'Disbelief' as large housing development in Walthamstow approved

This Is Local London: 'Monstrous Walthamstow development will destroy community' 'Monstrous Walthamstow development will destroy community'

A proposed development of 125 homes, including blocks of flats up to six storeys high, was approved despite strong opposition.

Neighbours fear the scheme, which developer Sanctuary Affordable Housing are set to build on the Goss site in Walthamstow, will put a further strain on already-stretched nurseries and doctors' surgeries in the area.

But Waltham Forest Council's planning committee passed the plans by four votes to three at the town hall on Wednesday, controversially discussing the proposal earlier than planned, despite residents who wished to speak against the plans not having arrived.

Speaking against the application, Chapel End ward councillor Kieran Falconer said: “The proposed development is monstrously large. If you estimated two people per bedroom – not a definition of overcrowding - you are looking at nearly 550 people.

"This is far too great an amount of people for the area to sustain. [This application] will tear the heart out of this community.”

Neighbours living in Fulbourne Road and Clifford Road have complained of privacy issues and loss of light, while in Victoria Road two and three-storey homes will back onto people’s gardens.

Carol Minto, of Victoria Road, said there is a sense of disbelief at the development being approved.

The 39-year-old said: “As a community we’re blown away. We’re absolutely stunned, the council has sold us short.

“We’re in dire need of good nurseries and doctors’ surgeries, we’re bursting at the seams, but this will make it even harder to support the number of people.”

Sanctuary hopes the flats will address the shortage of housing issue in the borough, with 24,000 people on the housing waiting list.

Half the planned homes are desribed as 'affordable' and the developer has pledged to provide £500,000 for local infrastructure.

A total of £175,000 will go on healthcare and £429,395 on education improvements.

The planning committee agreed with council officers that the money should address infrastructure issues, and said the development will bring much-needed regeneration to the area.

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:21pm Fri 5 Jul 13

fabster says...

You tell 'em Carol. The wonderful business you've built, the sense of community from which your business has centred around Victoria Road is nothing short of an inspiration. It seems us residents work so hard to make where we live a better place, only for the Council to come along and sabotage our efforts.

By all means we need to address people on housing lists, but building such condensed flats into unsustainable living environs is not the answer. Families cannot grow longterm into cardboard cages without the flexibility of one day needing a car (or not), or room to expand (or not). It mostly means that this development will have limited options for buyers who have a longer view, and will suit short-term tenants who have no vested interest in building a sense of community.

Applause to Cllr Falconer for speaking out on the unsuitability of these plans. Sadly this is yet another 4:3 planning decision by our Labour Council which seems intent on eroding any trust it has left with former Labour voters like myself and numerous others on Twitter.

"A total of £175,000 will go on healthcare and £429,395 on education improvements" - That is a drop in the ocean when current residents already cannot find GPs and nurseries to register with.

"The planning committee agreed with council officers that the development will bring much-needed regeneration to the area" - I think the Council needs to revisit the definition of regeneration.

Regeneration is about creating opportunities for growth, development, wealth, jobs, space for families to live, work, breathe and play. It is not about building it high and cramming them in. The Goss development is, quite in fact, the opposite of regeneration.
You tell 'em Carol. The wonderful business you've built, the sense of community from which your business has centred around Victoria Road is nothing short of an inspiration. It seems us residents work so hard to make where we live a better place, only for the Council to come along and sabotage our efforts. By all means we need to address people on housing lists, but building such condensed flats into unsustainable living environs is not the answer. Families cannot grow longterm into cardboard cages without the flexibility of one day needing a car (or not), or room to expand (or not). It mostly means that this development will have limited options for buyers who have a longer view, and will suit short-term tenants who have no vested interest in building a sense of community. Applause to Cllr Falconer for speaking out on the unsuitability of these plans. Sadly this is yet another 4:3 planning decision by our Labour Council which seems intent on eroding any trust it has left with former Labour voters like myself and numerous others on Twitter. "A total of £175,000 will go on healthcare and £429,395 on education improvements" - That is a drop in the ocean when current residents already cannot find GPs and nurseries to register with. "The planning committee agreed with council officers that the development will bring much-needed regeneration to the area" - I think the Council needs to revisit the definition of regeneration. Regeneration is about creating opportunities for growth, development, wealth, jobs, space for families to live, work, breathe and play. It is not about building it high and cramming them in. The Goss development is, quite in fact, the opposite of regeneration. fabster
  • Score: 4

9:57pm Fri 5 Jul 13

chingford lad says...

