Forum Topics

Catalyst and Ealing Council withheld facts about Friary Park

The concern about the loss of light to the millionaires living around Poets Corner in Acton perhaps may get to the truth about Labour councillor Dan Crawford efforts to make Black people homeless through the demolition of the Friary Park estate.Everyone on the estate, indeed anyone who has meet Mr Crawford, knows he is physically incapable of honesty so no one was surprised by his lies on 20th November 2019 that all social housing tenants wanted their homes demolished. He never mentioned what would happen to tenants because he had arranged for all Black families to be excluded from the Locata social housing allocation system.Finally some light can be shed on the work of Ealing Council Director of Regeneration Lucy Taylorfor for Mr Crawford and Catalyst as the Local Government Ombudsman cannot investigate because Ealing Council Chief Executive Paul Najsarek has blocked complains from Friary Park residents regarding her relationships with developers like Mount Anvil and Mary Mescall of Barton Willmore. Mr Najsarek also prevented the Local Government Ombudsman from examining why Lucy Taylor helped Catalyst Housing Group operate an illegal garage on the Friary Park estate for the last 3 years by simply refusing to answer any complaints believing them to have come from Black Londoners. Mr Najsarek is also aware of the judgement against Catalyst Housing Group by the Homes and Communities Agency finally stopping Catalyst selling social housing to its own managers. Ealing Council has made no effort to recover the value of these stolen community assets.Ealing Council and Mr Crawford failed to provide evidence of consultation and arranged no one could challenge him or those being paid by Catalyst last year. Now new Northolt MP James Murray and Kate Crawford, mother of Dan, who has been on Ealing Council since the 1980s, are pressing their long time friend Sadiq Khan to uphold the planning decision and keep everyone in the dark about the bigotry of Paul Najsarek and Dan Crawford knowing journalists are reluctant to write about other NUJ members.

Martin Cain ● 2433d2 Comments ● 2432d

Factory Quarter residents parking rights threatened by Ealing Council Planning application - object

Cobbold Mews is a larger version of a scheme rejected by Ealing Council (PP/2009/1912) back in 2009.The current proposal by Lemon Land threatens the rights of 100 Factory Quarter residents to park on the land next to Thames Water’s Storm Tanks - The parking rights were granted under a “s106” legal agreement with LBHF - If you want to protect your FQ rights to park, object asap to this planning application – urgently and here’s the weblink to go to make comments and objecthttps://pam.ealing.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=PWN8HMJMGL000The overall construction is estimated to last 2+ years and there are no proposals in the planning application to help people who lose their parking space. The local road network is one way dominated by narrow one way roads passing a nursery school and used by local industry - it’s not safe!If you need more detail about the s106 agreement, read on....* The Factory Quarter development was known as the site of Prestolite Electric Ltd Larden Road W3 7RP Application 2006/02023/FUL * The s106 agreement online states under the heading "Allocation of Car Parking Spaces" at clause 12.1 (p13 of Agreement) "The Owner shall provide no less than 269 car parking spaces and no more than 280 car parking spaces within the Development that being no less than 166 car parking spaces and no more than 177 within the Site and 103 car parking spaces within the Off Site Car Park."clause 12.2 "The Owner shall ensure that all of the 103 car parking spaces in the Off Site Car Park are available for use by occupiers of the Development and the Owner shall not permit their use by any person who is not a occupier of or a bona fide visitor to the Developmentclause 12.3 "The Owner covenants that it shall not use nor occupy nor permit the use or occupation of all or part of the Development until it has laid out and made available the 103 spaces within the Off Site Car Park and the Council has given its written approval of the lay out... "[unfortunately p14 of the Agreement is the only missing page in the agreement online. It has been requested by an FOI but to date not provided]* The exact placement of the car parking spaces, required by condition 12 was set out in the s106 Agreement with the plan for the car parking is set out here in 'allocation of standard car parking spaces' being approved by LBHF at the following link:https://public-access.lbhf.gov.uk/online-applications/files/9CB3519BC4729C28AB975FC907402594/pdf/2010_01842_DET-PARKING_LAYOUT_269-641536.pdf* The developer Lemon Land now wishes to put these underground - in a basement car park to be constructed as the full width of the car park, notwithstanding that the site is boundaries to the north by the Thames Water sewerage tanks (to which Thames Water has objected) and Greenend Road/Worcester Drive/ Hawkshead Road houses to the south. * This is (a) not permitted under the current agreement and (b) should not be permitted should there be any attempt by the developer to vary the conditions. * A basement car park - if ever constructed would be unacceptable to the FQ residents as (i) this is a material change to the car parking provision they agreed - it is inferior and less convenient particularly for those with mobility issues/ young children/ anxiety, who would be required to descend into the car park by car and then walk to a single centre mid point to access stairs / a lift and then walk back a significant distance - past apartment blocks to exit the car parking site - so a longer walk than currently. Plus the added insecurity of having a lift which may break down necessitating a walk up stairs plus the lack of visibility in a basement car park which may lead to security fears, particularly if the development site has open pedestrian access. * The proposal also involves FQ residents with car parking spaces negotiating a one way basement car park and using a single turning head at the far end of the site, whereas the existing provision permits to turn wherever they consider appropriate, without negotiating a housing development and its proposed residents (numbering more than 100 living on site). (ii) the construction of a basement car park / basic elements of the development would be (conservatively) two years during which time the existing spaces would be out of action.* There is a traffic assessment for the proposed Ealing car park development (named 'Cobbold Mews') which seemingly took place on a single day during a half term. It does not accord with residents' / neighbours experience of the car park and our own daily vehicle count shows a minimum of 80 cars on site on a daily basis. I am writing this a part of SPTRA, the Residents Association for all the homes next to this development in nearby Greenend Rd – they lose privacy as this development over looks all their bedrooms.We think this application will be heard at the Ealing Planning Committee on March 18th so time is not on our side. ObjectThank you

