RESIDENTS’ PROTEST IGNORED

Residents outside the Town Hall protesting at the road closures introduced as part of the ‘Mini Holland’ scheme

The recent protest by over 1,200 residents against the road closures in Walthamstow and Leyton showed that the Council’s Mini Holland plans, including closing local roads, does not have the support of all residents despite the Council saying that they had.

Protesters not against the scheme or cyclists, but against road closures

The protesters went out of their way to say that they were not against the scheme or cyclists, but against the road closures. The Council’s plans have succeeded in causing division and anger across the Borough. The closing of roads has forced vehicles onto the already congested main roads like Lea Bridge, Hoe Street, and Leyton High Road and has resulted in a massive slow down of traffic, increased congestion and increased pollution.

Bob Sullivan addressing protesters outside the Town Hall

Congestion and pollution bad for all

All of this is detrimental to residents, cyclists, pedestrians and bus users. Focus Team member Bob Sullivan, who was in the Town Hall listening to the Mini Holland debate, was appalled by the Labour Council restricting residents from hearing the debate, as they only allowed 12 protesters in, although the chamber can hold over a hundred. He was shocked by the arrogant, illiberal attitude with which Labour Councillors treated residents’ concerns. They were not prepared to review the Mini Holland plans despite residents’ requests and their own Labour MP’s request.

Council continues to ignore residents

They are, in fact, going to ignore residents and continue to put in similar divisive plans across Leyton, Leytonstone and Chingford!

POOL AND TRACK PLANNING FARCE!

Re-submitted Pool & Track plan ‘would be missed opportunity’

12:33pm Wednesday 4th March 2015 – Waltham Forest E-Guardian

Re-submitted plans for a multi-million pound investment in new sporting facilities will be a ‘wasted’ opportunity, according to campaigners.

Athletes, parents, children, teachers and councillors gathered last night to urge the council to reconsider a proposal for Walthamstow Pool and Track.

The authority and contractors Greenwich Leisure Limited were criticised for deciding not to replace a 5m diving board as part of the £25million scheme in Chingford Road.

In September plans to knock down the existing building and replace it were rejected by the council’s planning committee due to loss of amenity as the diving board, which is said to be vital for training youngsters, would be replaced by a spa and an ‘extreme sports’ arena.

But an application for the same proposal has been made, with the diving board not included.

Campaigners and other clubs say young athletes will also be disadvantaged if the proposal is approved.

A petition calling for further public consultation has been signed by 2,500 people.

Speaking at the Pool & Track last night, Orion Harriers club manager, Jane Farrier, said the planned facility would kill athletics.

A ‘well-used’ strength and conditioning room will be taken away under the new plans.

We were not consulted from day one

They are not integrating this track with the new centre and there are a number of big concerns with the new proposals.

For a start we will now have a safeguarding issue with children having to go right out of our sight to use the toilets and changing rooms.

There will be no track-side first aid.

We have no trust in them whatsoever. 

We do not dispute the centre needed to be developed,  but the emphasis has been placed on making money not improving what we already have.

We have 400 junior and 350 senior members. None of them were asked. 

Is consultation asking people what they want or telling them what they are getting?

Lesley Pearce, the teacher in charge of PE at Parkside School in Chingford, said

There is a desperate need for a large sporting venue for pupils to use.

If the council had consulted primary schools they would know we spend a huge amount of money transporting children to facilities in other boroughs.

With this amount of money they are spending – they have the chance build a major sporting hub and meet the needs of thousands of children. 

These plans are not suitable.

Walthamstow resident Amanda Connolly criticised the lack of consultation.

There is no transparency in this project. It should be about investing in the future.

Nobody has a problem with development or enterprise, but we haven’t even been asked what we need.

Green Party candidate for Chingford and Woodford Green, Rebecca Tully, said the council should not expect children to travel to other boroughs for facilities.

There are children having to travel to outside boroughs and are getting home at ten o’clock on a school night. That is not what we want.

Many members of the community in Waltham Forest feel as though they have been ignored.

Jack Byrne, 11, is a member of the diving club. He said:

It’s not just about divers, it’s about swimmers too. 

With these plans we can’t use the pool at the same time.

Before I learned to dive I would try the 5m board and it was such a thrill.

I just wanted to do more. If they take it away other children won’t get to experience that.

We don’t need a spa here.

A dedicated planning meeting will be held at Walthamstow Town Hall on Tuesday (March 10).

GLL has not responded to repeated requests for interview from The Guardian.

Please sign the on-line petition below.

