 2 Ltd. 12/02/2013 17:37hrs
Dear ALL It has been brought to our attention all the above & other blogs & blogs by Wanstead High St Developer. Firstly for the record, we STOWE 2 LTD are the true representaives for Dalco Developements. All matters concerning any issues with the land are to be directed via us & we note comments about us which we refute totally. However, the main item for all in consideration is that we would like all local residents to discuss how many aspects including the ideas of Wanstead Society & local usage could be made of this land & development. Any aspects by the blogger Wanstead high st developer will be blocked with immediate effect & we must apologise if this has misdirected anyone concerned as this is not our approach or standards. We would like to open the conversation to real practical views and how the land could be both developed and used for area as suggested by Wanstead Society which on behalf of said landowner is very keen to work with. Stowe 2 Ltd. 12/02/2013 17:37hrs STOWE 2 LTD
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Tue 12 Feb 13

SXH says...

spcdust wrote:
Now I'm completely confused - Wanstead High Street Developer has posted as if they act as the spokesman for the Developer yet now claims they are not.
He is also posting on other articles referring people to this article, (starting a protest i think) a bit of concern
[quote][p][bold]spcdust[/bold] wrote: Now I'm completely confused - Wanstead High Street Developer has posted as if they act as the spokesman for the Developer yet now claims they are not.[/p][/quote]He is also posting on other articles referring people to this article, (starting a protest i think) a bit of concern SXH
  • Score: 0

6:00pm Tue 12 Feb 13

STOWE 2 LTD says...

We concur also, but have also noted protest articles which is not by us, this is being dealt with.
We shall on matter of the Wanstead Society's application comment thus in our nexty post on why we woudl prefer WS to contact us as their application is incorrect for following reasons in our next post. Thank you
We concur also, but have also noted protest articles which is not by us, this is being dealt with. We shall on matter of the Wanstead Society's application comment thus in our nexty post on why we woudl prefer WS to contact us as their application is incorrect for following reasons in our next post. Thank you STOWE 2 LTD
  • Score: 0

6:03pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

STOWE 2 LTD wrote:
Dear ALL

It has been brought to our attention all the above & other blogs & blogs by Wanstead High St Developer.
Firstly for the record, we STOWE 2 LTD are the true representaives for Dalco Developements.
All matters concerning any issues with the land are to be directed via us & we note comments about us which we refute totally.
However, the main item for all in consideration is that we would like all local residents to discuss how many aspects including the ideas of Wanstead Society & local usage could be made of this land & development. Any aspects by the blogger Wanstead high st developer will be blocked with immediate effect & we must apologise if this has misdirected anyone concerned as this is not our approach or standards.
We would like to open the conversation to real practical views and how the land could be both developed and used for area as suggested by Wanstead Society which on behalf of said landowner is very keen to work with. Stowe 2 Ltd. 12/02/2013 17:37hrs
Why do you not have a Land Line Phone
Number and a contactable address on your Website?

You claim to be a High Profile Agent with Blue Chip Firms on your Client Base, but your site seems very amateurish.

Where are your offices?

A Starbucks somewhere with free WiFi?
[quote][p][bold]STOWE 2 LTD[/bold] wrote: Dear ALL It has been brought to our attention all the above & other blogs & blogs by Wanstead High St Developer. Firstly for the record, we STOWE 2 LTD are the true representaives for Dalco Developements. All matters concerning any issues with the land are to be directed via us & we note comments about us which we refute totally. However, the main item for all in consideration is that we would like all local residents to discuss how many aspects including the ideas of Wanstead Society & local usage could be made of this land & development. Any aspects by the blogger Wanstead high st developer will be blocked with immediate effect & we must apologise if this has misdirected anyone concerned as this is not our approach or standards. We would like to open the conversation to real practical views and how the land could be both developed and used for area as suggested by Wanstead Society which on behalf of said landowner is very keen to work with. Stowe 2 Ltd. 12/02/2013 17:37hrs[/p][/quote]Why do you not have a Land Line Phone Number and a contactable address on your Website? You claim to be a High Profile Agent with Blue Chip Firms on your Client Base, but your site seems very amateurish. Where are your offices? A Starbucks somewhere with free WiFi? Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

6:16pm Tue 12 Feb 13

E-ten trifles says...

Well that backfired on Dalco developments.Best of luck to 'The Wanstead society' this kind of cynical deception by developers may actually help their cause.
Well that backfired on Dalco developments.Best of luck to 'The Wanstead society' this kind of cynical deception by developers may actually help their cause. E-ten trifles
  • Score: 0

6:44pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

This case (Linked below) was eventually defeated in a similar case where the land received
'Village Green Status'

The Developer at that time tried flats and even pleaded that he needed to house his large family in a bigger home but despite the pleadings, it was all kicked into touch.


http://www.guardian-
series.co.uk/news/45
02519.BUCKHURST_HILL
__Residents_save_the
ir_village_green/
This case (Linked below) was eventually defeated in a similar case where the land received 'Village Green Status' The Developer at that time tried flats and even pleaded that he needed to house his large family in a bigger home but despite the pleadings, it was all kicked into touch. http://www.guardian- series.co.uk/news/45 02519.BUCKHURST_HILL __Residents_save_the ir_village_green/ Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

9:56pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

Mr Sanger seems to change course by the week with the Evergreen Field (we know you do not like people calling it such, how about a Meadow?)

Quote Guardian passim :-

It is hoped that if the company is unable to obtain planning permission, they will allow the land to be used for the benefit of the community. However, director Dalbir Singh Sanger disagrees adamantly, claiming in an interview with the Wanstead and Woodford Guardian, “If worse comes to worse (sic), we will grow our own vegetables there. There are so many things that we can do there which will be an eyesore to local people.”

He went off vegetables and made a picture of a Housing estate on his computer and now has made a Mosque.

Plan D?
Mr Sanger seems to change course by the week with the Evergreen Field (we know you do not like people calling it such, how about a Meadow?) Quote Guardian passim :- It is hoped that if the company is unable to obtain planning permission, they will allow the land to be used for the benefit of the community. However, director Dalbir Singh Sanger disagrees adamantly, claiming in an interview with the Wanstead and Woodford Guardian, “If worse comes to worse (sic), we will grow our own vegetables there. There are so many things that we can do there which will be an eyesore to local people.” He went off vegetables and made a picture of a Housing estate on his computer and now has made a Mosque. Plan D? Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

10:21am Wed 13 Feb 13

spcdust says...

Tuesday's Evening Standard had some interesting articles regarding the housing crisis in London:

http://www.standard.
co.uk/news/london/fi
rst-time-buyers-wont
-afford-a-house-unti
l-they-are-54-report
-warns-8491084.html

It's all very well for those of us who are already on the housing ladder to be precious about every undeveloped plot of land but one has to think of future generations. Of course it's important to not over develop and retain green open spaces but I still would say that Evergreen Field is actually not a in-appropraite site for Development: I thin yesterdays comment in the Evening Standard is relevant:

http://www.standard.
co.uk/news/london/ho
using-commentary-nim
byism-is-halting-pro
gress-to-tackle-cris
is-8491577.html
Tuesday's Evening Standard had some interesting articles regarding the housing crisis in London: http://www.standard. co.uk/news/london/fi rst-time-buyers-wont -afford-a-house-unti l-they-are-54-report -warns-8491084.html It's all very well for those of us who are already on the housing ladder to be precious about every undeveloped plot of land but one has to think of future generations. Of course it's important to not over develop and retain green open spaces but I still would say that Evergreen Field is actually not a in-appropraite site for Development: I thin yesterdays comment in the Evening Standard is relevant: http://www.standard. co.uk/news/london/ho using-commentary-nim byism-is-halting-pro gress-to-tackle-cris is-8491577.html spcdust
  • Score: 0

10:30am Wed 13 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

spcdust wrote:
Tuesday's Evening Standard had some interesting articles regarding the housing crisis in London:

http://www.standard.

co.uk/news/london/fi

rst-time-buyers-wont

-afford-a-house-unti

l-they-are-54-report

-warns-8491084.html

It's all very well for those of us who are already on the housing ladder to be precious about every undeveloped plot of land but one has to think of future generations. Of course it's important to not over develop and retain green open spaces but I still would say that Evergreen Field is actually not a in-appropraite site for Development: I thin yesterdays comment in the Evening Standard is relevant:

http://www.standard.

co.uk/news/london/ho

using-commentary-nim

byism-is-halting-pro

gress-to-tackle-cris

is-8491577.html
Yes, there was also an article in the mail why many people will be concerned about Iman Teachers

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2277437/Saudi-celebr
ity-cleric-raped-mur
dered-daughter-claim
ed-injured-doubted-v
irgin.html
[quote][p][bold]spcdust[/bold] wrote: Tuesday's Evening Standard had some interesting articles regarding the housing crisis in London: http://www.standard. co.uk/news/london/fi rst-time-buyers-wont -afford-a-house-unti l-they-are-54-report -warns-8491084.html It's all very well for those of us who are already on the housing ladder to be precious about every undeveloped plot of land but one has to think of future generations. Of course it's important to not over develop and retain green open spaces but I still would say that Evergreen Field is actually not a in-appropraite site for Development: I thin yesterdays comment in the Evening Standard is relevant: http://www.standard. co.uk/news/london/ho using-commentary-nim byism-is-halting-pro gress-to-tackle-cris is-8491577.html[/p][/quote]Yes, there was also an article in the mail why many people will be concerned about Iman Teachers http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2277437/Saudi-celebr ity-cleric-raped-mur dered-daughter-claim ed-injured-doubted-v irgin.html Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Dave mp says...