I avoid as much as possible crossing south over the North Circular into Walthamstow, sorry `the concrete jungle`. So much of what I see is a `Hell on Earth` in what was once the richest borough in London. Labour councils aspire little, but our one is truly `The Pits` but then if the residents keep voting them in what must be their aspirations? I fear there is no hope. My commiserations to those who care.
I avoid as much as possible crossing south over the North Circular into Walthamstow, sorry `the concrete jungle`. So much of what I see is a `Hell on Earth` in what was once the richest borough in London. Labour councils aspire little, but our one is truly `The Pits` but then if the residents keep voting them in what must be their aspirations? I fear there is no hope. My commiserations to those who care. chingford lad
  • Score: 4

8:02am Sat 6 Jul 13

Helen, Walthamstow says...

When the Tory government, backed by the Lib Dems, came into power, the word "localism" was bandied around in practically every speech and we were all told what a big say we would have on decisions affecting us and our communities. Now it has disappeared from the parties' lexicon.

Back here in Waltham Forest, in terms of planning, it's a long time since localism ever had any meaning, but it has definitely become worse in the years since Labour regained overall control. The way the planning committee is run has become a disgrace. By law, it should not make decisions on party political lines and, in the past, even under Labour, councillors expressed their views and voted without fear or favour. Not any more. The Labour leaders deny there is a whip, but personally I am certain that it is made clear to their councillors how they should vote - just look at the way members are replaced for the night when it looks as if they might be swayed by public opinion or arguments against a project.

As far as this and other big projects are concerned, the residents are right to say that the infrastructure is not there to support a rapidly expanding population.

Furthermore, I'll wager that when all the new homes planned are built across the borough - with our Labour councillors dancing to the Tory/Lib Dems' tune - our population will be bigger, but the waiting list for social housing will be roughly the same. Every inadequate property vacated by one family too big for it soon rehouses another family too big for it. And anyway, note the weasel words "affordable homes", which means private rents or buys - that is, they simply bring more people into a borough that is already densely populated.
When the Tory government, backed by the Lib Dems, came into power, the word "localism" was bandied around in practically every speech and we were all told what a big say we would have on decisions affecting us and our communities. Now it has disappeared from the parties' lexicon. Back here in Waltham Forest, in terms of planning, it's a long time since localism ever had any meaning, but it has definitely become worse in the years since Labour regained overall control. The way the planning committee is run has become a disgrace. By law, it should not make decisions on party political lines and, in the past, even under Labour, councillors expressed their views and voted without fear or favour. Not any more. The Labour leaders deny there is a whip, but personally I am certain that it is made clear to their councillors how they should vote - just look at the way members are replaced for the night when it looks as if they might be swayed by public opinion or arguments against a project. As far as this and other big projects are concerned, the residents are right to say that the infrastructure is not there to support a rapidly expanding population. Furthermore, I'll wager that when all the new homes planned are built across the borough - with our Labour councillors dancing to the Tory/Lib Dems' tune - our population will be bigger, but the waiting list for social housing will be roughly the same. Every inadequate property vacated by one family too big for it soon rehouses another family too big for it. And anyway, note the weasel words "affordable homes", which means private rents or buys - that is, they simply bring more people into a borough that is already densely populated. Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: 3

10:22am Sat 6 Jul 13

Busy in E17 says...

It would seem that £500k means more to this council than the opinion of 150 residents and a significant number of its own councillors.

Chapel End residents have worked hard to build a community and we are not unsympathetic to the needs to provide more housing; but how can one justify high density development that bisects an area of Victorian terrace housing?

This is just the start for this greedy council. The domino effect of the development to replace the light industry area on Clifford Road will impact further. The planning application itself extolled the virtues of the developments and the benefits to Wood St. Sorry guys; this is Chapel End and Wood St is a completely different ward.

