Forum Topic

Labour Council political thuggery – and an opportunity

Having spent more time talking to people about what happened on Wednesday it seems clear that the thing that is making people incandescent with anger – perhaps even more than the development itself -  is the sense of injustice of what happened during to the political process.On a night when speaker after speaker stood up to eloquently dissect a poorly conceived development plan, the Labour councillors apparently said very little. Then at the end they stood up as a block and voted the development through.  There was no real engagement, there was no real debate.  They have given little impression that they have ever been interested in listening.Instead what happened was a stitch up in which ordinary people never had a chance. It was not democracy – it was an ugly coup  and a brutal attack. It was made even worse by the fact that the community’s position was entirely reasonable. It is not opposed to development of housing or of a Waitrose. It is simply saying we want a well-thought through development which is sensitive to its local environment. What is so controversial about that?But instead of engaging  the Labour Councillors unanimously  -  (hands over your ears if you are a child) -  bared their backsides at the people who had voted them in. Moreover, when you look at who was involved it doesn’t get any better. Julian Bell – the council leader appears to have serious form. Mr Bell has made himself very unpopular over previous planning rows. He has found himself nastily involved in the murky the Sahota affair – after he set up a secret meeting between a political ally and a council building director over a proposed development. While there is nothing  illegal about this – it has burned his party by sparking a series of ongoing rows and inquiries. He now finds himself accused of lobbying for the development long before the council had made its decision with his injudicious tweets in which he had a one-man love in with Waitrose. He apparently sang the projects praises at a council meeting the night before the decision made. And there also appears to have been a heavy whipping campaign prior to the vote.  Meanwhile his colleague, Kate Crawford seems to have earned for herself the reputation of the Lady Macbeth of local politics. Faced with a rumoured threat of de-selection she instead plunged the knife into her own son – Dan Crawford’s – electoral prospects. (Dan represents Acton Central)But curiously – amidst all the fallout -  Labour may have the sniff of another opportunity to salvage their reputation.The council owns the car park. If the council wants to, it could refuse to sell to the developer. Seize this opportunity and they might heal some of that damage they have suffered in this debacle. Fail to do so and they will remain – certainly in parts of Acton – as anti-democratic martinets who behaved with contempt for the community they were supposed to serve.And perhaps they may have to do that with or without Mr Bell.

Richard Grange ● 4714d22 Comments

I don't know whether the Council has already made a commitment to sell - exchanged as it were.It would be great if they could pull out but I can't believe the ARC - and their Labour-councillor owned PR guys - would have let it go ahead without a pretty firm assurance.

Sara Nathan ● 4714d

As mentioned on a previous thread, ARC is not a developer: it seems to be a shell company apparently set up for the sole purpose of obtaining development consent for the land. The land will be worth far more with planning permission than without. And ARC, Indigo PA and the Council can take a share of the extra cash when the land is sold on to a developer.That might explain the perverse vote and the charade of consultation.

Peter Millman ● 4714d

Oh please! Why not talk to H&F residents about that TORY councils "political thuggery" by trying to railroad through their planning committee equally unacceptable and highly unpopular  proposals for the hammersmith town hall site? Don't know why you have to make it party political  on here, it's the planning process that's floored, now could it because you've got a political axe to grind?

Gary Sinclair ● 4714d

Oh please! Why not talk to H&F residents about that TORY councils "political thuggery" by trying to railroad through their planning committee equally unacceptable and highly unpopular  proposals for the hammersmith town hall site? Don't know why you have to make it party political  on here, it's the planning process that's floored, now could it because you've got a political axe to grind?

Gary Sinclair ● 4714d

2014 is the year of local elections' why does not someone stand as a single issue candidate opposing the development? OK the decision has been made about the development but what you can do, is upset the cosy political consensus and vote for candidates in this ward who reflect local peoples needs and are not beholden to the party machine.The candidates might not win but the margins are so small in local elections that they may upset the apple cart.Play the politicians at their own game get yourself elected.

Colin Carroll ● 4714d

Welcome back Colin. I've missed you.

Maire Lowe ● 4714d

Welcome back Colin. I've missed you.I haven't.Colin made a suggestion, 2014 is the year of local elections' why does not someone stand as a single issue candidate opposing the development?Colin, why not put your money where your mouth is?

Nikki Howard ● 4714d

I'll give a tenner towards the deposit. I am just offering an idea if you  feel disaffected by the people who are supposed to represent you. Play them at their own game.I would not be any good at playing politics I would wind them all up.Nikki still upset then? You'll calm down I'm sure.

