This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davehillblog/2012/nov/06/walthamstow-stadium-london-quadrant-stella-creasy
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Walthamstow stadium: viability, credibility and democracy | Walthamstow stadium: viability, credibility and democracy |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The site of the famous Walthamstow greyhound-racing stadium, closed for business since August 2008, has become one of the capital's most extraordinary and bitter redevelopment battlegrounds, not least for forging some unlikely alliances. | The site of the famous Walthamstow greyhound-racing stadium, closed for business since August 2008, has become one of the capital's most extraordinary and bitter redevelopment battlegrounds, not least for forging some unlikely alliances. |
| On one side of the argument are Labour-run Waltham Forest council, the housing association London and Quadrant (L&Q) and London's Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson, who want the land used mostly for housing. On the other stand local MPs Stella Creasy (Labour), Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative), the Tax Payers' Alliance, a coalition of dog-track businessmen and enthusiasts, and the local residents' association, all of whom want to Save Our Stow as a job-creating forward-thinking greyhound and social mecca, bringing with it a smaller quantity of housing, but of a more affordable kind. | On one side of the argument are Labour-run Waltham Forest council, the housing association London and Quadrant (L&Q) and London's Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson, who want the land used mostly for housing. On the other stand local MPs Stella Creasy (Labour), Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative), the Tax Payers' Alliance, a coalition of dog-track businessmen and enthusiasts, and the local residents' association, all of whom want to Save Our Stow as a job-creating forward-thinking greyhound and social mecca, bringing with it a smaller quantity of housing, but of a more affordable kind. |
| This long-running saga came to a head last week when Mayor Johnson waved through L&Q's plans, which had been approved by Waltham Forest in May, despite having made noises sympathetic to their opponents in the past. Only parts of the Grade II-listed stadium would survive. The scheme's opponents responded by urging communities and local government (DCLG) secretary Eric Pickles to "call in" the application. Creasy tells me she believes he should take a close look at its full financial history. | |
| The expectation was that there would be 21 days in which to appeal to Pickles to step in, yet the council issued the relevant decision notice within a couple of days of the mayor's green light, thereby pre-empting any intervention the secretary of state might have made and seemingly leaving him powerless. That, for now at least, is the official view of the DCLG, which felt moved to observe in a statement that Waltham Forest had moved "unusually swiftly."* | |
| Behind the coded language I understand that the department is seeking an explanation for the council's exceptional burst of speed. I await with interest the council's answer to accusations that this was brought on by an urge to close off one of the few remaining channels of opposition. I'm sure it won't take them terribly long. | |
| The consternation began after L&Q bought the stadium site from the Chandler bookmaking firm for £18 million in July 2008 – a price reflecting the buoyant property market conditions of the time. The purchase seemed to mark the end of dog-racing at Walthamstow for good, with only the most prized parts of the Grade II-listed stadium surviving, but a consortium including millionaire businessman and greyhound-racing enthusiast Bob Morton has been offering to take the stadium off L&Q's hands ever since without success, despite making an offer reportedly in the region of £16m for a piece of land now worth less than half what L&Q paid for it. | The consternation began after L&Q bought the stadium site from the Chandler bookmaking firm for £18 million in July 2008 – a price reflecting the buoyant property market conditions of the time. The purchase seemed to mark the end of dog-racing at Walthamstow for good, with only the most prized parts of the Grade II-listed stadium surviving, but a consortium including millionaire businessman and greyhound-racing enthusiast Bob Morton has been offering to take the stadium off L&Q's hands ever since without success, despite making an offer reportedly in the region of £16m for a piece of land now worth less than half what L&Q paid for it. |
| L&Q have consistently protested that the Morton bid isn't viable, a view echoed by Mayor Johnson after nodding the scheme through. Yet according to an independent assessment L&Q's housing scheme is destined to make a loss of £14.5m, which would make it difficult to fund the £3.8m worth of benefits to the local community, including a leisure centre, pledged to the council under a section 106 agreement. | L&Q have consistently protested that the Morton bid isn't viable, a view echoed by Mayor Johnson after nodding the scheme through. Yet according to an independent assessment L&Q's housing scheme is destined to make a loss of £14.5m, which would make it difficult to fund the £3.8m worth of benefits to the local community, including a leisure centre, pledged to the council under a section 106 agreement. |
