Forum Topic

The Oaks - let's stop the political point scoring

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 be much more effective.

Robert John Anderson ● 4707d38 Comments

Are you this Robert Anderson?https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1000604_10101112604744949_987512519_n.jpgShouldn't you be a bit more straightforward about declaring your interests?

Phil Taylor ● 4707d

Well spotted Phil.A Party Political Self Egotistical Rant on behalf of the Labour Party.  Who's trying to score political points by praising this administration?Robert, tell me what this administrations hidden agenda is...how can you vote for phase 1 without knowing what phase 2 is?  How do you know the car park has already been sold off?  Come on, come clean.

Nikki Howard ● 4707d

Yes Well done Phil and welcome back. Robert doesn't seem to have posted on this forum before. New to Acton or a name change? Be good to know.

Maire Lowe ● 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

Richard, I agree with quite a lot of what you just said, thanks for the clarification. I would just like to add a few  things in reply to some of the comments on my post: Firstly, Julian Bell has already made it clear that the tweet where he listed what he hoped would be the benefits of the Oaks plan was sent AFTER the decision. Secondly, councillors have told me that the car park on the site was sold, for a few million pounds, a couple of  years ago. Thirdly, the reason the developer says we have to wait on the plans for phase 2 is that it has not yet bought some of the Oaks shops out of their leases. And finally, yes I am a Labour party member, but that does not stop me opposing the current Oaks plan or, I hope, exclude me from contributing to the debate on W3. It was perfectly clear from my post where my sympathies lie.

Robert John Anderson ● 4706d

Robert,Your last point is hard to take.  Your original post was written from the point of view of a disinterested (politically at least) observer.  Even now you obfuscate by saying that you are a Labour party member when you have been clearly identified as a sufficiently motivated activist that you go canvassing.  It is no good presenting what you think someone told you as fact vis the sale of the car park.  I check my facts before I write.  It hasn't been sold and the council has an interest that it has been loathe to publicise.  Sound familiar?

Phil Taylor ● 4706d

Hi RobertI am really concerned at what Labour councillors are telling you because some of it simply isn’t true.Julian Bell tweeted about Waitrose PRIOR to the planning meeting. The tweet was a taunt at the Tories for being the only Conservatives not to support a Waitrose. For good measure it appears he then followed this up with a positive briefing on the project to full council meeting. Again this was prior to the planning meeting.If you don’t believe me see the below post by Sarah Nathan on 12th October three days before the decision. Note also the consternation Mr Bell’s comments were already causing.http://www.ealingtoday.co.uk/default.asp?section=community&link=http://appasp.ealingtoday.co.uk/server/app/forum/ShowMessage.asp?ID=937903If Mr Bell or anyone else denies that he tweeted on Waitrose prior to the decision, then they are dissembling.Secondly I am very concerned that you are being told that the car park site has already been sold for £2 milllion. Now, I need to tread very carefully here because I am not in full possession of the facts and what you have mentioned may be hearsay. There may be a very simple explanation – and please anyone reply if they know the answer. But if  this is true, it is potentially very significant.There has been much murkiness around this entire affair and one of the issues that has been hard to get to the bottom of is how much the council will sell the site for. On one level £2 million does not sound like a lot of money for a site of that size and location. Did they get the market value?But on another level – if you are correct and the site has already been sold this raises very worrying questions. Principally, who was it sold to and if it has already been sold – does that mean that the Labour councillors’ decision to give planning permission was already prejudiced?I think we need some clarity on this. What is the precise status of the site? Has it been sold and if so when? And if it hasn’t been sold – what is the valuation of the site? There may of course be a simple explanation for this, and I apologise if I am going over old ground. But if anyone knows the answer – please post it.Finally - I would generally agree it would have been far better for you to declare your Labour party allegiances openly yourself, rather than having them declared for you. And that goes for anyone who may have a conflict of interest on this issue.