The development at Hawker Place across the road from this new development has already created a dangerous situation on the roads in the area as insufficient provision is made for car parking on site.

The council has sold us out for a handful of beans. How far does £400k go in education? It probably equates to the annual cleaning contract for Fredrick Bremmer school? £175k in healthcare is two GPs for 1 year. If the council is going to destroy communities at least have the decency to get value for money when you ignore residents' views.
It would seem that £500k means more to this council than the opinion of 150 residents and a significant number of its own councillors. Chapel End residents have worked hard to build a community and we are not unsympathetic to the needs to provide more housing; but how can one justify high density development that bisects an area of Victorian terrace housing? This is just the start for this greedy council. The domino effect of the development to replace the light industry area on Clifford Road will impact further. The planning application itself extolled the virtues of the developments and the benefits to Wood St. Sorry guys; this is Chapel End and Wood St is a completely different ward. The development at Hawker Place across the road from this new development has already created a dangerous situation on the roads in the area as insufficient provision is made for car parking on site. The council has sold us out for a handful of beans. How far does £400k go in education? It probably equates to the annual cleaning contract for Fredrick Bremmer school? £175k in healthcare is two GPs for 1 year. If the council is going to destroy communities at least have the decency to get value for money when you ignore residents' views. Busy in E17
  • Score: 3

1:13pm Sat 6 Jul 13

ruby newbie says...

i read this and it seems as if Waltham forest still has alot quality people living there but as time goes on and as the council carries on ignoring them then all I can say to those who support all this "developments" it has planned.be careful what you wish for.very sad to see a once great place being ruined by the greed of so few.
i read this and it seems as if Waltham forest still has alot quality people living there but as time goes on and as the council carries on ignoring them then all I can say to those who support all this "developments" it has planned.be careful what you wish for.very sad to see a once great place being ruined by the greed of so few. ruby newbie
  • Score: 3

3:40pm Sat 6 Jul 13

fabster says...

Helen, you say "The Labour leaders deny there is a whip, but personally I am certain that it is made clear to their councillors how they should vote"

I can confirm for you that LBWF Labour Councillors ARE told how to vote. I know of two decent Councillors who wanted to abstain on a couple of controversial planning decisions but were told they had to vote to let both applications through.

This is a timely period too within the party as nominations are in, and the process of selection & delegating wards is currently on the table, so anyone who won't play ball quite simply won't be in the team come May 22nd 2014.
Helen, you say "The Labour leaders deny there is a whip, but personally I am certain that it is made clear to their councillors how they should vote" I can confirm for you that LBWF Labour Councillors ARE told how to vote. I know of two decent Councillors who wanted to abstain on a couple of controversial planning decisions but were told they had to vote to let both applications through. This is a timely period too within the party as nominations are in, and the process of selection & delegating wards is currently on the table, so anyone who won't play ball quite simply won't be in the team come May 22nd 2014. fabster
  • Score: 2

5:57pm Sat 6 Jul 13

myopinioncounts says...

Why should Councillors abstain from voting on planning decisions?
Surely their position on the planning committee depends on them studying applications sufficiently well to make a decision one way or another?
If they have a vested interest then they should resign from the planning committee.
Why should Councillors abstain from voting on planning decisions? Surely their position on the planning committee depends on them studying applications sufficiently well to make a decision one way or another? If they have a vested interest then they should resign from the planning committee. myopinioncounts
  • Score: 2

10:52am Sun 7 Jul 13

bishbosh says...

