Showdown time for the Stow

With Boris due to make up his mind next week, this could not have been better-timed


Subject: : Stow-Viability Assessment Released-Massive Losses confirmed by L&Q


The Document that L&Q & Waltham Forest council tried to" bury" and withhold from Londoners regarding the iconic "stow " is now out.

Boris due to make decision in days !!

The lCO office ruling (that was forced by a freedom of information act request) which led to Waltham Forest Council having to release the " killer document" after a year long battle by the Saveourstow group, shows up one of the biggest scandals by a  Registered Social Landlord and a local council.

Boris Johnson now has very little choice but to call in the doomed site from the ill run local council. Boris has stated that one of his main concerns is viability and his preferred option has always been greyhound racing and a mixed use site to which L&Q plans do not offer but create a public purse scandal of a £24.1 million loss.

With Sir Edward Lister as an advisor, one of the most prudent men in planning in London and an excellent past leader of Wandsworth Council, the report will not make good reading and it will be a major surprise if he lets this go past the doors of City Hall. His past record of prudent values will show the ill run local council that the site should never have been at the doors of City Hall in the first place.

The actual losses (admitted by L&Q) are detailed in the attached summary briefing

SAVEOURSTOW


SOS  PLANNING BRIEFING NOTE

SOS now have the viability assessment that L&Q submitted in support of their planning application at the Greyhound Racing Stadium in Walthamstow. This is the document, which the Local Council refused to release until forced to do so by the Information Commissioner, under a freedom of information request.

A copy is attached. You will see why they didn’t want you to see it.


Here are some key extracts

Item 3.4 confirms the scheme makes such a big loss they cannot afford to pay any s106 contributions to help alleviate the impact of introducing 300+ new residences…



Next is the extract from the development analysis, which shows the loss at £14,515,000.




So you can now see that L&Q created a failure of a development with, by their own admission, at least a £14.5m loss, and then tried to use this to justify not paying any s106 contributions. Hardly the honourable action of a Council ‘partner’ organisation is it?

Are these really the same people who say they care so much for the communities they work with? Where did they think the replacement of leisure facilities, the school places, the transport and bus route improvements would come from. Or did they simply not care so long as they got their private housing estate built and got out of there as quickly as they could?

The actual loss;

It is important to realise that the figures contained within a viability assessment like this do not tell the full story

The following sums can properly and reasonably be added to the already huge loss, they are not covered by the viability assessment;

1    L&Q now do have to pay s106 contributions (according to the latest draft they have agreed to a sum of £3.8m).

2    The planning costs to date have to be accounted for, two architects and five scheme revisions later these will at least be £500k.

3    At the time of the viability report the requirement to remediate the ground, which was previously used as a rubbish tip had not been identified, nor had the flood relief works, (added just before the committee meeting).
The combined costs of these elements is conservatively estimated at £1.1m

4    Our business accountant has estimated holding costs to date and loss of opportunity costs on the money that has been tied up in the site for the past four years at £2.8m


Adding the above into the equation brings the £14.5m loss to £22.7m.

L&Q are using publicly funded reserves to prop up this disaster and still have the audacity to claim additional grant from the public purse to further help them do so.

SOS therefore suggest that it is completely unreasonable to contribute Social
Housing grant to support this failure of a development. Thus the £1.4m grant
funding, included within the viability figures should also be stripped out.
Leaving a final provisional loss figure of £24.1m.

£24.1 m loss…and what was the figure SOS published in
February 2012? It was…£24.2m.

There are also some significant errors within the submitted viability report which if corrected would actually make the loss even worse.

In summary;

The London Mayor has confirmed that viability was a major concern for him in
connection with this site. SOS think it should be a major concern of every tax
payer in the UK. How can money be allowed to be wasted like this when we
are all struggling through one of the worst recessions in living memory?

It’s about time the trustees of L&Q acted and put their house in order. This is
an organisation, which regularly raises funding on the bond markets. Will this
be mentioned in their next market pitch prospectus? How many other sites do
they have like this?

This scheme was doomed from the very day L&Q were taken in by the
Chandler family. It is now seriously damaging their business,
their reputation and their place in the community. Instead of standing idly
by and watching their officers cook up cosy deals, with some elements of the
local council, in the hope that they might actually pull off a miraculous cover
up it’s about time the trustees took action of their own.