Richard Grange ● 4706d

If we are going to have a policy of people declaring their interests on here then it should apply to everyone, not just to Labour members. For a start, all the Conservative members should declare themselves openly and if they are Councillors they should say where they are councillors for and I would also like to know whether or not they actually live in Acton. Of course they are entitled to post on here if they wish but not to instigate McCarthyite style witch hunts and question the motives of anyone who dares to disagree with them, especially those that actually are Acton residents. "Goodnight and good luck" as someone who was famous for standing up against these types of tactics used to say

Phil Conran ● 4706d

I agree people should be open and declare if they have a political interest. For the record, I am a supporter of Left Unity, which is a new party to the left of Labour, I do live in Acton, and I am opposed to the gated aspect and also the tower block. But I do shop at Waitrose and welcome that aspect but not at the cost of everything else.

Chris Hurley ● 4705d

Ok. Phil. I will if you will. I've been a resident for 30 years. My children grew up in Acton. I like to think I have friends all across the political divide, ie. people with party political views and people who don't. I know most of the Labour councilors for this area and respect them. They work hard, and I guess they are  disappointed with the Council decision but may not say so. Which is why we get you I suppose.I am a Conservative.

Maire Lowe ● 4705d

No political affiliation. Never been a member of any party. No political ambitions. Dont get paid to post. Live near the Churchfield Road. Love living in Acton and believe in good government.

Richard Grange ● 4705d

On the timing of the tweet by Julian Bell, I suggest that those who want to check, follow him on Twitter. On the car park sale, this was just what I was told. I agree that it would have been better if this had been more widely publicised. In the spirit of avoiding political point scoring on this issue,  I will only  highlight the irony of a a Tory councillor attacking me personally for not being independent.

Robert John Anderson ● 4705d

Robert, I think what Phil Taylor was saying was that you were pretending to be independent while representing a Labour point of view which turned out to be wrong.

Maire Lowe ● 4705d

Robert wasn't pretending to be anything. What he seems primarily guilty of is making it clear this issue is quite complex when most people would prefer it to be clear cut and simple with good guys and bad guys.

Andy Jones ● 4702d

That's funny. So Andy, Phil and Robert, are you going to declare your political bias or is that just for everyone else?

Maire Lowe ● 4702d

I assume you missed the typo in your title Robert. Surely it should have read 'let's START the political point scoring'

Jeremy Thorpe-Woods ● 4701d

Labour Party hustings for MP for the area are today.Why not ask Rupa Huq her views?I did (via Twitter earlier today).If I get an answer with anything substantial (in 140 characters!) I'll post it here.Central Actonl resident for 15+ years - no political affiliation - complained to council about the plans during the formal process

Paul Webster ● 4700d

That about Julian Bell and the tweet is plain wrong. I saw them, both the one welcoming Waitrose to Acton and another point-scoring against our MP opposing the development, several days BEFORE the crucial vote. And I heard - from someone who was there and as will be shown in the minutes - he stood up and supported the proposal at the Council Meeting the very night BEFORE the decision.The sale of the Car Park was always linked with the development and indeed I was taken through a previous iteration of these plans without the car park. The Community Association supported Council involvement through the car park because we were told that would make the development less intrusive and lower level. That was not true.The lease line is long running but largely no longer true either. It was always said of the Fitness First lease but as that company and its successor have both gone under, even John Bourne of the ARC acknowledged - to me at the planning site visit - that that was not an obstruction. The other leases - he had earlier said - were not a major obstruction. Anyhow, if a developer wants to buy out a lease in somewhere like the Oaks, he always can if it is worth his while. I am wholly unaligned politically and have not been a party member of anything since 1982!

Sara Nathan ● 4700d

I've asked all the PPCs for Labour about their views - not a squeak. But we know where both the incumbent and the LibDem candidate stand - firmly against.