Don Tanswell ● 2437d3 Comments ● 2434d

Is our real problem Ealing's pension deficit?

Watching the rugby at the weekend I got into conversation with another group of people who were in the same bar and it turned into a very convivial afternoon. Given the result we wanted to talk about something more cheery so natuarally the subject switched to pensions rather than the match.The chap I was talking to seemed to know his stuff and told me that Ealing Council in particular had a major problem with their fund which was running a very substantial deficit. He said most local authorities had an issue because fewer people were joining council schemes because of outsourcing and head count reduction and more and more people were retiring and living longer but Ealing's short fall was more than most. He also said that at some point soon, just like many companies the borough will have to start covering the deficit which could be in the region of half a billion. There is no prospect that scheme income will make it self funding because, although head count has reduced, average salaries have increased significantly and generous early retirement packages remain in place. He said that Ealing like many other councils have reduced costs by persuading people to take retirement. This is actually more expensive but pushes when it needs to be paid for out into the future. His estimate was that by the end of this decade local taxes would need to double to make sure the pension fund was adequately funded.I really don't know enough about pensions and the way they work to know if this is alarmist nonesense or a timely warning. I have heard people say similar things before. It there anyone with expertise in these matters who could comment?

Andy Jones ● 2455d9 Comments ● 2439d

Who will buy the new flats in Acton?

Few of the 50,000 Ealing Council claim now have legal status will buy any of the properties covered in the article. On the other hand shared ownership is something the Labour Party is very keen on having arranged loans for local landlords like Catalyst Housing Group with the £70 million alowing them to buy the 132 properties in South Acton from which they make huge profits from without a penny coming back to Council Taxpayers. The 990 flats that Catalyst have permission to build on the Friary Park Estate following the rigged 20th November planning meeting will be marketed as share ownership through Catalyst's unique Equity Loans. It is unique because Catalyst's promises borrowers that should they have to claim Housing Benefit they will receive the maximum amount because of their partnership with Ealing Council. Borrowers will pay a minimum of £345 per week for a 25% equity in flats that will be little more than dog boxes designed by Anne Markey of Phelan Architects and a member of Catalyst board. Their real problems will come when they try to claim Housing Benefit because any payments they get will fall far short of their loan commitments. As in the 40 other local authorities in which Catalyst operates they will seek possession when the borrowers fall 1 month behind, have the borrowers evicted and move in new tenants. Catalyst Housing Group have aways made it clear they intended to keep possession of all their new builds and this is how they do it. Estate agents and District Courts have long been aware of the huge turnover in Catalyst's share ownership tenants but those covering Acton's property market fail to discuss this or how much Catalyst and local politicians like Labour councillor Dan Crawford are making. Crawford, who runs the Locata social housing allocation system that has seen his friends like Cecilia Aridegbe moved into new central Ealing upmarket development Dicken's Yard and only pay the social rent of £124 per week, will not be supportive of share ownership tenants as Councllor Yvonne Johnson demonstarted with those living in Catalyst's rat infested South Acton properties.

Martin Cain ● 2445d1 Comments ● 2444d