SXH wrote:
I cannot see how this is in character with other buildings in surrounding area?

We have lost the UK
We certainly have.
[quote][p][bold]SXH[/bold] wrote: I cannot see how this is in character with other buildings in surrounding area? We have lost the UK[/p][/quote]We certainly have. Dave mp
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

Dave mp wrote:
SXH wrote:
I cannot see how this is in character with other buildings in surrounding area?

We have lost the UK
We certainly have.
Don't panic, it will never occur.
[quote][p][bold]Dave mp[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SXH[/bold] wrote: I cannot see how this is in character with other buildings in surrounding area? We have lost the UK[/p][/quote]We certainly have.[/p][/quote]Don't panic, it will never occur. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Walthamster says...

spcdust wrote:
Just to stimulate debate can anyone who wishes to preserve Evergreen Field, in light of the current housing shortage in London, present an articulate a reasoned argument why it should be preserved? Can a valid and rational reason be shown why this land is so important it should be preserved or are we slightly in NIMBY territory here?
Spcdust, building more housing won't solve the housing crisis. It just brings more people in and further skews an area's work-life balance.

It's practically standing-room only in Waltham Forest, and still every amenity we lose is redeveloped as housing, and still more people arrive to fill it. There are nowhere near enough jobs for the ever-growing population, so unemployment is high and social problems are increasing.

We've even lost our famous dog track which will be replaced by, you guessed it, more housing.

We need workplaces, leisure facilities, healthcare, schools, shops and parks. What we get is more housing and more people.

If Wanstead residents want to avoid the same fate, who can blame them?
[quote][p][bold]spcdust[/bold] wrote: Just to stimulate debate can anyone who wishes to preserve Evergreen Field, in light of the current housing shortage in London, present an articulate a reasoned argument why it should be preserved? Can a valid and rational reason be shown why this land is so important it should be preserved or are we slightly in NIMBY territory here?[/p][/quote]Spcdust, building more housing won't solve the housing crisis. It just brings more people in and further skews an area's work-life balance. It's practically standing-room only in Waltham Forest, and still every amenity we lose is redeveloped as housing, and still more people arrive to fill it. There are nowhere near enough jobs for the ever-growing population, so unemployment is high and social problems are increasing. We've even lost our famous dog track which will be replaced by, you guessed it, more housing. We need workplaces, leisure facilities, healthcare, schools, shops and parks. What we get is more housing and more people. If Wanstead residents want to avoid the same fate, who can blame them? Walthamster
  • Score: 0

4:20pm Wed 13 Feb 13

STOWE 2 LTD says...

Dear Walthamster

That is exactly mixed use developement being proposed
The lower elements are set back some 30ft giving public open footpath & seating (like on the opposite side) as well as shops which bring in business, employment/jobs
Over 50% of the scheme will be given back by the developer as open parkland / recreational for children etc. some of the properties will be for low income, key worker / affordable housing subject to agreements with planners. This period is a consultation period. Its been left for 50+ years abd never been used
Dear Walthamster That is exactly mixed use developement being proposed The lower elements are set back some 30ft giving public open footpath & seating (like on the opposite side) as well as shops which bring in business, employment/jobs Over 50% of the scheme will be given back by the developer as open parkland / recreational for children etc. some of the properties will be for low income, key worker / affordable housing subject to agreements with planners. This period is a consultation period. Its been left for 50+ years abd never been used STOWE 2 LTD
  • Score: 0

4:55pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

STOWE 2 LTD wrote:
Dear Walthamster

That is exactly mixed use developement being proposed
The lower elements are set back some 30ft giving public open footpath & seating (like on the opposite side) as well as shops which bring in business, employment/jobs
Over 50% of the scheme will be given back by the developer as open parkland / recreational for children etc. some of the properties will be for low income, key worker / affordable housing subject to agreements with planners. This period is a consultation period. Its been left for 50+ years abd never been used
Not 'been used' because of
Restrictive Covenants on the Land.
[quote][p][bold]STOWE 2 LTD[/bold] wrote: Dear Walthamster That is exactly mixed use developement being proposed The lower elements are set back some 30ft giving public open footpath & seating (like on the opposite side) as well as shops which bring in business, employment/jobs Over 50% of the scheme will be given back by the developer as open parkland / recreational for children etc. some of the properties will be for low income, key worker / affordable housing subject to agreements with planners. This period is a consultation period. Its been left for 50+ years abd never been used[/p][/quote]Not 'been used' because of Restrictive Covenants on the Land. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

4:58pm Wed 13 Feb 13

stickmanny says...

Walthamster wrote:
spcdust wrote:
Just to stimulate debate can anyone who wishes to preserve Evergreen Field, in light of the current housing shortage in London, present an articulate a reasoned argument why it should be preserved? Can a valid and rational reason be shown why this land is so important it should be preserved or are we slightly in NIMBY territory here?
Spcdust, building more housing won't solve the housing crisis. It just brings more people in and further skews an area's work-life balance.

It's practically standing-room only in Waltham Forest, and still every amenity we lose is redeveloped as housing, and still more people arrive to fill it. There are nowhere near enough jobs for the ever-growing population, so unemployment is high and social problems are increasing.

We've even lost our famous dog track which will be replaced by, you guessed it, more housing.

We need workplaces, leisure facilities, healthcare, schools, shops and parks. What we get is more housing and more people.

If Wanstead residents want to avoid the same fate, who can blame them?
This doesn't stack up - if there is no work for those that arrive they will have to go elsewhere.

Fact is there are jobs and this is why housing AND associated amenities are badly needed
[quote][p][bold]Walthamster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spcdust[/bold] wrote: Just to stimulate debate can anyone who wishes to preserve Evergreen Field, in light of the current housing shortage in London, present an articulate a reasoned argument why it should be preserved? Can a valid and rational reason be shown why this land is so important it should be preserved or are we slightly in NIMBY territory here?[/p][/quote]Spcdust, building more housing won't solve the housing crisis. It just brings more people in and further skews an area's work-life balance. It's practically standing-room only in Waltham Forest, and still every amenity we lose is redeveloped as housing, and still more people arrive to fill it. There are nowhere near enough jobs for the ever-growing population, so unemployment is high and social problems are increasing. We've even lost our famous dog track which will be replaced by, you guessed it, more housing. We need workplaces, leisure facilities, healthcare, schools, shops and parks. What we get is more housing and more people. If Wanstead residents want to avoid the same fate, who can blame them?[/p][/quote]This doesn't stack up - if there is no work for those that arrive they will have to go elsewhere. Fact is there are jobs and this is why housing AND associated amenities are badly needed stickmanny
  • Score: 0

5:10pm Wed 13 Feb 13

shoehill says...

spcdust wrote:
Just to stimulate debate can anyone who wishes to preserve Evergreen Field, in light of the current housing shortage in London, present an articulate a reasoned argument why it should be preserved? Can a valid and rational reason be shown why this land is so important it should be preserved or are we slightly in NIMBY territory here?
I suspect we may well be in NIMBY territory here. But I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. People in Wanstead appear to be passionate about keeping their area's uniqueness. They're protecting their space, just as anyone in any other area is entitled to do. You stick up more for the space you live in because it's more relevant to you, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

Building seven houses and two flats on the Evergreen Field in isolation is not going to make any kind of dent in the housing shortage in London. Perhaps building blocks of flats on every conceivable bit of open land in Redbridge would have a miniscule impact. How about starting with Wanstead Green, you could get a whole housing estate on there. And War Memorial Green could contain several high-rise blocks.