Followers of the save our stow campaign will know how this council is failing social housing provision. The leader and his merry band of so called socialists were voted in on the housing ticket. Each time a fresh application for development goes in they state "a dire need for housing" to reduce the housing waiting list. The reality is that no one on the waiting list can afford the new properties. Affordable rent is now up to 80% of the market rate...but can be designated affordable to make the planning application more palatable. Shared ownership is just as punitive to those on the list. It is political claptrap. The main drivers for all this development that will eventually kill local communities is to follow the national agenda to boost the economy, s 106 cash payments and increased council tax and bonus payments. New social housing and genuinely affordable property in London is a thing of the past. Its provision is now basically privatised within housing associations who boast of massive cash reserves, a AAA credit rating and its ability to borrow massive amounts of money to build more and more on sites that should be developed to seriously reduce waiting lists. Its not going to happen.
Followers of the save our stow campaign will know how this council is failing social housing provision. The leader and his merry band of so called socialists were voted in on the housing ticket. Each time a fresh application for development goes in they state "a dire need for housing" to reduce the housing waiting list. The reality is that no one on the waiting list can afford the new properties. Affordable rent is now up to 80% of the market rate...but can be designated affordable to make the planning application more palatable. Shared ownership is just as punitive to those on the list. It is political claptrap. The main drivers for all this development that will eventually kill local communities is to follow the national agenda to boost the economy, s 106 cash payments and increased council tax and bonus payments. New social housing and genuinely affordable property in London is a thing of the past. Its provision is now basically privatised within housing associations who boast of massive cash reserves, a AAA credit rating and its ability to borrow massive amounts of money to build more and more on sites that should be developed to seriously reduce waiting lists. Its not going to happen. bishbosh
  • Score: 1

12:50pm Sun 7 Jul 13

mdj says...

'I know of two decent Councillors who wanted to abstain on a couple of controversial planning decisions but were told they had to vote to let both applications through.'

Told by who? They have a duty ot represent the people of this borough: any attempt to sway or corrupt the decisions of a person in public office should be reported. Cllr Akram was recently deposed for interfering in planning decisions, so even in this benighted borough due process can sometimes work. These counciilors perhaps don't have the gumption to stand up for themselves - or us.

As for the issue here , it's all been said before: workplaces out + workseekers in= unemployment, or else commuters crammed into bursting infrastructure. What if all boroughs thought that their residents could go somewhere else to work?

If you read the planning documents, you see that they're phrased in a bureaucratic gobbledegook designed to exclude outsiders that can be used to justify any decision.

There's also the political consideration that importing people who will be stuck on benefits creates vote- farms for one lucky party that pretends to 'care' about homelessness and poverty while feeding off them.
It's a form of modern feudalism, paid for by the public purse.
'I know of two decent Councillors who wanted to abstain on a couple of controversial planning decisions but were told they had to vote to let both applications through.' Told by who? They have a duty ot represent the people of this borough: any attempt to sway or corrupt the decisions of a person in public office should be reported. Cllr Akram was recently deposed for interfering in planning decisions, so even in this benighted borough due process can sometimes work. These counciilors perhaps don't have the gumption to stand up for themselves - or us. As for the issue here , it's all been said before: workplaces out + workseekers in= unemployment, or else commuters crammed into bursting infrastructure. What if all boroughs thought that their residents could go somewhere else to work? If you read the planning documents, you see that they're phrased in a bureaucratic gobbledegook designed to exclude outsiders that can be used to justify any decision. There's also the political consideration that importing people who will be stuck on benefits creates vote- farms for one lucky party that pretends to 'care' about homelessness and poverty while feeding off them. It's a form of modern feudalism, paid for by the public purse. mdj
  • Score: 3

7:19pm Sun 7 Jul 13

Tom Thumb says...

Helen, Walthamstow wrote:
When the Tory government, backed by the Lib Dems, came into power, the word "localism" was bandied around in practically every speech and we were all told what a big say we would have on decisions affecting us and our communities. Now it has disappeared from the parties' lexicon.

Back here in Waltham Forest, in terms of planning, it's a long time since localism ever had any meaning, but it has definitely become worse in the years since Labour regained overall control. The way the planning committee is run has become a disgrace. By law, it should not make decisions on party political lines and, in the past, even under Labour, councillors expressed their views and voted without fear or favour. Not any more. The Labour leaders deny there is a whip, but personally I am certain that it is made clear to their councillors how they should vote - just look at the way members are replaced for the night when it looks as if they might be swayed by public opinion or arguments against a project.

As far as this and other big projects are concerned, the residents are right to say that the infrastructure is not there to support a rapidly expanding population.