View the petition here

FAMILIES CHEATED OUT OF THEIR HOMES

Fred Wigg and Joihn Walsh Towers, Montague Road

In November a packed meeting of tenants voted for the option of refurbishment of kitchens and bathrooms for John Walsh and Fred Wigg tower blocks in Leytonstone. 
Tenants Ignored
However, the Labour Council over-ruled the tenants, agreeing a plan to strip back the towers to the core, completely refurbish the flats and build a smaller block between them.
Labour Selling Off Flats
Brand new flats for the tenants?  No! The Council wants to sell off one of the blocks to the private sector, thus reducing the number of Council flats from 232 to 160!  Waltham Forest has thousands of families on the waiting list, so a further reduction of affordable homes will dash the hopes of many people.  In effect Labour is getting rid of tenants who are, in the main, less well-off and inviting wealthy people to buy up the flats.
Labour MP and councillors ignore cries for help
The residents have asked their Labour MP and Labour councillors for help but they stay quiet.  They have even been ignored by one of their Labour councillors who was once a tenant in one of the blocks!

Focus says:

The Council has said tenants can go back once the refurbishment is complete.  This is rubbish as there will not be enough flats to house all of them!  One of the tenants has said “The Council is treating us worse than something stuck on their shoe”.

Focus will keep you informed of the tenants’ campaign to save their homes.

ASBESTOS DANGER AT WALTHAM FOREST TOWN HALL – LATEST ON COURT CASE

Waltham Forest Town Hall

Waltham Forest E Guardian 30 January 2015

A date has been set for the sentencing of Waltham Forest council for putting employees’ lives at risk by failing to deal with deadly asbestos in the basement of its town hall.

Despite being warned about the presence of asbestos in the basement of the Forest Road building in 2002, the matter was not dealt with and no workers warned of the potential danger.

Earlier this month at Westminster Magistrates Court, the council admitted four counts of failing to keep employees and visitors safe.

Sentence will take place at Southwark Crown Court on February 16.

The offences can to light when Leytonstone resident, Nick Tiratsoo, submitted a Freedom of Information request in 2012 and was told all documents requested were contaminated with asbestos, which can cause lung cancer.

Mr Tiratsoo alerted the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which launched an investigation.

The court heard workers were based in the print room, one of many contaminated rooms, for up to 36 hours a week at one stage.

Kenneth Moore, who worked there for three years, said he will now worry about his health for the rest of his life and is focused on trying to keep fit.

He also said that employees were not told for ‘quite some time’ why they had been banned from entering the basement.

All three kinds of asbestos, including the most dangerous, were found in the basement, although it is not clear when it was disturbed.

District Judge Grant said the authority’s offences were too serious for sentence to pass immediately and referred the case to crown court.

POOL AND TRACK PETITION UPDATE

Multi-million pound plans to demolish and re-build a ‘state of the art’ sports centre have been axed from the council’s agenda for next week.

Campaigners, parents and budding sports stars had been preparing to protest at the town hall in Walthamstow, on Tuesday, as plans for the Chingford Road Pool and Track were to be debated for a second time.

A petition which has been signed by over 1,500 people was started two weeks ago, calling on the council to consult local people.

The plans, the second ones to reach the planning committee, have been slammed as the new centre will not include a 5m diving board, dive pit and will alter facilities for disabled people.

Waltham Forest council’s contractor, GLL Ltd, said the board is too expensive but are putting spa facilities and a BMX area in the plans.

In September the first plans were rejected over the proposed loss of amenity for local residents.

Today, it was revealed that the meeting has been deferred until March, where the will be a dedicated meeting over the facility.

In a letter to campaigner Ian Capes, a council officer wrote:

Due to the amount of interest in the plans it is important that we can accommodate as many members of the public as possible who wish to attend the meeting and play their part in the decision making process.

The decision comes on the same day the chairman of the planning committee was suspended from the Labour group over a Facebook rant over the words of the Prophet Mohammed.

The petition can be seen here:

https://www.change.org/p/london-borough-of-waltham-forest-lbwf-greenwich-leisure-limited-gll-aka-better-withdraw-planning-application-2014-2399-23m-pool-track-rebuild-and-consult-with-all-local-user-groups-about-the-design-specification

WHY CAN’T THE U.K. BUILD 240,000 HOUSES A YEAR?

Images of housebuilding (clockwise from top left): house under construction; digger; "sold" sign; bricks; bricklayer

In 2007 the Labour government set a target for 240,000 homes to be built a year by 2016. The UK is nowhere near that. Why?

