| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Lammas Park (Again) - URGENT HEALTH WARNING | |
| Posted by: | Simon Hayes | |
| Date/Time: | 11/03/25 17:47:00 |
| It’s a dreadful read from front to back or back to front. Puff pieces and rather skimping on facts. They do at least have contact details for all councillors reinstated, which will please Arthur. I suggest contacting these representatives and asking thrr we m to represent all of us, not just the cycling lobbyists and LGBTQ+ community. They could start by reinstating ward forums, which were far more use to residents than the town ones they introduced. No mention of the continued big allowances taken by councillors, over a million pounds across the four years from 2022-26. The increase was the first thing Mason and his Labour cohort voted on after the last local elections. No mention of the reduction in council housing in most of thr new developments or re-developments across the borough. Affordable housing is not the same as social housing (ie council housing, which is what’s really needed). No mention of the £400m loan Ealing took out to fund its loss-making development arm Broadway Living. There’s a genuine risk that this entity will go belly up in the current economic climate (despite it ‘getting on’ with Gurnell). Then a 4.99 percent council tax hike will seem like a dream… No mention of the failure to get the planning committee to decide on the John Lewis planning application in West Ealing (despite it being a key council duty). Instead left to local residents to oppose the application at a planning tribunal, which the council failed to attend. No mention of continued failing to submit Authority Monitoring Reports, despite a legal obligation to do so. This gives developers the whip hand at planning appeals (at our expense). A boast about Community Infrastructure Levy being introduced this year to replace the old s106 payments from developers. It’s taken Ealing Council over decade to introduce what other London authorities have been collecting for years. It’s more beneficial for the areas being developed because it is a simpler and more transparent scheme than s106, where infrastructure spending mysteriously didn’t happen. There’s plenty more, of course, but nothing you’d read in a publicly funded propaganda rag. Some pretty pictures, though. |