My point is, where do you stop. London always has and always will attract more residents than it can handle. Once a green space is built on, it's gone forever. Wanstead could end up with no green spaces, no unique-selling-point and we'd all be living in a concrete jungle, yet the housing shortage would still persist. A bigger UK-wide solution is needed. Building on our Evergreen Field is not part of that solution.
[quote][p][bold]spcdust[/bold] wrote: Just to stimulate debate can anyone who wishes to preserve Evergreen Field, in light of the current housing shortage in London, present an articulate a reasoned argument why it should be preserved? Can a valid and rational reason be shown why this land is so important it should be preserved or are we slightly in NIMBY territory here?[/p][/quote]I suspect we may well be in NIMBY territory here. But I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. People in Wanstead appear to be passionate about keeping their area's uniqueness. They're protecting their space, just as anyone in any other area is entitled to do. You stick up more for the space you live in because it's more relevant to you, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Building seven houses and two flats on the Evergreen Field in isolation is not going to make any kind of dent in the housing shortage in London. Perhaps building blocks of flats on every conceivable bit of open land in Redbridge would have a miniscule impact. How about starting with Wanstead Green, you could get a whole housing estate on there. And War Memorial Green could contain several high-rise blocks. My point is, where do you stop. London always has and always will attract more residents than it can handle. Once a green space is built on, it's gone forever. Wanstead could end up with no green spaces, no unique-selling-point and we'd all be living in a concrete jungle, yet the housing shortage would still persist. A bigger UK-wide solution is needed. Building on our Evergreen Field is not part of that solution. shoehill
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Wed 13 Feb 13

spcdust says...

shoehill wrote:
spcdust wrote:
Just to stimulate debate can anyone who wishes to preserve Evergreen Field, in light of the current housing shortage in London, present an articulate a reasoned argument why it should be preserved? Can a valid and rational reason be shown why this land is so important it should be preserved or are we slightly in NIMBY territory here?
I suspect we may well be in NIMBY territory here. But I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. People in Wanstead appear to be passionate about keeping their area's uniqueness. They're protecting their space, just as anyone in any other area is entitled to do. You stick up more for the space you live in because it's more relevant to you, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

Building seven houses and two flats on the Evergreen Field in isolation is not going to make any kind of dent in the housing shortage in London. Perhaps building blocks of flats on every conceivable bit of open land in Redbridge would have a miniscule impact. How about starting with Wanstead Green, you could get a whole housing estate on there. And War Memorial Green could contain several high-rise blocks.

My point is, where do you stop. London always has and always will attract more residents than it can handle. Once a green space is built on, it's gone forever. Wanstead could end up with no green spaces, no unique-selling-point and we'd all be living in a concrete jungle, yet the housing shortage would still persist. A bigger UK-wide solution is needed. Building on our Evergreen Field is not part of that solution.
A well thought through response and I appreciate the points you make. However, this green space seems ideally suited to development considering its location, proximity to amenities, current use and actual low impact it would have on individual home owners. There are more worthy green spaces in the area that deserve our protection so I believe it's a case of choosing your battles.
Whilst not the largest of developments, far better to achieve the housing requirements of the future by integrating smaller developments into communities rather than building huge ghettos.
[quote][p][bold]shoehill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spcdust[/bold] wrote: Just to stimulate debate can anyone who wishes to preserve Evergreen Field, in light of the current housing shortage in London, present an articulate a reasoned argument why it should be preserved? Can a valid and rational reason be shown why this land is so important it should be preserved or are we slightly in NIMBY territory here?[/p][/quote]I suspect we may well be in NIMBY territory here. But I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. People in Wanstead appear to be passionate about keeping their area's uniqueness. They're protecting their space, just as anyone in any other area is entitled to do. You stick up more for the space you live in because it's more relevant to you, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Building seven houses and two flats on the Evergreen Field in isolation is not going to make any kind of dent in the housing shortage in London. Perhaps building blocks of flats on every conceivable bit of open land in Redbridge would have a miniscule impact. How about starting with Wanstead Green, you could get a whole housing estate on there. And War Memorial Green could contain several high-rise blocks. My point is, where do you stop. London always has and always will attract more residents than it can handle. Once a green space is built on, it's gone forever. Wanstead could end up with no green spaces, no unique-selling-point and we'd all be living in a concrete jungle, yet the housing shortage would still persist. A bigger UK-wide solution is needed. Building on our Evergreen Field is not part of that solution.[/p][/quote]A well thought through response and I appreciate the points you make. However, this green space seems ideally suited to development considering its location, proximity to amenities, current use and actual low impact it would have on individual home owners. There are more worthy green spaces in the area that deserve our protection so I believe it's a case of choosing your battles. Whilst not the largest of developments, far better to achieve the housing requirements of the future by integrating smaller developments into communities rather than building huge ghettos. spcdust
  • Score: 0

7:37pm Wed 13 Feb 13

STOWE 2 LTD says...

for those who cannot open drop box, the wording from Redbridge council reads as thus:- (13/02/13 letter to landowner)

Dear Mr Sanger
I write further to my colleague Brian Hoy's letter to you, as owner of the Evergreen Field, about the nomination by The Wanstead Society of the Evergreen Fiel site for inclusion on the Council's List of Assets of Community Value.
This nomination has now been considered. I would advise you that based on the information provided to me & from our own research, the nomination WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL. Since the Evergreen Field has been vacant and unused for approximately 50 years, during which time the public have not had authorised access to the fenced site, the actual current main use or main in the recent past is NOT considered to meet the definition of a property asset that may be considered to be land of Community Value that furthers the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community, required by either Section 88(1) or (2) of the Localisation Act 2011.
As a result of the statutory requirments not having been met, the Evergreen Field WILL NOT BE INCLUDED on the List of Assets of Community Value but will be included on the list of UNSUCCESSFUL Nominations.
The Wanstead Society has been advised accordingly.
Yours Sincerely
Joe Keys
Chief Property Services Officer
London Borough of Redbridge Council
for those who cannot open drop box, the wording from Redbridge council reads as thus:- (13/02/13 letter to landowner) Dear Mr Sanger I write further to my colleague Brian Hoy's letter to you, as owner of the Evergreen Field, about the nomination by The Wanstead Society of the Evergreen Fiel site for inclusion on the Council's List of Assets of Community Value. This nomination has now been considered. I would advise you that based on the information provided to me & from our own research, the nomination WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL. Since the Evergreen Field has been vacant and unused for approximately 50 years, during which time the public have not had authorised access to the fenced site, the actual current main use or main in the recent past is NOT considered to meet the definition of a property asset that may be considered to be land of Community Value that furthers the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community, required by either Section 88(1) or (2) of the Localisation Act 2011. As a result of the statutory requirments not having been met, the Evergreen Field WILL NOT BE INCLUDED on the List of Assets of Community Value but will be included on the list of UNSUCCESSFUL Nominations. The Wanstead Society has been advised accordingly. Yours Sincerely Joe Keys Chief Property Services Officer London Borough of Redbridge Council STOWE 2 LTD
  • Score: 0

8:21pm Wed 13 Feb 13

LakeBreeze says...

I take issue with this NIMBY insult in itself.

Since when was it wrong to care about possibly detrimental changes to the place where one lives?

Since when did being concerned that something threatens to change the character, lose historical buildings or features, crowd an area beyond its infrastructure, or any other turn of events that has a very real factor of negative impact instead of a positive one -- since when did the event of local people being concerned about what's going on become something that OTHERS mock?

The Not In My Back Yard crew. Mockery. WHY?

When something comes around in YOUR area, that you have to call into question, you're not going to be happy that people just toss the NIMBY epithet at you.

It's a valid thing to care what's going on when one sees something that raises questions.

As has been pointed out, housing on this site is not going to put a dent in the housing problem. And where DOES it stop?

Let's just build over everything green! Sure, why not? Because that's where it's going bit by bit by bit.

Stow your NIMBY insults. It's called CARING WHAT HAPPENS and trying to do something about that, by any other name.

You people make me sick.
I take issue with this NIMBY insult in itself. Since when was it wrong to care about possibly detrimental changes to the place where one lives? Since when did being concerned that something threatens to change the character, lose historical buildings or features, crowd an area beyond its infrastructure, or any other turn of events that has a very real factor of negative impact instead of a positive one -- since when did the event of local people being concerned about what's going on become something that OTHERS mock? The Not In My Back Yard crew. Mockery. WHY? When something comes around in YOUR area, that you have to call into question, you're not going to be happy that people just toss the NIMBY epithet at you. It's a valid thing to care what's going on when one sees something that raises questions. As has been pointed out, housing on this site is not going to put a dent in the housing problem. And where DOES it stop? Let's just build over everything green! Sure, why not? Because that's where it's going bit by bit by bit. Stow your NIMBY insults. It's called CARING WHAT HAPPENS and trying to do something about that, by any other name. You people make me sick. LakeBreeze
  • Score: 0

10:16pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Helen, Walthamstow says...