For decades after World War Two the UK used to build more than 300,000 new homes a year. Recently it’s managed about half that.

The country is facing up to a housebuilding crisis. A decade ago, the Barker Review of Housing Supply noted that about 250,000 homes needed to be built every year to prevent spiralling house prices and a shortage of affordable homes.

That target has been consistently missed – the closest the UK got was in 2006-07 when 219,000 homes were built. In 2012-13, the UK hit a post-war low of 135,500 homes, much of which was due to the financial crisis. Last year the figure recovered slightly to 141,000 homes. Labour’s 2007 target has been dropped by the coalition.

In May 2014, Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England,complained that housebuilding in the UK was half that of his native Canada, despite the UK having a population twice the size. The consequences have been rocketing prices in London, the South East and some other parts of the country.

How did it become so hard to build houses?

Planning permission

Big digger on edge of countryside

About 95% of housebuilders surveyed this year thought that the “modest” industry target to build 200,000 new homes a year by 2016 was unachievable.

The planning system and local opposition to building were two of the main reasons cited. The Home Builders Federation says that while things have improved recently the planning system is “still far too slow, bureaucratic and expensive”.

And yet the government announced recently that in the year to September 2014, the number of planning permissions for new homes reached 240,000. Housing minister Brandon Lewis says that it’s a sign the government’s planning reforms are working.

In 2012, the government attempted to simplify the planning system by introducing a slimmed-down National Planning Policy Framework. Matthew Pointon, property economist at Capital Economics, says the NPPF is working. “In the past, planning was a big part of why we didn’t hit our targets.”

The HBF says it can still be slow to get from outline to detailed planning. There are over 150,000 plots for new homes with outline planning permission that are stuck in the system waiting for detailed permission, says HBF spokesman Steve Turner. But the steady rise in detailed planning permissions being granted over the last four years – from 158,000 in 2011, 189,000 in 2012, 204,000 in 2013 and 2014’s 240,000 figure – shows that the planning system is speeding up, says the government.

Graph

Chris Walker, head of housing and planning at think tank Policy Exchange says the 240,000 is a positive step. The question is whether the upward trend will carry on. It could just be a correction after the low levels of building following the financial crisis. And not all permissions are built, many expire. “We probably won’t get to 200,000 on the back of that 240,000,” Walker says.

The government has abolished national and regional planning housebuilding targets. Leaving everything to local decision-making encourages Nimbyism, says Kate Henderson, chief executive of the Town and Country Planning Association. She cites a doubling of legal challenges on local plans by planning inspectors who are picking councils up on not assessing their housing needs properly. “There’s a lot of pressure from politicians in certain areas to suppress housing figures.”

But housing minister Brandon Lewis says the rising number of permissions shows the tide is turning. And he rejects the idea that replacing regional planning targets with local decision-making has increased Nimbyism. He points to the British Social Attitudes survey, which showed a 19% rise in the number of people who support homes being built in their area.

Lack of available land

Sign reads "land reserved for future development"

For homelessness charity Shelter a shortage of available building land is the main reason for the housing shortage. “We fail to provide enough land at prices that make it possible to build decent, affordable homes,” a spokesman says. Land prices have inflated “massively”, Shelter says. Residential land prices rose 170% from 2000 to 2007 compared to house prices which rose 124%, according to the IPPR.

Land is the main long-term constraint, agree both the private sector HBF and the National Housing Federation (NHF), which represents housing associations. The NHF says that local plans drawn up by councils often fail to identify enough land to meet local housing needs.

A Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) spokeswoman says: “We’re well on track to have released enough formerly used, surplus public sector land for 100,000 homes by the end of this parliament – and the Autumn Statement included plans to identify similar land for an additional 150,000 homes in the next five years.”

This will help, says Jeremy Blackburn, head of policy at the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. But public sector land is only a small part of the picture. Private landholders needs to be encouraged to release sites for homes.

One of the most controversial areas of possible reform is around the greenbelt – the protected zones around urban areas in the UK. It would help to relax the rules, Blackburn argues. Often the greenbelt could be built on with green space released elsewhere to compensate, he says.

Councils have always been able to build on the green belt in special circumstances. In August 2014 it was reported that 15 homes are approved on the greenbelt every day. And in October communities secretary Eric Pickles responded by saying he would be tighten the government’s new planning rules on the subject of the greenbelt. While many in the planning and construction industries might like the greenbelt to be opened up to building “where appropriate”, politicians are unlikely to agree to something so controversial with voters.