| This viability assessment (pdf) was made public last month only after the information commissioner overturned Waltham Forest's refusal to release it - something L&Q wasn't keen on either. I'm told by L&Q that it is "confident" of honouring its 106 commitment, underlining its assertion that the scheme will make a profit in the end. | |
| But central to the case against it is that the project represents very poor value for public money, which L&Q as a registered social landlord has long received substantial sums of. That's what's inspired the Tax Payers' Alliance to join the fray. Duncan Smith, not a conspicuous friend of social housing, has questioned why the 294 homes L&Q plans to build include none for social rent. He's called L&Q's conduct "less than open" and "outrageous" and accused it of acting like a "property speculator" – not the first such remark to be aimed a London housing association in recent times. | But central to the case against it is that the project represents very poor value for public money, which L&Q as a registered social landlord has long received substantial sums of. That's what's inspired the Tax Payers' Alliance to join the fray. Duncan Smith, not a conspicuous friend of social housing, has questioned why the 294 homes L&Q plans to build include none for social rent. He's called L&Q's conduct "less than open" and "outrageous" and accused it of acting like a "property speculator" – not the first such remark to be aimed a London housing association in recent times. |
| L&Q says the reason why only 20% of the site's planned homes will be "affordable" - and those solely of the more expensive "intermediate" varieties - when they'd originally spoken of 50% affordable in all is that coalition policy of grant cuts and the introduction of "affordable rent" obliged them to redo their sums. Their critics have little sympathy. | L&Q says the reason why only 20% of the site's planned homes will be "affordable" - and those solely of the more expensive "intermediate" varieties - when they'd originally spoken of 50% affordable in all is that coalition policy of grant cuts and the introduction of "affordable rent" obliged them to redo their sums. Their critics have little sympathy. |
| The council and Mayor Johnson, meanwhile, are similarly unmoved by arguments that they should have stood up against a scheme that is not only bad for the public purse but also appears to be unpopular with local people. Both claim that resistance, even had they wished to mount any, would have been a costly exercise in futility. But how does Johnson's passivity square with his signature mantras that he is a mayor who favours taxpayer value, economic growth and the preservation of London's cultural heritage? Duncan Smith has questioned his leadership credentials - a clear signal that "Good old Boris" will become Tory party leader over some Tory MPs' dead bodies. | The council and Mayor Johnson, meanwhile, are similarly unmoved by arguments that they should have stood up against a scheme that is not only bad for the public purse but also appears to be unpopular with local people. Both claim that resistance, even had they wished to mount any, would have been a costly exercise in futility. But how does Johnson's passivity square with his signature mantras that he is a mayor who favours taxpayer value, economic growth and the preservation of London's cultural heritage? Duncan Smith has questioned his leadership credentials - a clear signal that "Good old Boris" will become Tory party leader over some Tory MPs' dead bodies. |
| Opponents of the scheme are now pinning their hopes on Eric Pickles finding the will and a way to poke his nose in after all, and on securing a judicial review of Waltham Forest's planning procedures. The Walthamstow Stadium Area Residents and Community Association has instructed a solicitor, but is in urgent need of financial help. It is holding a static protest outside the stadium on Saturday 10 November at 1:00 pm. | Opponents of the scheme are now pinning their hopes on Eric Pickles finding the will and a way to poke his nose in after all, and on securing a judicial review of Waltham Forest's planning procedures. The Walthamstow Stadium Area Residents and Community Association has instructed a solicitor, but is in urgent need of financial help. It is holding a static protest outside the stadium on Saturday 10 November at 1:00 pm. |
| There is a tidy list of issues to examine in this story. I'll be working my way through it in the days to come. | There is a tidy list of issues to examine in this story. I'll be working my way through it in the days to come. |
| *Update, 19:22 A spokesman for the DCLG has been in touch to say the following: | *Update, 19:22 A spokesman for the DCLG has been in touch to say the following: |
| The fact that this decision has been made unusually and unreasonably swiftly, and ahead of any discussion with the Department, means that the Secretary of State had no opportunity to consider whether or not he would have wished to call the scheme in for his determination. The Department is currently considering the issues raised and the appropriate course of action. | The fact that this decision has been made unusually and unreasonably swiftly, and ahead of any discussion with the Department, means that the Secretary of State had no opportunity to consider whether or not he would have wished to call the scheme in for his determination. The Department is currently considering the issues raised and the appropriate course of action. |
| Eric doesn't seem terribly happy. Will a local authority get away with treating a secretary of state in such a way? | Eric doesn't seem terribly happy. Will a local authority get away with treating a secretary of state in such a way? |