Sara Nathan ● 4700d

'So Andy, Phil and Robert, are you going to declare your political bias or is that just for everyone else?'What a silly comment. The point I was making was that Robert's political position was implicit in his post and he wasn't trying to mislead. The point he made was an important one. Council's can't block planning applications on the basis that they don't like them or that they are unpopular. The decision has to be made in line with planning law and if planning officers say  that there are no grounds to block a scheme only an opportunist politician would vote for rejection. Trying to block a scheme for which there is no sustainable argument for rejection would be both quixotic and expensive.Go a mile or so east and you will find identical accusations being leveled at Tory politicians in H&F.For the record I wish the Oaks could stay as it is and that, if not, Poundstretcher, Sports Direct and Savers would retain their place in the new centre.

Andy Jones ● 4698d

I see that a response did come to other correspondents."@RupaHuq: @CCAssoc1 @CharlieMawer I agree with councillors @dancrawford85 and Gulaid who were against. I understand @MayorofLondon now has final say?"

Paul Webster ● 4697d

Paul, I am sure the Oaks action committee is pleased to hear that Rupa Huq opposes the current Oaks development scheme. However, I wonder why she hasn't said so before? Perhaps before the Planning Committee made its decision? Angie Bray and Jon Ball gave their unstinting support in good time. Why is Rupa stepping on the band wagon now? Be good to hear.

Maire Lowe ● 4697d

Maire, her selection as Labour candidate has only just been announced so presumably that is why she has just nailed her colours to the mast. Before that I would not have known who she was.  I am delighted that she has done so as she has restored my faith in the local Labour party in Acton.

Anne Brown ● 4697d

I am glad you are feeling better Anne, but actually Abdullah could have insisted on keeping his place on the Planning Committee rota and Kate could have voted against the motion. We wouldn't be in the position we are in if the local Labour party had stepped up to the plate in good time. Rupa could have joined the demo where you and I meet, and loudly made her position clear when it would have been most valuable. A bit late now.

Maire Lowe ● 4697d

Also - a little mealy-mouthed compared to the other parties.Good to be able to say the incumbent MP and both PPCs oppose the Oaks. But she certainly hasn't responded to requests for her to let the Mayor London know she opposes the scheme.A little more upfront - like the other two parties, would be appreciated.

Sara Nathan ● 4697d

If I was Rupa Huq I would be making a very public statement of my opposition to the Oaks as a matter of priority - and detail what plans she may have to do something about it even at this late hour.I'd simultaneously put an ocean of clear blue water between myself and the local Labour party who have attempted to commit political hari kiri over the Oaks project.And I would state publicly how I was going to make a point of listening to local people, getting to understand the community and learning from the Oaks farrago.Moreover I would underline that I was prepared to defend Acton from other such badly thought through developments - if need be.That way she might make a start in undoing some of the damage caused by Julian Bell's astonishing political deafness.

Richard Grange ● 4696d

The law on planning committees is that members are not to have a committed view before the meeting or be whipped in any way. If a councillor has been vocal in opposition then it does not look good if they are on the committee. Most people would complain if a vocal supporter of the plan was on the committee.Rupa does not live in Acton, so her presence or otherwise would be a bit irrelevant. I'm assuming that the demo consisted of local Acton people and not from other bits of Ealing.

Pete Grist ● 4695d

Hi Pete, I see where you are coming from, but on this occasion there could have been another solution. John Popham was rota ed on the same Planning committee and was also involved in an application in his own ward. He just abstained from voting when his own application was discussed. If Abdullah had done the same thing, the voting ratio would have been different. As you probably know, it was close anyway. And if Kate hadn't been convinced that the GLA had already approved the scheme, the whole situation would have been quite different.

Maire Lowe ● 4695d

In Australia with intermittent internet access (note to burglars: my lodger is at home) so I'm only just enjoying Mr Anderson's thread.If the Labour planning committee members were so concerned about respecting planning policy they might have said so at the meeting but the only one who spoke in favour was Cllr Kang, whose only inteligible point was that affordable housing attracts undesirable people. Every councillour who spoke against the application stated their reasons for doing so.It's nice that the Labour councillours have explained themselves to Mr Anderson, will we all be given the same personal treatment?POLITICAL POINT SCORING WARNING! Labour has 40 members on the council, the Tories 24, entitling Labour to a majority on the planning committee. If the 9 Labour Acton councillours were all Conservatives, Labour would not have a majority on the council or on the planning committee and thus we probably would not find ourselves facing his monstrosity in the centre of the town.

