Forum Topic

This has more to do with which councillors may have been completely ousted at the next election and the outing of double standards and collusion.Power and politics it seems are still more important than schools, parks and urban amenities, but when the level of feeling from the electorate becomes a potential vote loser, it's funny how alternative solutions are swiftly found.At long last, some discussion is being made in the Mayoral elections towards rectifying the faults and loopholes in planning that prevent affordable and social housing, schools and key infrastructure being incorporated into large developments.Both main parties are finally waking up to the reality that thousands of homes are being built for non taxpaying overseas investors and it is creating too many problems for people who live and work here. They are realising too, that the motives of developers and their backers are not truly in the interests of true residential district communities and their well being and long term quality of life.Listening and reading on the London Mayoral hopefuls it wasinteresting that all the Labour candidates could not agree on one single issue.Interesting that all want to embrace migration to London but every other issue was related to overcrowding and shortages of everything to sustain the status quo. Not one dared to link overpopulation with all the issues that are a consequence of such. They need to cast aside the shackles and fear of being racist or prejudiced and realise that overdensity is damaging to quality of life and opportunity all who already live here irrespective of ethnicity or cultural roots.

Raymond Havelock ● 3659d

It is good that the Brent Lea decision has been reversed and congratulations are due to those who campaigned on the issue.At the same time we should recognise that councillors who took the issue seriously played a key part in the reaching the final result. The Cabinet decision to provide a 125 year lease for a school that had been given the site on a temporary two-year basis raised immediate concerns. Cllr Tony Louki decided that a call-in of the Cabinet decision would be appropriate. For that he required nine other councillors to support his request. Some hesitated and some signed and then withdrew their signatures (you can see crossings out in the online document) but the result was that the form was signed by 13 councillors including more than half of the Planning Committee.The call-in led to a thorough airing of the issues at a well-attended Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting. The Committee resolved that the decision to provide an extended least should be sent back for reconsideration and that there needed to be a review of the Council's policy on the use of Metropolitan Open Land.A call-in is a rare event. It should be noted that while both Labour and Conservative members signed it most signatories were Labour. This meant them questioning a decision of their own Cabinet. Such events are all too rare in local and national politics for us not to celebrate them when they happen.Local campaigners did a great job in raising the issue and councillors did a great job in taking their concerns through to a political decision.

David Pavett ● 3660d