STOWE 2 LTD wrote:
ALL 13/02/2013 Wed-Feb

Legal notice to notify police of "Cornbeefur" under the Communications Act 2003 (Chp21/pt2/127(2) & Public Order Act 1986....
Having cosidered that ourselves & the client (Dalco) brought this to the local community for discussion, it is quite apparent the abuse headed directly to us & the client & mainly by the blogger Cornbeefur & any other aka's he has, that we formally put any party on notice especially "Cornbeefur" that your slanderess, abusive, personal attack on myself, my company without no justification we shall be giving legal notice to you via informing the police & you will be liable to prosecution under said act..
No doubt many others locally & other religous groups, gender we have noted & the Guardian are fully aware of your constant intrusive blogging (and that goes for anyone else) that it is about time someone made a stance against you so true proper freedom of speech (whcih you are abusing said rights) & thius considering this site is a UK based site (not in USA etc) you can be prosecuted under UK Law. A formal notice has also been issued to the Guardian paper and its editor to reveal & copoperate with the police to identify you & not hide behind you blog/s aka names. That goes for anyone else who feel they have been previsouly abused in any blog by this blogger or others, you have the rights & one must ensure proper open discussions & debate is heard without this constant verbal abuse hiding behind a blog name or aka.

We fully appreciate there are some decent local people & the Wanstead Society out there in the community who would like to discuss the issues we have raised and in consultation or debate, perhaps within time a conclusion to this area of land working together rather than this childish platground abuse thrown at us personally & the client.

STOWE 2 LTD (Dez Stowe)
pp Dalco Developments (Dal Sanger)
Lord knows I'm no fan of cornbeefur and often lock horns with him.

But this thing that purports to be a legal threat to him is a load of codswallop.

Don't take it seriously, SXH. There were some potentially libellous comments on this thread but they were removed this morning, and the riskiest ones were not from cornbeefur.

The police do not deal with libel anyway and they certainly won't act on accusations of sexism on a website - especially of the kind of foolish fantasy that CB indulges in.
[quote][p][bold]STOWE 2 LTD[/bold] wrote: ALL 13/02/2013 Wed-Feb Legal notice to notify police of "Cornbeefur" under the Communications Act 2003 (Chp21/pt2/127(2) & Public Order Act 1986.... Having cosidered that ourselves & the client (Dalco) brought this to the local community for discussion, it is quite apparent the abuse headed directly to us & the client & mainly by the blogger Cornbeefur & any other aka's he has, that we formally put any party on notice especially "Cornbeefur" that your slanderess, abusive, personal attack on myself, my company without no justification we shall be giving legal notice to you via informing the police & you will be liable to prosecution under said act.. No doubt many others locally & other religous groups, gender we have noted & the Guardian are fully aware of your constant intrusive blogging (and that goes for anyone else) that it is about time someone made a stance against you so true proper freedom of speech (whcih you are abusing said rights) & thius considering this site is a UK based site (not in USA etc) you can be prosecuted under UK Law. A formal notice has also been issued to the Guardian paper and its editor to reveal & copoperate with the police to identify you & not hide behind you blog/s aka names. That goes for anyone else who feel they have been previsouly abused in any blog by this blogger or others, you have the rights & one must ensure proper open discussions & debate is heard without this constant verbal abuse hiding behind a blog name or aka. We fully appreciate there are some decent local people & the Wanstead Society out there in the community who would like to discuss the issues we have raised and in consultation or debate, perhaps within time a conclusion to this area of land working together rather than this childish platground abuse thrown at us personally & the client. STOWE 2 LTD (Dez Stowe) pp Dalco Developments (Dal Sanger)[/p][/quote]Lord knows I'm no fan of cornbeefur and often lock horns with him. But this thing that purports to be a legal threat to him is a load of codswallop. Don't take it seriously, SXH. There were some potentially libellous comments on this thread but they were removed this morning, and the riskiest ones were not from cornbeefur. The police do not deal with libel anyway and they certainly won't act on accusations of sexism on a website - especially of the kind of foolish fantasy that CB indulges in. Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: 0

10:20pm Wed 13 Feb 13

ruby newbie says...

maybe we all dont believe what we read,
maybe we all dont believe what we read, ruby newbie
  • Score: 0

11:00pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Walthamster says...

stickmanny wrote:
Walthamster wrote:
spcdust wrote:
Just to stimulate debate can anyone who wishes to preserve Evergreen Field, in light of the current housing shortage in London, present an articulate a reasoned argument why it should be preserved? Can a valid and rational reason be shown why this land is so important it should be preserved or are we slightly in NIMBY territory here?
Spcdust, building more housing won't solve the housing crisis. It just brings more people in and further skews an area's work-life balance.

It's practically standing-room only in Waltham Forest, and still every amenity we lose is redeveloped as housing, and still more people arrive to fill it. There are nowhere near enough jobs for the ever-growing population, so unemployment is high and social problems are increasing.

We've even lost our famous dog track which will be replaced by, you guessed it, more housing.

We need workplaces, leisure facilities, healthcare, schools, shops and parks. What we get is more housing and more people.

If Wanstead residents want to avoid the same fate, who can blame them?
This doesn't stack up - if there is no work for those that arrive they will have to go elsewhere.

Fact is there are jobs and this is why housing AND associated amenities are badly needed
I'm afraid it does stack up, stickmanny. People can live without jobs, as many in Waltham Forest do.

From the WF Guardian five months ago:
"Waltham Forest has the highest proportion of unemployed young people in London, with 10.3 per cent not working, in education or training, and is in the top ten areas in the country for unemployment."
[quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Walthamster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spcdust[/bold] wrote: Just to stimulate debate can anyone who wishes to preserve Evergreen Field, in light of the current housing shortage in London, present an articulate a reasoned argument why it should be preserved? Can a valid and rational reason be shown why this land is so important it should be preserved or are we slightly in NIMBY territory here?[/p][/quote]Spcdust, building more housing won't solve the housing crisis. It just brings more people in and further skews an area's work-life balance. It's practically standing-room only in Waltham Forest, and still every amenity we lose is redeveloped as housing, and still more people arrive to fill it. There are nowhere near enough jobs for the ever-growing population, so unemployment is high and social problems are increasing. We've even lost our famous dog track which will be replaced by, you guessed it, more housing. We need workplaces, leisure facilities, healthcare, schools, shops and parks. What we get is more housing and more people. If Wanstead residents want to avoid the same fate, who can blame them?[/p][/quote]This doesn't stack up - if there is no work for those that arrive they will have to go elsewhere. Fact is there are jobs and this is why housing AND associated amenities are badly needed[/p][/quote]I'm afraid it does stack up, stickmanny. People can live without jobs, as many in Waltham Forest do. From the WF Guardian five months ago: "Waltham Forest has the highest proportion of unemployed young people in London, with 10.3 per cent not working, in education or training, and is in the top ten areas in the country for unemployment." Walthamster
  • Score: 0

11:02pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Helen, Walthamstow says...

STOWE 2 LTD wrote:
I'm afraid this is not Helen as you put it poppycock, elements of the law whether purported or not or a party to by CB he is breaking the law & we do have evidence to that effect on this blog & others & will be tomorrow making a police report.
We have formally notified the Guardian to release his true indentity to them for further action by the police. We are very well versed with our legal advisors on the matter of lible, slander & defamation of character & under the Communications Act 2003, & Public Order Act will pursue this matter so others like your good selves & the locals in certainly this area of Wanstead can have a proper open debate, considering also he is not from this area either. I am sure others feel the same !!!

We would however refer to the main issue of this blog & that is to discuss in a proper manner collectively & consultation with locals & the Wanstead Society all will benefit from the land from the landowner.

Regards

STOWE 2 LTD (Dez Stowe)
pp Dalco Developements Ltd
Then I suggest you change your lawyers. They clearly don't understand the laws of libel and picking out CB for mention is particularly absurd in the context of this story. You haven't got a leg to stand on.
[quote][p][bold]STOWE 2 LTD[/bold] wrote: I'm afraid this is not Helen as you put it poppycock, elements of the law whether purported or not or a party to by CB he is breaking the law & we do have evidence to that effect on this blog & others & will be tomorrow making a police report. We have formally notified the Guardian to release his true indentity to them for further action by the police. We are very well versed with our legal advisors on the matter of lible, slander & defamation of character & under the Communications Act 2003, & Public Order Act will pursue this matter so others like your good selves & the locals in certainly this area of Wanstead can have a proper open debate, considering also he is not from this area either. I am sure others feel the same !!! We would however refer to the main issue of this blog & that is to discuss in a proper manner collectively & consultation with locals & the Wanstead Society all will benefit from the land from the landowner. Regards STOWE 2 LTD (Dez Stowe) pp Dalco Developements Ltd[/p][/quote]Then I suggest you change your lawyers. They clearly don't understand the laws of libel and picking out CB for mention is particularly absurd in the context of this story. You haven't got a leg to stand on. Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: 0

11:18pm Wed 13 Feb 13

SXH says...