Colin Carroll ● 4713d

It shouldn't be a party political point Gary..but the local Labour party have chosen to make it one. Anyone (and there were many there on Wed night) who are normally Labour voters, would have been ashamed by the performance of the  magnificent seven. If any of them had a)read the briefing papers, b)been on the site visit and c) offered coherent responses to the credible concerns raised...I might have thought okay maybe they do just disagree with me on well thought through grounds..but when they failed on all those counts...well...it really feels like democracy has let us down.

Charlie Mawer ● 4713d

'Tisnt party political for many of us.I really resent the way that the Labour party - by its indefensible action over the Oaks - forces me to look party political by opposing it when in fact (Long years at the BBC and in public service...) I am not. Pretty much everyone (except UKIP and BNP ovvie) has had my vote at some point.Indeed, I'd rather have a residents' party running the council and keep ALL the national parties out.

Sara Nathan ● 4713d

Reading other posts, there is praise for the local labour councillors who spoke against the development. As I understand it the local councillors are not allowed to be part of a planning committee for a development in their area, so you wouldn't get any more say in the decision than your current councillors.It will be interesting to see what Boris has to say, and if he turns it down, what Eric Pickles has to say, as he gets the last word and has a declared bias in favour of developers.

Pete Grist ● 4712d

That may be the case but you do have leverage, because the other parties will need your vote for other council decisions.Horse trading I think they call it.People feel let down by their local representatives.

Colin Carroll ● 4712d

I have been in the chamber when Cllr Gulaid has voted on a local proposal - relevant to Acton Central.He could have been voting if he and, maybe more likely,  his party had wanted him to.

Sara Nathan ● 4712d

Hi GaryJust to be clear - my interest in this is not party political.If you look at my posts on ActonW3 over the years you will find that I have been critical (and supportive) of all the parties at various times. What I am interested in is good local government that is transparent and fair.And that means councillors who  have at least the decency to engage with the people who elected them. Interestingly the pressure is now on the Tories to deliver. This is major opportunity for them - and particularly for Angie Bray -  in a key marginal constituency. But how influential is our local MP with her own Government? Can Angie deliver?

Richard Grange ● 4712d

Given its a marginal ward and a marginal seat, you would hope that would focus Conservative minds.And the application and the rationale for passing it were so flawed that it would be a wholly rational decision to make to overturn it. For whatever motive.

Sara Nathan ● 4711d

It is on the planning committee that there are rules about which councillors can be on it for a particular proposal, not the council chamber.

Pete Grist ● 4710d

I agree Pete. Are we going to hear why Councilor Guliad was not a member of the committee making this decision? He was on the rota originally.

Maire Lowe ● 4709d

I hear that Angie is doing everything she can to influence the Mayor and Mr.Pickles to reject the report. She has had long talks with the Mayor's office and is organising a meeting for local residents to put the case.  She has spoken to Mr. Pickles office to gauge their interest in the decision. She has got them to provide guidelines for a letter asking him to intervene and will sign that letter. In the end it is the Mayor's decision. Let us hope he is listening to her and to all of us.

Maire Lowe ● 4709d

I was as unhappy about the Oaks planning decision as anyone – I attended the demonstration the Saturday before and my wife went to the planning committee meeting – but I am disgusted by the way that some people have tried to turn this into a party political issue, and the lies they have hurled against individual councillors.Can I just remind everyone of a few facts:The council does not own the land (the car park has already been sold for a hefty price) and planning law does not give the council the power to keep on blocking the development without good reason. This is the third planning proposal for the Oaks site. Compared to the previous proposals, the council has successfully reduced the height of the development but to keep on blocking the plans could have left the council exposed to legal action. I think the council should have pushed back harder earlier, but we must understand the weak position it was in.It is completely false to claim that the planning proposal was “whipped through” or that council leader Julian Bell “lobbied” for the plans.  I have talked to several of the councillors involved and they insist the decision was made strictly according to the planning rules. They felt bound to accept a plan they thought was the best that could be achieved in the circumstances and, at least, was better than nothing. The Oaks, as well as the Town Hall and Baths redevelopment, are vital to transforming Acton into the area we all want it to be.Labour was not united - the three Labour councillors for Acton Central, the most affected ward, all have big reservations about the project and two of them attended the demonstration and spoke out at the planning meeting. Labour has not made this a political issue, but the other parties are trying to do so, distributing misleading leaflets and making false allegations on fora like this one. If anything, the Tories and the Liberals would appear to be the ones who were “whipped”, by voting en mass to reject the plan. They are desperate to land some blows anyway they can on what they know is a very successful council.I believe those of us who are unhappy about the plans should join the lobby of the London Mayor and if that fails, should redouble our efforts to ensure the second phase of the project is better than the first. If we all stand together on this, rather than peddle lies and try to score cheap political points, we will much more effective.