Housebuilders sit on land and hold back homes

EbbsfleetE
Ebbsfleet awaits development as a new garden city

Housebuilders in possession of large sites will often develop them gradually rather than build and sell the homes off quickly, says Pointon.

It’s supply and demand – release a few at a time and the price remains high. Release a lot at once and the value of the properties falls.

“By building them out more slowly it means they can maximise the value of their assets,” Pointon says.

It may be in their business interest to do this, says Henderson. But what it means for the country is that developers are sitting on land for houses that could be put on the market and relieve the housing shortage. It shows the need for the state to take charge of developing large sites so that not all the homes are under the control of the big housebuilders, she says.

The HBF says that big sites take years to develop. “Housebuilders can only build at the rate a local market will support,” says Steve Turner. “You cannot build out a site for 5,000 houses instantly or indeed put them up for sale in a local market at once. So when local authorities are drawing up their local plans it’s imperative they include more smaller sites and not just a few large ones which inevitably take years to build out.”

The State no longer builds

British Minister of Housing Aneurin Bevan (1897 - 1960) opens the 500th permanent house built since the end of World War II by Elstree Rural Council, 25th March 1949
March 1949: Aneurin Bevan opens the 500th permanent house built in Elstree since the end of WW2

Between the late 1940s and late 1950s councils built more homes than the private sector. Right up to the late 1970s local authorities were building 100,000 homes a year. But with the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 housebuilding by local authorities fell.

Private sector construction rose, but not by enough to compensate for the fall in public sector building. Housing associations were supposed to fill the gap but have come nowhere near the state’s building figures, says Glyn Robbins, a supporter of pressure group Defend Council Housing. Councils’ exit from housebuilding is “fundamental” to today’s housing shortage, he believes.

Kate Henderson, of the Town and Country Planning Association, agrees. The current failure to build anything like the numbers from the 1950s and 1960s – when councils were building as many homes as the total housebuilding figure today – shows the private sector is incapable of delivering on its own, she says.

line

A brief history of social housing

  • End of WW1 and the “Homes fit for heroes” campaign leads to Housing Act 1919 which requires councils to provide housing
  • Destruction of thousands of houses during WW2 sparks major boom in council housing, shaped by New Towns Act 1946 and Town and Country Planning Act 1947
  • Council tenants given the right to buy their homes by the Housing Act 1980, introduced in the early days of Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government
line

Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats are arguing for the state to once again commission and build homes. It may not be the mass council housing of old though. Today they talk about development corporations that can buy up the land and work with other partners to build housing for different tenures – Labour calls its model New Homes Corporations. It’s rather like the New Towns, says Henderson. “Once you grant planning permission the value shoots up,” says Henderson. “So the state can capture that and deliver affordable housing.” Garden cities are ripe for this kind of development corporation approach, she says.

But Brandon Lewis says that the government’s flagship garden city of Ebbsfleet will be developed mainly by the private sector. He is cautious about the state getting involved in housebuilding – the country has to “live within its means”. But he does point to the government’s extra investment for councils to help them build new affordable homes across the country.

It is not quite right to say the private sector has never managed to build enough homes on its own. It did so, albeit in the 1930s. The number of houses built by the private sector rose from 133,000 in 1931-32 to 293,000 in 1934-35 and 279,000 in 1935-36. However it was a very different economic context – the UK was trying to stimulate its economy after the Great Depression and mortgage conditions were very different to today.

Housing associations hamstrung

Housing association-owned flats in Lewisham, south London

Since the state stopped building homes, non-profit making housing associations have been given the job of providing social housing. In 2013 housing associations built 21,600 homes. The Policy Exchange says that number could increase radically if regulation of housing associations is relaxed.

The NHF agrees that its members’ building ambitions are thwarted by unnecessary restrictions. There are rules over how they set their rents, how properties are let and how housing stock is valued for lending purposes. These all reduce housing associations’ ability to borrow money for housebuilding, says Rachel Fisher, head of policy at the NHF.

And then there’s money. The 2010 Spending Review reduced the DCLG’s annual housing spending – which supports social housing – by about 60% to £4.5bn for the four years starting 2011-12, compared with £8.4bn over the previous three years.

This is at a time when an estimated 1.7 million people are on the social housing waiting register in England. A DCLG spokeswoman says the government has provided over 200,000 affordable homes since 2010. It will deliver 275,000 more affordable homes between 2015 and 2020, leading to the fastest rate of affordable housebuilding for two decades, she adds.