When was this area sold? as i recall early 90's is was open land never fenced off used by the local community, as i used to work close by.
When was this area sold? as i recall early 90's is was open land never fenced off used by the local community, as i used to work close by. SXH
  • Score: 0

12:45am Thu 14 Feb 13

spcdust says...

LakeBreeze wrote:
spcdust, I seriously hope one day that something happening in YOUR neck of the woods makes you passionately care what's going on --- lets see how you like being called a nimby.

It's a completely redundant term and you're a pretty shallow person for bringing it in.

You make me as sick as this Dalco jerk.
Please take the trouble to fully read the thread and my comments, amongst the usual trolling and, it would now seem, hysterical comments there has been some interesting discourse between contributors. Whilst I did introduce the NIMBY word I was at pains not for it to be taken as an insult but if you wish to perceive this as such I apologise.

Picking up on your points, I'm afraid I can see no reasoned or valid argument why this derelict piece of land, which the public has had no access to is so precious. Do you really want future generations to be completely priced out of London due to the housing shortage, what do you propose, we create mass housing ghettos just so we can preserve every piece of land in Wanstead no matter what? I could understand your reaction if they were proposing to build on the Green but that's not the case. The whole "where does it end" line means nothing, it's such throwaway comment.

On one hand you say that the development is to small to make any impact on the housing crisis yet on the other Wanstead infrastructure cannot support such a development....contr
adictions? No one is seeking to build The Shard on the site, just some housing and shop units which the high street seems totally able to support - it would hopefully generate some employment and bring money into the area.

My neck of the Woods is Wanstead (I am a long time local), I like Wansteads character but I also know this land will eventually be developed as it meets all the criteria planners are seeking and, to be honest I agree. An unused piece of land, located in an urban area (on a High Street), good provision of amenities and transport links, Wanstead is already well served by green open spaces and any development will have a low / negligible impact on any individuals dues to it's location. Is Wanstead so bursting at the seams that it cannot handle such a small development?

It would be far better for an open and intelligent exchange of views be shared between residents, planners and potential developers rather than an untenable position of "we don't want it built no matter what" mentality. Wanstead is not a village, we are part of a large City. having the right type of development doesn't necessarily mean we kill an areas character, we can still preserve the character of the High Street. By denying any development an area will stagnate - how do you think Wanstead came into being, it was countryside that became a village which became part of Greater London all through Development - that would include your house as well.

I would welcome constructive and reasoned dialogue from yourself without resorting to rather purile comments as "You make me as sick as this Dalco jerk." One thing we can agree on though is Dalco has shown itself not to be a credible or trustworthy Developer.
[quote][p][bold]LakeBreeze[/bold] wrote: spcdust, I seriously hope one day that something happening in YOUR neck of the woods makes you passionately care what's going on --- lets see how you like being called a nimby. It's a completely redundant term and you're a pretty shallow person for bringing it in. You make me as sick as this Dalco jerk.[/p][/quote]Please take the trouble to fully read the thread and my comments, amongst the usual trolling and, it would now seem, hysterical comments there has been some interesting discourse between contributors. Whilst I did introduce the NIMBY word I was at pains not for it to be taken as an insult but if you wish to perceive this as such I apologise. Picking up on your points, I'm afraid I can see no reasoned or valid argument why this derelict piece of land, which the public has had no access to is so precious. Do you really want future generations to be completely priced out of London due to the housing shortage, what do you propose, we create mass housing ghettos just so we can preserve every piece of land in Wanstead no matter what? I could understand your reaction if they were proposing to build on the Green but that's not the case. The whole "where does it end" line means nothing, it's such throwaway comment. On one hand you say that the development is to small to make any impact on the housing crisis yet on the other Wanstead infrastructure cannot support such a development....contr adictions? No one is seeking to build The Shard on the site, just some housing and shop units which the high street seems totally able to support - it would hopefully generate some employment and bring money into the area. My neck of the Woods is Wanstead (I am a long time local), I like Wansteads character but I also know this land will eventually be developed as it meets all the criteria planners are seeking and, to be honest I agree. An unused piece of land, located in an urban area (on a High Street), good provision of amenities and transport links, Wanstead is already well served by green open spaces and any development will have a low / negligible impact on any individuals dues to it's location. Is Wanstead so bursting at the seams that it cannot handle such a small development? It would be far better for an open and intelligent exchange of views be shared between residents, planners and potential developers rather than an untenable position of "we don't want it built no matter what" mentality. Wanstead is not a village, we are part of a large City. having the right type of development doesn't necessarily mean we kill an areas character, we can still preserve the character of the High Street. By denying any development an area will stagnate - how do you think Wanstead came into being, it was countryside that became a village which became part of Greater London all through Development - that would include your house as well. I would welcome constructive and reasoned dialogue from yourself without resorting to rather purile comments as "You make me as sick as this Dalco jerk." One thing we can agree on though is Dalco has shown itself not to be a credible or trustworthy Developer. spcdust
  • Score: 0

7:35am Thu 14 Feb 13

Richard Arnopp says...

The reason that house prices in London (and everywhere else) are so far above the historic trend is not primarily supply and demand, but "bubblenomics". However, that is a debate for elsewhere.
The reason that house prices in London (and everywhere else) are so far above the historic trend is not primarily supply and demand, but "bubblenomics". However, that is a debate for elsewhere. Richard Arnopp
  • Score: 0

8:03am Thu 14 Feb 13

spcdust says...

For the record I have no affiliation with Stowe or Dalco - check my posting history. I am however an intelligent local resident who rather than spoil any local discussion with non sensical and insulting post I am able to hold a forthright and open discussion regarding the issues facing the local community.

Your comment does you no favours, if you don't agree with the views I express then that is totally fine, however rather than make wild accusations why not attempt to engage in an adult and reasoned exchange of views - this would benefit the whole democratic process.
For the record I have no affiliation with Stowe or Dalco - check my posting history. I am however an intelligent local resident who rather than spoil any local discussion with non sensical and insulting post I am able to hold a forthright and open discussion regarding the issues facing the local community. Your comment does you no favours, if you don't agree with the views I express then that is totally fine, however rather than make wild accusations why not attempt to engage in an adult and reasoned exchange of views - this would benefit the whole democratic process. spcdust
  • Score: 0

8:04am Thu 14 Feb 13

spcdust says...

Richard Arnopp wrote:
The reason that house prices in London (and everywhere else) are so far above the historic trend is not primarily supply and demand, but "bubblenomics". However, that is a debate for elsewhere.
Agreed, obviously there are many contributory factors which, as you say, is a debate for elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]Richard Arnopp[/bold] wrote: The reason that house prices in London (and everywhere else) are so far above the historic trend is not primarily supply and demand, but "bubblenomics". However, that is a debate for elsewhere.[/p][/quote]Agreed, obviously there are many contributory factors which, as you say, is a debate for elsewhere. spcdust
  • Score: 0

9:07am Thu 14 Feb 13

shoehill says...

spcdust wrote:
shoehill wrote:
spcdust wrote:
Just to stimulate debate can anyone who wishes to preserve Evergreen Field, in light of the current housing shortage in London, present an articulate a reasoned argument why it should be preserved? Can a valid and rational reason be shown why this land is so important it should be preserved or are we slightly in NIMBY territory here?
I suspect we may well be in NIMBY territory here. But I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. People in Wanstead appear to be passionate about keeping their area's uniqueness. They're protecting their space, just as anyone in any other area is entitled to do. You stick up more for the space you live in because it's more relevant to you, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

Building seven houses and two flats on the Evergreen Field in isolation is not going to make any kind of dent in the housing shortage in London. Perhaps building blocks of flats on every conceivable bit of open land in Redbridge would have a miniscule impact. How about starting with Wanstead Green, you could get a whole housing estate on there. And War Memorial Green could contain several high-rise blocks.

My point is, where do you stop. London always has and always will attract more residents than it can handle. Once a green space is built on, it's gone forever. Wanstead could end up with no green spaces, no unique-selling-point and we'd all be living in a concrete jungle, yet the housing shortage would still persist. A bigger UK-wide solution is needed. Building on our Evergreen Field is not part of that solution.
A well thought through response and I appreciate the points you make. However, this green space seems ideally suited to development considering its location, proximity to amenities, current use and actual low impact it would have on individual home owners. There are more worthy green spaces in the area that deserve our protection so I believe it's a case of choosing your battles.
Whilst not the largest of developments, far better to achieve the housing requirements of the future by integrating smaller developments into communities rather than building huge ghettos.
I think the fact that Evergreen Field has, over the years, attracted so much debate is testament to its unique situation. Here we have one of the very few high streets left in East London with a 'village' feel to it, part of that due to the openness and greenery on one side. A specialness which is, in my opinion, worthy enough to deserve our protection for future generations. Evergreen Field's very location makes it ideal to open up and amalgamate into the current Christchurch Green, enhancing the already popular and well used open space for the whole community to enjoy for years to come.