Robert John Anderson ● 4707d

Robert,You seem to know more than anybody else, how come? You claim the the car park has already been sold. When did this transaction take place? How much did it realised? I believe the question of ownership for this car park was put to officers at the planning committee meeting, as well as how much money did the council hoped to realise by its sale, but did not get any reply. Could you clarify this, please. Thanks

Rosa Popham ● 4707d

Robert,As far as I know the car park is not sold yet.  The council is a partner of the developer and seeking to maximise its capital receipt.  At the council meeting last Tuesday the leader of the council was asked about this and his answer confirms that the car park has not been sold:Question 1Councillor Millican asked The Leader of the Council “Will the Leader please confirm that the Council will receive a capital receipt from the sale of Churchfield Road Car Park in Acton?”Councillor Bell replied “Yes”.Look it up here:http://ealing.cmis.uk.com/ealing/Meetings/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/397/Meeting/85/Committee/2/Default.aspxIt seems you are the one who is not to be trusted on the facts. 

Phil Taylor ● 4707d

Hi RobertI wanted to reply to your post to make it absolutely clear this is not about political point scoring. Among the people protesting against this are people with a range of views both left wing and right wing. It is an issue that has crossed simple party allegiances.Instead, the anger this has created is based on the behaviour of councillors who failed even at a basic level to engage with local opinion. They could have been Tory councillors – but in this case it was Labour councillors.There are a lots if “facts” and conjecture in this debate, and I also wanted to respond to a few things you picked up on.Firstly – the council were afraid of being litigated against. This may be true. But this is not an excuse. Does the mere threat of litigation absolve councillors of their obligations to the electorate? Is the future of Acton such that every time a developer threatens legal action if it doesn’t get its way on an inappropriate development, the council waves the white flag? Secondly – they won the concession of a reduced the height of the development. To be clear, they voted through a relatively small reduction in the size of the tower on a proposal which felt like kite-flying anyway. The fundamental problems with the design were untouched. This included the fact it will throw surrounding residents into shade, that it is a gated community in the middle of an open community, that it spectacularly breaches existing planning guidelines ... I could go on.Thirdly – you say it is wrong to say Julian Bell lobbied for the plan. Well if his tweets prior to the vote which heralded the arrival of Waitrose in Acton wasn’t “lobbying”, then I don’t know what is. Fourthly – you say that the Labour was not united on this. To be clear, the Labour councillors on the planning committee voted as a block. This has done nothing to dispel the rumour that they were “whipped in”.Moreover having been involved in numerous planning rows– exempting local councillors from controversial votes – is pretty standard. The last time it happened was over the Derwentwater School Expansion. It has the happy accident that local councillors can appear “loyal” while the rest of the council gets to vote through whatever they want. If local councillors are not represented when voting through local issues – what earthly purpose do they have?Finally, you say they felt bound to accept a plan they thought was the best that could be achieved in the circumstances. If this is true – God help us. And if it is true, why did they not communicate this clearly. Why weren’t they honest about this? To date, apart from Julian Bell’s tweets we have heard remarkably little from the council. Their idea of engagement has been to bombard us with the “good news”. They cannot have failed to notice the intensity of feeling this development has caused. But they chose not to address it. They just stopped listening. Speaking for myself, the worst of this row is not the development itself (albeit bad). Instead it is the lack of any proper dialogue from the council on a decision which will effect anyone living near the Churchfield Road for the rest of their lifetimes. This is not about political allegiances. It is about driving home the message to Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories that they have got to do better for Acton. Moreover, having followed local politics in one form or another for years, you quickly realise that councils often rely on voter apathy in order to get things through. Perhaps the voters won’t notice, perhaps they won’t care.But in Acton a lot of people do care. And one of the few tools that we have available is to point out publicly through the local media where we think the council has behaved unjustly.Coun Bell in his tweets seems barely to have acknowledged the level of anger his administration has caused. But if he thinks this one will disappear off the radar – I suspect he has badly miscalculated.

Richard Grange ● 4707d