Furthermore, I'll wager that when all the new homes planned are built across the borough - with our Labour councillors dancing to the Tory/Lib Dems' tune - our population will be bigger, but the waiting list for social housing will be roughly the same. Every inadequate property vacated by one family too big for it soon rehouses another family too big for it. And anyway, note the weasel words "affordable homes", which means private rents or buys - that is, they simply bring more people into a borough that is already densely populated.
The reason why councillors toe the party line can be summed up in one word: allowances.
Toe the line and you'll be rewarded with chairing a committee, there are lots of small toothless ones. That more than doubles the basic councillor allowance.
Rock the boat and you'll be punished financially.
It's funny to see the current fuss about so-called Labour Party democracy. The Party was never democratic, and Blair squashed what little accountabiloty there was inside the party when he introduced generous allowances, and the cabinet system
Many of our local councillors have no jobs, they thrive instead on the money which comes their way through allowances.
[quote][p][bold]Helen, Walthamstow[/bold] wrote: When the Tory government, backed by the Lib Dems, came into power, the word "localism" was bandied around in practically every speech and we were all told what a big say we would have on decisions affecting us and our communities. Now it has disappeared from the parties' lexicon. Back here in Waltham Forest, in terms of planning, it's a long time since localism ever had any meaning, but it has definitely become worse in the years since Labour regained overall control. The way the planning committee is run has become a disgrace. By law, it should not make decisions on party political lines and, in the past, even under Labour, councillors expressed their views and voted without fear or favour. Not any more. The Labour leaders deny there is a whip, but personally I am certain that it is made clear to their councillors how they should vote - just look at the way members are replaced for the night when it looks as if they might be swayed by public opinion or arguments against a project. As far as this and other big projects are concerned, the residents are right to say that the infrastructure is not there to support a rapidly expanding population. Furthermore, I'll wager that when all the new homes planned are built across the borough - with our Labour councillors dancing to the Tory/Lib Dems' tune - our population will be bigger, but the waiting list for social housing will be roughly the same. Every inadequate property vacated by one family too big for it soon rehouses another family too big for it. And anyway, note the weasel words "affordable homes", which means private rents or buys - that is, they simply bring more people into a borough that is already densely populated.[/p][/quote]The reason why councillors toe the party line can be summed up in one word: allowances. Toe the line and you'll be rewarded with chairing a committee, there are lots of small toothless ones. That more than doubles the basic councillor allowance. Rock the boat and you'll be punished financially. It's funny to see the current fuss about so-called Labour Party democracy. The Party was never democratic, and Blair squashed what little accountabiloty there was inside the party when he introduced generous allowances, and the cabinet system Many of our local councillors have no jobs, they thrive instead on the money which comes their way through allowances. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 3

7:23pm Sun 7 Jul 13

Tom Thumb says...

Waltham Forest doesn't exist as a community any more, does it?
It has diversity but it doesn't have cohesion.
It also seems to be going Stratford's way, with a large transient population which is just moving through and feels no attachment to local issues.
Waltham Forest doesn't exist as a community any more, does it? It has diversity but it doesn't have cohesion. It also seems to be going Stratford's way, with a large transient population which is just moving through and feels no attachment to local issues. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 4

7:26pm Sun 7 Jul 13

Tom Thumb says...

Lots of people affected by this mad scheme will I'm afraid have voted Labour. So they only have themselves to blame.
The Labour council is not short of support at the ballot box, even though first-past-the-post is in itself not very democratic, disenfranchising large minorities who vote Green, UKIP etc.
Lots of people affected by this mad scheme will I'm afraid have voted Labour. So they only have themselves to blame. The Labour council is not short of support at the ballot box, even though first-past-the-post is in itself not very democratic, disenfranchising large minorities who vote Green, UKIP etc. Tom Thumb
  • Score: 3

11:53pm Sun 7 Jul 13

sensibility says...

did anyone think this would not go through? if the council can allow what is going to be built on the tyco site and walthamstow stadium theres no way this will be turned down.

its just not funny anymore.
did anyone think this would not go through? if the council can allow what is going to be built on the tyco site and walthamstow stadium theres no way this will be turned down. its just not funny anymore. sensibility
  • Score: 4

12:55am Mon 8 Jul 13

mdj says...

'The Labour council is not short of support at the ballot box...'