Skills and materials shortages

Builders on a site in Birmingham

What is holding up building in the short term is a lack of materials and labour, says Pointon. The surge in demand in late 2013 and early 2014 led to materials such as bricks running out.

Construction workers left the industry during the financial crisis and the industry has struggled to recruit enough skilled labour to catch up with increasing demand. It will take some time before enough workers retrain to work in construction, he says. In November 2014, the government set out a range of steps to try to recruit new construction workers. One of the proposals suggested bringing former military personnel on to building sites.

Fewer small builders

Builder on site carrying hod

Today housebuilding is concentrated in fewer hands. The financial crisis hit housebuilders hard. In 2007, there were 15 firms providing more than 2,000 homes a year. The following year there were just six.

Small housebuilders – those building fewer than 100 homes a year – built just 20,000 homes in 2013, the Financial Times reported. A decade earlier it had been 51,000. A survey in 2014 by trade body the National House Building Council found that half of small builders cited banks’ reluctance to lend as a serious problem.

The government says it has put in place a range of measures to support small builders. For instance, builders of 10 or fewer homes do not have to pay costly Section 106 affordable housing and tariff style contributions. And it has offered a £525m Builders Finance Fund to get work restarted on stalled smaller sites.

Signs outside newly built homes read "Ask about our Help To Buy scheme"
line

WHAT WALTHAM FOREST LABOUR PARTY DOES WHEN IT GETS FULL CONTROL OF THE COUNCIL

Illustration by Eva Bee
Illustration by Eva Bee

What is powerlessness? Try this for a definition: you stand to lose the home where you’ve lived for more than 20 years and raised two boys. And all your neighbours stand to lose theirs. None of you have any say in the matter. Play whatever card you like – loud protest, sound reason, an artillery of facts – you can’t change what will happen to your own lives.

Imagine that, and you have some idea of what Sonia Mckenzie is going through. In one of the most powerful societies in human history – armed to the teeth and richer than ever before – she apparently counts for nothing. No one will listen to her, or the 230-odd neighbouring households who face being wrenched from their families and friends. All their arguments are swallowed up by silence. And the only reason I can come up with for why that might be is that they’ve committed the cardinal sin of being poor in a rich city.

Sonia lives in one of the most famous landmarks in east London. The Fred Wigg and John Walsh towers are the first things you see getting off the train at Leytonstone High Road station; they hulk over every conversation on the surrounding streets and the football matches on Wanstead Flats. Since completion in the 1960s, they’ve provided affordable council homes with secure tenancies to thousands of families. Named after two local councillors, they are a testament in bricks and mortar to a time when the public sector felt more of a responsibility to the people it was meant to protect, and exercised it too.

And so they must go. Last month, Waltham Forest council agreed on a plan to strip back the two high-rises to their concrete shells, rebuild the flats, and in effect flog off one of the towers to the private sector. In between Fred and John, it will put up a third block.

What’s this long and costly job (£44m is the starting estimate) in aid of? Not to build more council homes. Amid London’s worst housing crisis since the aftermath of the second world war, local politicians plan to cut the number of council flats on the site from 225 to 160. You can guess what the rest will be: luxury flats sold as investments to foreign investors and buy-to-letters for half a million pounds a pop, and some “affordable” units to serve as PR mitigation. This is in a borough where 20,000 households are waiting for a council property.

Nor is this a choice being forced on the Labour-run council because of spending cuts and tough choices, and all that blah. By its own estimates, the project will blow about £14m of public money. Councillors admit it would be far easier and cheaper to repair and refurbish the blocks. It would also leave the borough with more social housing, and Sonia and her neighbours in peace.

Here, then, is a scheme that is expensive, illogical and unpopular. How does a local government push it through? By cheating. A strong term, but I challenge you to follow the sequence and not use it too.

First, council staff outlined the options to a few handfuls of households, without giving any detailed written explanations. Sonia remembers how one of the meetings was combined with a mini-funfair, where children from the estate were given candy floss. Then last summer officials produced a scientific-looking survey of residents, to capture how they felt about the proposed “improvements”, though there were still no details.

When residents finally found out what the council’s proposals would mean for them, they kicked off. A petition went round the estate, rejecting the grand scheme and calling for cheaper and less intrusive rebuilding: 60% of the residents signed up. Then came a November public meeting attended by more than a hundred angry people, at which council representatives were shouted down, and residents organised an impromptu vote against the council proposals. They begged for assistance from their Labour MP and their Labour councillors. No one helped.