Whilst I do agree that smaller developments in general are preferable to large estates, I do think in this case that developing Evergreen Field will be detrimental to the area in the long run, and have a negative impact on the look, feel and uniqueness of the High Street. Of course, in London, there will always be an argument for 'have space must build', which is why defending an open space with feasible options is, in my opinion, a battle worth choosing.
[quote][p][bold]spcdust[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shoehill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spcdust[/bold] wrote: Just to stimulate debate can anyone who wishes to preserve Evergreen Field, in light of the current housing shortage in London, present an articulate a reasoned argument why it should be preserved? Can a valid and rational reason be shown why this land is so important it should be preserved or are we slightly in NIMBY territory here?[/p][/quote]I suspect we may well be in NIMBY territory here. But I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. People in Wanstead appear to be passionate about keeping their area's uniqueness. They're protecting their space, just as anyone in any other area is entitled to do. You stick up more for the space you live in because it's more relevant to you, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Building seven houses and two flats on the Evergreen Field in isolation is not going to make any kind of dent in the housing shortage in London. Perhaps building blocks of flats on every conceivable bit of open land in Redbridge would have a miniscule impact. How about starting with Wanstead Green, you could get a whole housing estate on there. And War Memorial Green could contain several high-rise blocks. My point is, where do you stop. London always has and always will attract more residents than it can handle. Once a green space is built on, it's gone forever. Wanstead could end up with no green spaces, no unique-selling-point and we'd all be living in a concrete jungle, yet the housing shortage would still persist. A bigger UK-wide solution is needed. Building on our Evergreen Field is not part of that solution.[/p][/quote]A well thought through response and I appreciate the points you make. However, this green space seems ideally suited to development considering its location, proximity to amenities, current use and actual low impact it would have on individual home owners. There are more worthy green spaces in the area that deserve our protection so I believe it's a case of choosing your battles. Whilst not the largest of developments, far better to achieve the housing requirements of the future by integrating smaller developments into communities rather than building huge ghettos.[/p][/quote]I think the fact that Evergreen Field has, over the years, attracted so much debate is testament to its unique situation. Here we have one of the very few high streets left in East London with a 'village' feel to it, part of that due to the openness and greenery on one side. A specialness which is, in my opinion, worthy enough to deserve our protection for future generations. Evergreen Field's very location makes it ideal to open up and amalgamate into the current Christchurch Green, enhancing the already popular and well used open space for the whole community to enjoy for years to come. Whilst I do agree that smaller developments in general are preferable to large estates, I do think in this case that developing Evergreen Field will be detrimental to the area in the long run, and have a negative impact on the look, feel and uniqueness of the High Street. Of course, in London, there will always be an argument for 'have space must build', which is why defending an open space with feasible options is, in my opinion, a battle worth choosing. shoehill
  • Score: 0

10:39am Thu 14 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

spcdust wrote:
For the record I have no affiliation with Stowe or Dalco - check my posting history. I am however an intelligent local resident who rather than spoil any local discussion with non sensical and insulting post I am able to hold a forthright and open discussion regarding the issues facing the local community.

Your comment does you no favours, if you don't agree with the views I express then that is totally fine, however rather than make wild accusations why not attempt to engage in an adult and reasoned exchange of views - this would benefit the whole democratic process.
Your failure to condemn the, to date , scaremongering tactics by the Owners (Computerised generated housing estate with swing park and almost in the same breath a Mosque) with 'Mysterious Middle Eastern buyers' is dubious.

You obviously are an intelligent person and should know that a Mosque or Housing Estate would be permitted.

The land was sold with numerous Restrictive Covernants for 200k, a extremely low price and does not reflect any building value potential whatsoever whatsoever.

No Formal planning Applications have been made by the Owners and they are sounding people out informally without wasting Planning Application Fees.
[quote][p][bold]spcdust[/bold] wrote: For the record I have no affiliation with Stowe or Dalco - check my posting history. I am however an intelligent local resident who rather than spoil any local discussion with non sensical and insulting post I am able to hold a forthright and open discussion regarding the issues facing the local community. Your comment does you no favours, if you don't agree with the views I express then that is totally fine, however rather than make wild accusations why not attempt to engage in an adult and reasoned exchange of views - this would benefit the whole democratic process.[/p][/quote]Your failure to condemn the, to date , scaremongering tactics by the Owners (Computerised generated housing estate with swing park and almost in the same breath a Mosque) with 'Mysterious Middle Eastern buyers' is dubious. You obviously are an intelligent person and should know that a Mosque or Housing Estate would be permitted. The land was sold with numerous Restrictive Covernants for 200k, a extremely low price and does not reflect any building value potential whatsoever whatsoever. No Formal planning Applications have been made by the Owners and they are sounding people out informally without wasting Planning Application Fees. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

10:55am Thu 14 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

Typo: 'Not be permitted' sorry.
Typo: 'Not be permitted' sorry. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

10:56am Thu 14 Feb 13

Walthamster says...

LakeBreeze wrote:
I take issue with this NIMBY insult in itself.

Since when was it wrong to care about possibly detrimental changes to the place where one lives?

Since when did being concerned that something threatens to change the character, lose historical buildings or features, crowd an area beyond its infrastructure, or any other turn of events that has a very real factor of negative impact instead of a positive one -- since when did the event of local people being concerned about what's going on become something that OTHERS mock?

The Not In My Back Yard crew. Mockery. WHY?

When something comes around in YOUR area, that you have to call into question, you're not going to be happy that people just toss the NIMBY epithet at you.

It's a valid thing to care what's going on when one sees something that raises questions.

As has been pointed out, housing on this site is not going to put a dent in the housing problem. And where DOES it stop?

Let's just build over everything green! Sure, why not? Because that's where it's going bit by bit by bit.

Stow your NIMBY insults. It's called CARING WHAT HAPPENS and trying to do something about that, by any other name.

You people make me sick.
Yes, what's wrong with caring about the place where you live? It used to be considered a good thing! The word NIMBY is being misused. Nimbies don't say "stop doing this", they just say "go and do it to someone else".
[quote][p][bold]LakeBreeze[/bold] wrote: I take issue with this NIMBY insult in itself. Since when was it wrong to care about possibly detrimental changes to the place where one lives? Since when did being concerned that something threatens to change the character, lose historical buildings or features, crowd an area beyond its infrastructure, or any other turn of events that has a very real factor of negative impact instead of a positive one -- since when did the event of local people being concerned about what's going on become something that OTHERS mock? The Not In My Back Yard crew. Mockery. WHY? When something comes around in YOUR area, that you have to call into question, you're not going to be happy that people just toss the NIMBY epithet at you. It's a valid thing to care what's going on when one sees something that raises questions. As has been pointed out, housing on this site is not going to put a dent in the housing problem. And where DOES it stop? Let's just build over everything green! Sure, why not? Because that's where it's going bit by bit by bit. Stow your NIMBY insults. It's called CARING WHAT HAPPENS and trying to do something about that, by any other name. You people make me sick.[/p][/quote]Yes, what's wrong with caring about the place where you live? It used to be considered a good thing! The word NIMBY is being misused. Nimbies don't say "stop doing this", they just say "go and do it to someone else". Walthamster
  • Score: 0

11:08am Thu 14 Feb 13

spcdust says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
spcdust wrote:
For the record I have no affiliation with Stowe or Dalco - check my posting history. I am however an intelligent local resident who rather than spoil any local discussion with non sensical and insulting post I am able to hold a forthright and open discussion regarding the issues facing the local community.

Your comment does you no favours, if you don't agree with the views I express then that is totally fine, however rather than make wild accusations why not attempt to engage in an adult and reasoned exchange of views - this would benefit the whole democratic process.
Your failure to condemn the, to date , scaremongering tactics by the Owners (Computerised generated housing estate with swing park and almost in the same breath a Mosque) with 'Mysterious Middle Eastern buyers' is dubious.

You obviously are an intelligent person and should know that a Mosque or Housing Estate would be permitted.

The land was sold with numerous Restrictive Covernants for 200k, a extremely low price and does not reflect any building value potential whatsoever whatsoever.

No Formal planning Applications have been made by the Owners and they are sounding people out informally without wasting Planning Application Fees.
I have repeatedly condemned the scaremongering tactics employed by this developer, not only in this article but on at least two other previous articles. For your reference please note my first post early on in this thread:

Posted Tuesday 12th February 1.40pm:

I mean, honestly, this "developer" is a laughing stock - does he really think anyone is taken in by his ridiculous Mosque "proposal". If it wasn't so side splitting funny (did he mock this up on his iPhone?) it's almost offensive as he is playing on his perceived prejudices that local people may have against a Mosque being built.
You, Mr Singh, are a transparent fool and your tactics are spectacularly back firing on you. Those in the community who weren't against some form of development of Evergreen Field will not support anything you may propose due to your idiotic tactics.