You're not kidding: 125% turnout in High St ward at the last election. How dare they talk about apathy in local elections?
'The Labour council is not short of support at the ballot box...' You're not kidding: 125% turnout in High St ward at the last election. How dare they talk about apathy in local elections? mdj
  • Score: 5

10:07am Mon 8 Jul 13

fabster says...

When I used the word 'abstain' in my context above, it relates to the fact that he/she was told he/she had to vote one way, and he/she did not want to. Abstaining was the only way not to upset the proverbial toed line. A classic damned if you do/don't.

mdj, Cllr Akram's lost of the whip wasn't really because he was interfering in planning decisions. It was merely a pretext, politically motivated to get the strongest competitor out of the way for the next leadership job. Fancy a guess who could possibly have orchestrated such a thing?

Tom Thumb, you could not be more wrong re existence of a community, sorry. I've been in E17 14 years and I have lived in many wealthier places before where I did not know my neighbours. There is a thriving community here worth fighting for.
When I used the word 'abstain' in my context above, it relates to the fact that he/she was told he/she had to vote one way, and he/she did not want to. Abstaining was the only way not to upset the proverbial toed line. A classic damned if you do/don't. mdj, Cllr Akram's lost of the whip wasn't really because he was interfering in planning decisions. It was merely a pretext, politically motivated to get the strongest competitor out of the way for the next leadership job. Fancy a guess who could possibly have orchestrated such a thing? Tom Thumb, you could not be more wrong re existence of a community, sorry. I've been in E17 14 years and I have lived in many wealthier places before where I did not know my neighbours. There is a thriving community here worth fighting for. fabster
  • Score: 1

11:31am Mon 8 Jul 13

mdj says...

'mdj, Cllr Akram's loss of the whip wasn't really because he was interfering in planning decisions. It was merely a pretext..'

I'm quite sure you're right!
But at the same time, they can't pretend that the machinery doesn't exist to stop such interference, can they?

'..he/she was told he/she had to vote one way..'
Again, told by who? Whipping a planning decision is a blatant abuse of process. If these councillors won't stand up and fight, they're are colluding in the subversion of our Council's constitution.
Money doesn't have to be involved for corruption to take place.
'mdj, Cllr Akram's loss of the whip wasn't really because he was interfering in planning decisions. It was merely a pretext..' I'm quite sure you're right! But at the same time, they can't pretend that the machinery doesn't exist to stop such interference, can they? '..he/she was told he/she had to vote one way..' Again, told by who? Whipping a planning decision is a blatant abuse of process. If these councillors won't stand up and fight, they're are colluding in the subversion of our Council's constitution. Money doesn't have to be involved for corruption to take place. mdj
  • Score: 1

12:16pm Mon 8 Jul 13

the dame says...

Can anyone explain to me why we never hear from the opposing parties
in Waltham Forest i.e. Conservatives and LibDems. It is never reported that they have alternative plans or oppose with any force anything that Labour proposes yet they are happy to take their allowances. What are they there for?
Can anyone explain to me why we never hear from the opposing parties in Waltham Forest i.e. Conservatives and LibDems. It is never reported that they have alternative plans or oppose with any force anything that Labour proposes yet they are happy to take their allowances. What are they there for? the dame
  • Score: 3

12:28pm Mon 8 Jul 13

mdj says...

' What are they there for?'

For a while I thought that maybe the Tories were happy to let Waltham Forest run amok as an awful warning of what Labour control stood for; but since they make no use of it politically, there must be some other reason.
Now I'm (even) more cynical: I'm guessing that there's some unstated knock-for-knock policy, whereby Labour don't rock the boat in Barnet or Enfield, in return for Tory silence here.
Remember, they're both feeding on the same flock (us). The Corleones control one side of town, the Gambinos the other; honour among thieves.
' What are they there for?' For a while I thought that maybe the Tories were happy to let Waltham Forest run amok as an awful warning of what Labour control stood for; but since they make no use of it politically, there must be some other reason. Now I'm (even) more cynical: I'm guessing that there's some unstated knock-for-knock policy, whereby Labour don't rock the boat in Barnet or Enfield, in return for Tory silence here. Remember, they're both feeding on the same flock (us). The Corleones control one side of town, the Gambinos the other; honour among thieves. mdj
  • Score: 2

11:04am Wed 10 Jul 13

Walthamster says...