Vlod Barchuk ● 4695d

A question for Vlod........ Whatever happened to the Arcadia monstrosity in central Ealing that the Tories when in power gave planning permission for in spite of considerable local opposition??All parties when in power make difficult planning decisions and in effect have little control faced with the restraints of planning legislation.Hence I find the current political point scoring somewhat hypocritical..........

Iain Muir ● 4694d

Iain is right. Planning votes are not made on the basis of whether a Councillor likes a scheme or if it is good for the community but whether there are any reasonable grounds for refusal under the existing regulations. Minorities on the committee can safely vote against without consequences but if the majority (in this case Labour) did so they would only be delaying the invevitable.To engage in Salem like witch hunts against local politicians because their condemnations of the scheme weren't quick enough or strong enough shows a misunderstanding of the way the process works. The campaign against this scheme was expertly handled in the way awareness was raised through celebrity endorsements and very well made videos but all this worked on the assumption that the scheme could be stopped by an angry mob. You can't block a scheme because it is unpopular but you can if it breaches regulations. I would presume that developers would anticipate this scheme would attract opposition and be careful to stay within the law. However, on a scheme of this size there would have been bound to be a number of grey areas and a better tactic might have been the more prosaic one of getting someone who really understands planning to go through the application in more detail. One substantial objection well based in law would have been worth a hundred saying they just don't like it.

Andy Jones ● 4693d

The application was not compliant with the London plan nor the Ealing one particularly for Acton.This was pointed out several times in many ways.It is (for instance ) 30% over the recommended density.It doesn't adhere to the council's own spec for the development.It is piecemeal.There are lots of other problems with it. Some of which were ignored by the decision-makers. I understand the presentation to the Mayor's team went rather well. So we will see.

Sara Nathan ● 4693d

Does anyone know what will happen if the Mayor rejects the development?

Clare Gittins ● 4693d

The Mayor has three choices. To reject outright (very rare) to declare that the GLA will oversee the development itself, and to agree to the development. If the Mayor did reject, then the Council would have to begin again, perhaps with another Developer.

Maire Lowe ● 4693d

Perhaps Mayor Boris should show what he is made off for once and reject the application!!!!!

Tony Crumpton ● 4693d

Wouldn't that be fab?Everyone here could help by emailing Boris and asking him to do just that: mayor@london.gov.ukIt so isn't over as he won't be deciding for some time - all the information about traffic and s106 and all that stuff has to get to him first.Please write to him now

Sara Nathan ● 4692d

Iain, if you wish to draw analogies with the Arcadia development then make it clear what you mean: how did the vote split between the political parties? Did those voting in favour state their reasons for doing so? Did the leader of the council at the time publically support the scheme and disparage other politicains who opposed it? As for "Salem like witch hunts", Andy please stop quoting The Big Book of Left Wing Hyperbole, my sides are hurting from laughing so much. A decision has been made by a vote split on party lines, with none of those voting in favour offerring any rationale (against a backdrop of their party leader supporting the scheme and the council having a financial interest in the decision) - it's going to cause comment. Your contribution is to talk of the need to comply with regulations whilst saying nothing about the regulations, an approach which would qualify you to be a Labour member of the planning committee. And you describe the objectors as an "angry mob", well just you wait til the CCA find where they left their pitchforks and fiery torches.

Vlod Barchuk ● 4692d

Vlod, thanks for responding, from wherever you are..... I have no answers to your questions as I do not know..... I do note that you did not answer the points I raised about political parties and 'difficult' planning decisions. Your fellow tories seem to be raising hopes for a Boris veto. Probably not realising that as Boris delegates everything his planning person is Sir Edward Lister, ex Wandsworth, known for their horrible riverside developments sometimes without public walkways........

Iain Muir ● 4690d