So I would expect an apology from yourself as you're 100% incorrect in your assertion.
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spcdust[/bold] wrote: For the record I have no affiliation with Stowe or Dalco - check my posting history. I am however an intelligent local resident who rather than spoil any local discussion with non sensical and insulting post I am able to hold a forthright and open discussion regarding the issues facing the local community. Your comment does you no favours, if you don't agree with the views I express then that is totally fine, however rather than make wild accusations why not attempt to engage in an adult and reasoned exchange of views - this would benefit the whole democratic process.[/p][/quote]Your failure to condemn the, to date , scaremongering tactics by the Owners (Computerised generated housing estate with swing park and almost in the same breath a Mosque) with 'Mysterious Middle Eastern buyers' is dubious. You obviously are an intelligent person and should know that a Mosque or Housing Estate would be permitted. The land was sold with numerous Restrictive Covernants for 200k, a extremely low price and does not reflect any building value potential whatsoever whatsoever. No Formal planning Applications have been made by the Owners and they are sounding people out informally without wasting Planning Application Fees.[/p][/quote]I have repeatedly condemned the scaremongering tactics employed by this developer, not only in this article but on at least two other previous articles. For your reference please note my first post early on in this thread: Posted Tuesday 12th February 1.40pm: I mean, honestly, this "developer" is a laughing stock - does he really think anyone is taken in by his ridiculous Mosque "proposal". If it wasn't so side splitting funny (did he mock this up on his iPhone?) it's almost offensive as he is playing on his perceived prejudices that local people may have against a Mosque being built. You, Mr Singh, are a transparent fool and your tactics are spectacularly back firing on you. Those in the community who weren't against some form of development of Evergreen Field will not support anything you may propose due to your idiotic tactics. So I would expect an apology from yourself as you're 100% incorrect in your assertion. spcdust
  • Score: 0

11:53am Thu 14 Feb 13

spcdust says...

shoehill wrote:
spcdust wrote:
shoehill wrote:
spcdust wrote:
Just to stimulate debate can anyone who wishes to preserve Evergreen Field, in light of the current housing shortage in London, present an articulate a reasoned argument why it should be preserved? Can a valid and rational reason be shown why this land is so important it should be preserved or are we slightly in NIMBY territory here?
I suspect we may well be in NIMBY territory here. But I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. People in Wanstead appear to be passionate about keeping their area's uniqueness. They're protecting their space, just as anyone in any other area is entitled to do. You stick up more for the space you live in because it's more relevant to you, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

Building seven houses and two flats on the Evergreen Field in isolation is not going to make any kind of dent in the housing shortage in London. Perhaps building blocks of flats on every conceivable bit of open land in Redbridge would have a miniscule impact. How about starting with Wanstead Green, you could get a whole housing estate on there. And War Memorial Green could contain several high-rise blocks.

My point is, where do you stop. London always has and always will attract more residents than it can handle. Once a green space is built on, it's gone forever. Wanstead could end up with no green spaces, no unique-selling-point and we'd all be living in a concrete jungle, yet the housing shortage would still persist. A bigger UK-wide solution is needed. Building on our Evergreen Field is not part of that solution.
A well thought through response and I appreciate the points you make. However, this green space seems ideally suited to development considering its location, proximity to amenities, current use and actual low impact it would have on individual home owners. There are more worthy green spaces in the area that deserve our protection so I believe it's a case of choosing your battles.
Whilst not the largest of developments, far better to achieve the housing requirements of the future by integrating smaller developments into communities rather than building huge ghettos.
I think the fact that Evergreen Field has, over the years, attracted so much debate is testament to its unique situation. Here we have one of the very few high streets left in East London with a 'village' feel to it, part of that due to the openness and greenery on one side. A specialness which is, in my opinion, worthy enough to deserve our protection for future generations. Evergreen Field's very location makes it ideal to open up and amalgamate into the current Christchurch Green, enhancing the already popular and well used open space for the whole community to enjoy for years to come.

Whilst I do agree that smaller developments in general are preferable to large estates, I do think in this case that developing Evergreen Field will be detrimental to the area in the long run, and have a negative impact on the look, feel and uniqueness of the High Street. Of course, in London, there will always be an argument for 'have space must build', which is why defending an open space with feasible options is, in my opinion, a battle worth choosing.
I think it healthy that members of the community, in the main, can debate in a mature fashion regarding this development proposal. Developments are often an emotive discussion and you will often see opinion polarised. I respect the opinions and equally can see why parts of the community see fit to defend against any development Evergreen Field. My POV is just another one which is equally valid and one hopes can promote intelligent dialogue regarding this sites future.

If The Wanstead Society cares so deeply about the site then it's a case of them doing a feasibility study into financing the purchase of the land, converting it for community use and then the annual maintenance and associated overheads.
[quote][p][bold]shoehill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spcdust[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shoehill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spcdust[/bold] wrote: Just to stimulate debate can anyone who wishes to preserve Evergreen Field, in light of the current housing shortage in London, present an articulate a reasoned argument why it should be preserved? Can a valid and rational reason be shown why this land is so important it should be preserved or are we slightly in NIMBY territory here?[/p][/quote]I suspect we may well be in NIMBY territory here. But I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. People in Wanstead appear to be passionate about keeping their area's uniqueness. They're protecting their space, just as anyone in any other area is entitled to do. You stick up more for the space you live in because it's more relevant to you, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Building seven houses and two flats on the Evergreen Field in isolation is not going to make any kind of dent in the housing shortage in London. Perhaps building blocks of flats on every conceivable bit of open land in Redbridge would have a miniscule impact. How about starting with Wanstead Green, you could get a whole housing estate on there. And War Memorial Green could contain several high-rise blocks. My point is, where do you stop. London always has and always will attract more residents than it can handle. Once a green space is built on, it's gone forever. Wanstead could end up with no green spaces, no unique-selling-point and we'd all be living in a concrete jungle, yet the housing shortage would still persist. A bigger UK-wide solution is needed. Building on our Evergreen Field is not part of that solution.[/p][/quote]A well thought through response and I appreciate the points you make. However, this green space seems ideally suited to development considering its location, proximity to amenities, current use and actual low impact it would have on individual home owners. There are more worthy green spaces in the area that deserve our protection so I believe it's a case of choosing your battles. Whilst not the largest of developments, far better to achieve the housing requirements of the future by integrating smaller developments into communities rather than building huge ghettos.[/p][/quote]I think the fact that Evergreen Field has, over the years, attracted so much debate is testament to its unique situation. Here we have one of the very few high streets left in East London with a 'village' feel to it, part of that due to the openness and greenery on one side. A specialness which is, in my opinion, worthy enough to deserve our protection for future generations. Evergreen Field's very location makes it ideal to open up and amalgamate into the current Christchurch Green, enhancing the already popular and well used open space for the whole community to enjoy for years to come. Whilst I do agree that smaller developments in general are preferable to large estates, I do think in this case that developing Evergreen Field will be detrimental to the area in the long run, and have a negative impact on the look, feel and uniqueness of the High Street. Of course, in London, there will always be an argument for 'have space must build', which is why defending an open space with feasible options is, in my opinion, a battle worth choosing.[/p][/quote]I think it healthy that members of the community, in the main, can debate in a mature fashion regarding this development proposal. Developments are often an emotive discussion and you will often see opinion polarised. I respect the opinions and equally can see why parts of the community see fit to defend against any development Evergreen Field. My POV is just another one which is equally valid and one hopes can promote intelligent dialogue regarding this sites future. If The Wanstead Society cares so deeply about the site then it's a case of them doing a feasibility study into financing the purchase of the land, converting it for community use and then the annual maintenance and associated overheads. spcdust
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Thu 14 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

It is rather odd that Stowe 2 Limited plays
Dvorak’s New World Symphony music on their website, which was used in the Hovis Advert in the 70's for how wonderful life was and traditions and they want to change the face of a much loved open space.
It is rather odd that Stowe 2 Limited plays Dvorak’s New World Symphony music on their website, which was used in the Hovis Advert in the 70's for how wonderful life was and traditions and they want to change the face of a much loved open space. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

3:11pm Thu 14 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

spcdust wrote:
Cornbeefur wrote:
spcdust wrote:
For the record I have no affiliation with Stowe or Dalco - check my posting history. I am however an intelligent local resident who rather than spoil any local discussion with non sensical and insulting post I am able to hold a forthright and open discussion regarding the issues facing the local community.

Your comment does you no favours, if you don't agree with the views I express then that is totally fine, however rather than make wild accusations why not attempt to engage in an adult and reasoned exchange of views - this would benefit the whole democratic process.
Your failure to condemn the, to date , scaremongering tactics by the Owners (Computerised generated housing estate with swing park and almost in the same breath a Mosque) with 'Mysterious Middle Eastern buyers' is dubious.