"Waltham Forest Council's planning committee passed the plans ..., controversially discussing the proposal earlier than planned, despite residents who wished to speak against the plans not having arrived."

So the council tricked opponents by telling them the wrong time to come?

This reminds me of its decision to let L&Q redevelop the Stow as heavily overcrowded housing -- the council rushed that one through before the government could intervene.

And the council has rushed to start work on an unnecessary £250k new bridge on the marshes, apparently in breach of planning laws.

Waltham Forest council is famously slow in carrying out its duties or responding to residents' enquiries. But it can put on an impressive turn of speed in stamping on local people's concerns.
"Waltham Forest Council's planning committee passed the plans ..., controversially discussing the proposal earlier than planned, despite residents who wished to speak against the plans not having arrived." So the council tricked opponents by telling them the wrong time to come? This reminds me of its decision to let L&Q redevelop the Stow as heavily overcrowded housing -- the council rushed that one through before the government could intervene. And the council has rushed to start work on an unnecessary £250k new bridge on the marshes, apparently in breach of planning laws. Waltham Forest council is famously slow in carrying out its duties or responding to residents' enquiries. But it can put on an impressive turn of speed in stamping on local people's concerns. Walthamster
  • Score: 2

11:11am Wed 10 Jul 13

G Sladden says...

mdj wrote:
' What are they there for?'

For a while I thought that maybe the Tories were happy to let Waltham Forest run amok as an awful warning of what Labour control stood for; but since they make no use of it politically, there must be some other reason.
Now I'm (even) more cynical: I'm guessing that there's some unstated knock-for-knock policy, whereby Labour don't rock the boat in Barnet or Enfield, in return for Tory silence here.
Remember, they're both feeding on the same flock (us). The Corleones control one side of town, the Gambinos the other; honour among thieves.
Yes, I have always been surprised at the complete absence of a Tory voice. As for the LibDems, they used to be very active in my ward, but they too have disappeared. How does Labour manage to perform so abysmally and yet continue to retain control in Walthamstow?
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: ' What are they there for?' For a while I thought that maybe the Tories were happy to let Waltham Forest run amok as an awful warning of what Labour control stood for; but since they make no use of it politically, there must be some other reason. Now I'm (even) more cynical: I'm guessing that there's some unstated knock-for-knock policy, whereby Labour don't rock the boat in Barnet or Enfield, in return for Tory silence here. Remember, they're both feeding on the same flock (us). The Corleones control one side of town, the Gambinos the other; honour among thieves.[/p][/quote]Yes, I have always been surprised at the complete absence of a Tory voice. As for the LibDems, they used to be very active in my ward, but they too have disappeared. How does Labour manage to perform so abysmally and yet continue to retain control in Walthamstow? G Sladden
  • Score: 2

12:38pm Wed 10 Jul 13

ruby newbie says...

the dame wrote:
Can anyone explain to me why we never hear from the opposing parties
in Waltham Forest i.e. Conservatives and LibDems. It is never reported that they have alternative plans or oppose with any force anything that Labour proposes yet they are happy to take their allowances. What are they there for?
answer is because they are all the same..........that "building looks like a great big wharehouse.obviously someone has no design skills,and building for buildings sake.....
[quote][p][bold]the dame[/bold] wrote: Can anyone explain to me why we never hear from the opposing parties in Waltham Forest i.e. Conservatives and LibDems. It is never reported that they have alternative plans or oppose with any force anything that Labour proposes yet they are happy to take their allowances. What are they there for?[/p][/quote]answer is because they are all the same..........that "building looks like a great big wharehouse.obviously someone has no design skills,and building for buildings sake..... ruby newbie
  • Score: 2

1:48pm Wed 10 Jul 13

Bernard 87 says...

Walthamstow residents keep voting Labour so I no longer care plans get pushed through there. Until the residents vote for someone else they have little right to complain about such eye watering, awful plans.
Walthamstow residents keep voting Labour so I no longer care plans get pushed through there. Until the residents vote for someone else they have little right to complain about such eye watering, awful plans. Bernard 87
  • Score: 1

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