So: a council decides to play at speculative property development (and local council taxpayers should pray that London’s housing bubble doesn’t pop over the next five years). It keeps residents in the dark over what its plans mean. And in the face of the eventual and inevitable protest, it pretends they aren’t happening, referring to “a handful” of malcontents. The easiest way to prove that is by offering residents a vote, as Westminster council did recently with one of its schemes. Fat chance of that happening here.

Just underneath the municipal formalities runs a thick vein of contempt from the representatives for the people they are meant to represent – and from a Labour party machine to what was once its core vote.

“The council is treating us worse than something stuck on their shoe,” says Sonia. And although she’s lived in the area her entire life, she knows that she and her son – now finishing off his A-levels – have become second-class citizens. They are reminders of Waltham Forest’s past as one of the most deprived boroughs in all of England.

Thanks to the inflation in the capital’s house prices, the area has recently become home to a new group of the relatively well-to-do. Having tasted gentrification, local politicians want more. “The Council wants to make the borough a place where high- and middle-income people choose to live and can afford,” reads Waltham Forest’s core strategy.

What they want to do with low-income people doesn’t need mission statements. Earlier this year the council tried to shift a soup kitchen run by a Christian charity out of the town centre, where it had been for 25 years, to an industrial estate in a layby off a dual carriageway. The soup kitchen and the poor people it attracted got in the way of the council’s “growth strategy”. Only the intervention of a judge forced a retreat.

In the run-up to what’s likely to be the tightest general election in years, both politicians and commentators are already bemoaning British voters: they don’t know what they want, they’re incoherent, they’re apathetic. But Sonia in Waltham Forest can tell you what a nonsense those charges are. If politicians can strip a part of the electorate of its voice, pretend to consult when really they mean boss about, and then ignore the comeback, they really mustn’t be surprised when voters forgo the ballot box for simmering resentment.

MORE WASTE – Campaigner Bob Suillivan with Labour WFN and glossy magazine

Bob Sullivan with copies of Labour-run Council propaganda

The Council continues to spend thousands on propaganda. The Government has said that 26 editions per year of the Council’s propaganda paper WFN, costing Waltham Forest taxpayers at least £500,000, should be reduced to no more than 4 editions. Labour has ignored this, using propaganda to cover up the Council’s failures. To top it all, they have gone on to produce a further 80 page glossy magazine costing over a £100,000.

Bob Sullivan says: The Council’s campaign ‘We Need to Talk’ is asking residents what they should do in order to make savings. Should Council Tax be used for propaganda?MORE WASTE

INFLATION BUSTING PAY RISE!!

Waltham Forest’s Labour run Council has voted to give the Chief Executive of the Council  a whopping inflation busting pay rise of £15,000 – an 8% increase. 

This makes his salary £195,000! Even the Prime Minister only gets £142,000.  Labour councillors said it was reward for overseeing council cuts.

Given that the cuts were a loss of 1,000 jobs plus salary cuts to the rest of the council staff should this have been rewarded?

On top of that, Labour councillors voted to give the redundant deputy chief executive a massive £140,000 pay off.

You can be assured that the staff who lost their jobs did not receive any golden pay offs.
Can you believe the way this Labour Council spends your money. Last year they increased the Deputy leader’s pay by 25%.

Your money down the drain

Focus will keep on reporting the arrogant and wasteful ways that this Council spends your money.

SHOCKING ATTITUDE TO OUR CHILDREN IN CARE

A recent damning report showed that Waltham Forest had five children, in the care of the Council, missing!  

This shocking report showed the Council’s failure to keep some of the most vulnerable children safe while they are in the legal care of the borough.  This is nothing short of a disgrace.
Liberal Democrat Group Leader Councillor Bob Sullivan was shocked with the news and immediately contacted the Director responsible for the Borough’s children to find out what was being done.  He was not impressed by the response.  He has asked that an urgent report go to the Council’s Children’s committee showing the steps taken to find these children and whether systems and checks are in place to prevent a recurrence.
Bob Sullivan says:

“I am disgusted that it takes a report to find out that we are failing our children.  Like all councillors we have a duty to the children in the Council’s care – as we would if they were our own children.”

“What is the Council doing?  If my child went missing I would be worried sick and doing my utmost to find her.”  

“Labour’s record for looking after children in care is bordering on negligence.”

Leyton Lib Dem Focus member Jerome Harvey-Agyei, who works for Barnardo’s dealing with young people in care, says:

“It is important to find the missing teenage children as they can quickly become the prey of unscrupulous people”.