You obviously are an intelligent person and should know that a Mosque or Housing Estate would be permitted.

The land was sold with numerous Restrictive Covernants for 200k, a extremely low price and does not reflect any building value potential whatsoever whatsoever.

No Formal planning Applications have been made by the Owners and they are sounding people out informally without wasting Planning Application Fees.
I have repeatedly condemned the scaremongering tactics employed by this developer, not only in this article but on at least two other previous articles. For your reference please note my first post early on in this thread:

Posted Tuesday 12th February 1.40pm:

I mean, honestly, this "developer" is a laughing stock - does he really think anyone is taken in by his ridiculous Mosque "proposal". If it wasn't so side splitting funny (did he mock this up on his iPhone?) it's almost offensive as he is playing on his perceived prejudices that local people may have against a Mosque being built.
You, Mr Singh, are a transparent fool and your tactics are spectacularly back firing on you. Those in the community who weren't against some form of development of Evergreen Field will not support anything you may propose due to your idiotic tactics.

So I would expect an apology from yourself as you're 100% incorrect in your assertion.
I must have missed this, yes, sorry!
[quote][p][bold]spcdust[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spcdust[/bold] wrote: For the record I have no affiliation with Stowe or Dalco - check my posting history. I am however an intelligent local resident who rather than spoil any local discussion with non sensical and insulting post I am able to hold a forthright and open discussion regarding the issues facing the local community. Your comment does you no favours, if you don't agree with the views I express then that is totally fine, however rather than make wild accusations why not attempt to engage in an adult and reasoned exchange of views - this would benefit the whole democratic process.[/p][/quote]Your failure to condemn the, to date , scaremongering tactics by the Owners (Computerised generated housing estate with swing park and almost in the same breath a Mosque) with 'Mysterious Middle Eastern buyers' is dubious. You obviously are an intelligent person and should know that a Mosque or Housing Estate would be permitted. The land was sold with numerous Restrictive Covernants for 200k, a extremely low price and does not reflect any building value potential whatsoever whatsoever. No Formal planning Applications have been made by the Owners and they are sounding people out informally without wasting Planning Application Fees.[/p][/quote]I have repeatedly condemned the scaremongering tactics employed by this developer, not only in this article but on at least two other previous articles. For your reference please note my first post early on in this thread: Posted Tuesday 12th February 1.40pm: I mean, honestly, this "developer" is a laughing stock - does he really think anyone is taken in by his ridiculous Mosque "proposal". If it wasn't so side splitting funny (did he mock this up on his iPhone?) it's almost offensive as he is playing on his perceived prejudices that local people may have against a Mosque being built. You, Mr Singh, are a transparent fool and your tactics are spectacularly back firing on you. Those in the community who weren't against some form of development of Evergreen Field will not support anything you may propose due to your idiotic tactics. So I would expect an apology from yourself as you're 100% incorrect in your assertion.[/p][/quote]I must have missed this, yes, sorry! Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Thu 14 Feb 13

NDevoto says...

What a comments thread this is!
I go away for a day and come back to another dodgy Photoshop exposed "proposal" from Dalco etc, the Wanstead Wizard of Oz, all front and no substance, and a truly iffy online libel writ from the same at our resident troll , Cornbeefur.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
What a comments thread this is! I go away for a day and come back to another dodgy Photoshop exposed "proposal" from Dalco etc, the Wanstead Wizard of Oz, all front and no substance, and a truly iffy online libel writ from the same at our resident troll , Cornbeefur. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. NDevoto
  • Score: 0

6:15pm Thu 14 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

NDevoto wrote:
What a comments thread this is!
I go away for a day and come back to another dodgy Photoshop exposed "proposal" from Dalco etc, the Wanstead Wizard of Oz, all front and no substance, and a truly iffy online libel writ from the same at our resident troll , Cornbeefur.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
I agree with you (apart from your Troll allegations).

I am waiting for the Writ to arrive, computer generated, of course, addressed to 'Cornbeefur' The Defendant.

Anything I posted was obtained from their own Website and Company House, they have to join me as
'Co-Accused'

This is from an owner who on 18 October 2012, shortly after purchase said “If worse comes to worse we will grow our own vegetables there. There are so many things that we can do there which will be an eyesore to local people. ”

This Land bought for 200K as a pure speculative gamble as it has Restrictive Covenants on the Title at Land Registry.
[quote][p][bold]NDevoto[/bold] wrote: What a comments thread this is! I go away for a day and come back to another dodgy Photoshop exposed "proposal" from Dalco etc, the Wanstead Wizard of Oz, all front and no substance, and a truly iffy online libel writ from the same at our resident troll , Cornbeefur. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.[/p][/quote]I agree with you (apart from your Troll allegations). I am waiting for the Writ to arrive, computer generated, of course, addressed to 'Cornbeefur' The Defendant. Anything I posted was obtained from their own Website and Company House, they have to join me as 'Co-Accused' This is from an owner who on 18 October 2012, shortly after purchase said “If worse comes to worse we will grow our own vegetables there. There are so many things that we can do there which will be an eyesore to local people. ” This Land bought for 200K as a pure speculative gamble as it has Restrictive Covenants on the Title at Land Registry. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

7:17pm Thu 14 Feb 13

NDevoto says...

I think we should have a competition to see who can Photoshop the most unsightly object/building in the place of the Green. Entries could be quite amusing.

I suggest a nuclear power station or Apollo Rocket Launcher.
I think we should have a competition to see who can Photoshop the most unsightly object/building in the place of the Green. Entries could be quite amusing. I suggest a nuclear power station or Apollo Rocket Launcher. NDevoto
  • Score: 0

9:49pm Thu 14 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

It would appear that by the Owners apparent naivety, more fantastic proposals and veiled threats are on the Agenda

Anyone who turns up at the start of a party with the equivalent of a phrase 'If worse comes to worse we will grow our own vegetables there. There are so many things that we can do there which will be an eyesore to local people' would, I suggest be burning bridges from the outset?
It would appear that by the Owners apparent naivety, more fantastic proposals and veiled threats are on the Agenda Anyone who turns up at the start of a party with the equivalent of a phrase 'If worse comes to worse we will grow our own vegetables there. There are so many things that we can do there which will be an eyesore to local people' would, I suggest be burning bridges from the outset? Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Sat 16 Feb 13

DogandDuck says...

To give you some idea of my stance (as a Wanstead resident) I still refuse to enter Tesco's on the High Street.

Hopefully the restrictive covenants will block any chance of development.

If not I hope Redbridge ensure it is sympathetic to the surroundings.
To give you some idea of my stance (as a Wanstead resident) I still refuse to enter Tesco's on the High Street. Hopefully the restrictive covenants will block any chance of development. If not I hope Redbridge ensure it is sympathetic to the surroundings. DogandDuck
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Sat 16 Feb 13

NDevoto says...

DogandDuck wrote:
To give you some idea of my stance (as a Wanstead resident) I still refuse to enter Tesco's on the High Street.

Hopefully the restrictive covenants will block any chance of development.

If not I hope Redbridge ensure it is sympathetic to the surroundings.
I hear Tescos have eyes on the Evergreen for a Superstore to compliment the smaller store.
[quote][p][bold]DogandDuck[/bold] wrote: To give you some idea of my stance (as a Wanstead resident) I still refuse to enter Tesco's on the High Street. Hopefully the restrictive covenants will block any chance of development. If not I hope Redbridge ensure it is sympathetic to the surroundings.[/p][/quote]I hear Tescos have eyes on the Evergreen for a Superstore to compliment the smaller store. NDevoto
  • Score: 0

12:04pm Sun 17 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

DogandDuck wrote:
To give you some idea of my stance (as a Wanstead resident) I still refuse to enter Tesco's on the High Street.

Hopefully the restrictive covenants will block any chance of development.

If not I hope Redbridge ensure it is sympathetic to the surroundings.
You should not deny yourself, it is a convenience store like all the others.

They do a lovely 'Own Brand' Beef Lasagne in there.
[quote][p][bold]DogandDuck[/bold] wrote: To give you some idea of my stance (as a Wanstead resident) I still refuse to enter Tesco's on the High Street. Hopefully the restrictive covenants will block any chance of development. If not I hope Redbridge ensure it is sympathetic to the surroundings.[/p][/quote]You should not deny yourself, it is a convenience store like all the others. They do a lovely 'Own Brand' Beef Lasagne in there. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

8:31am Wed 6 Mar 13

Wanstead Watcher says...

If nothing else, such a structure would block light from nearby Christchurch as well as block the view of its spire from the High Street (which planners have insisted must be maintained).
If nothing else, such a structure would block light from nearby Christchurch as well as block the view of its spire from the High Street (which planners have insisted must be maintained). Wanstead Watcher
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree