Judicial review means Sutton Council's Brighton Road car park fence costs will continue

Sutton Guardian: The costly fence The costly fence

A legal challenge to controversial plans to change a town centre car park into an office block means it will remain fenced off at the taxpayer's expense for longer.

Sutton Council agreed the sale of the Brighton Road car park to engineering firm Subsea 7 earlier this year but the purchase has not yet been formally completed so the car park has been closed and fenced off since late September.

Each week the car park is closed costs the council more than £2,000 to pay for the rental of the fence, 24-hour security guards and concrete blocks to reinforce it.

Now a legal challenge against the council's decision to grant Subsea 7 planning permission for the project has been launched.

That means the sale cannot be completed until the High Court makes a ruling and the cost of the closure to the taxpayer, which already exceeds £25,000, is set to carry on rising.

A Sutton Council spokesman said:“Following the granting of planning permission, we had expected the site to be sold to Subsea 7 last month to build high quality office space that will generate 800 jobs and make the area more attractive for firms to invest.

“However, the planning process is now subject to a judicial review application. We are confident that the planning process has been followed correctly and we are looking at ways to reduce the cost of security while we wait for a decision on the application.”

The sale of the car park has been unpopular with town centre workers who used it and have been forced to make alternative arrangements.

Councillor Tony Shields, an opposition Conservative member, said: "The whole thing's a joke. 

"If they just kept it open while mall this is going on then it wouldn't be costing God-knows how much."

 

TODAY'S TOP SUTTON STORIES

 

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:37pm Wed 4 Dec 13

LiberalsOut says...

You dont have to put up with this
Use your vote wisely next year and vote the Lib Dems out
We cannot afford their waste year after year
You dont have to put up with this Use your vote wisely next year and vote the Lib Dems out We cannot afford their waste year after year LiberalsOut

2:51pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Rona Hunnisett says...

Where are these 800 people supposed to park, anyway?
Where are these 800 people supposed to park, anyway? Rona Hunnisett

3:11pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Giles C says...

Rona Hunnisett wrote:
Where are these 800 people supposed to park, anyway?
They are not Rona...LBS are anti car...you should realise that..
[quote][p][bold]Rona Hunnisett[/bold] wrote: Where are these 800 people supposed to park, anyway?[/p][/quote]They are not Rona...LBS are anti car...you should realise that.. Giles C

3:48pm Wed 4 Dec 13

col says...

Slow clap for Sutton Council.
Slow clap for Sutton Council. col

4:23pm Wed 4 Dec 13

ResidentTony says...

SLOW CLAP FOR CALLING FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW. The people who called for the JR are the ones to blame. 800 spaces does not mean 800 vehicles parked in them. There are plenty of empty spaces in other car parks nearby, some of which are now filled by the "Inconvenienced Few". The Centro property company and Councillor Shields are standing in the way of genuine progress and regeneration - for financial and electoral purposes respectively. It's just a pity that their needs are holding the town back. Sutton WILL get its brilliant new building, but, as ever, at glacial pace. Someone/something always throws a spanner in the works : - (
SLOW CLAP FOR CALLING FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW. The people who called for the JR are the ones to blame. 800 spaces does not mean 800 vehicles parked in them. There are plenty of empty spaces in other car parks nearby, some of which are now filled by the "Inconvenienced Few". The Centro property company and Councillor Shields are standing in the way of genuine progress and regeneration - for financial and electoral purposes respectively. It's just a pity that their needs are holding the town back. Sutton WILL get its brilliant new building, but, as ever, at glacial pace. Someone/something always throws a spanner in the works : - ( ResidentTony

5:03pm Wed 4 Dec 13

ResidentTony says...

Sorry I meant 630 spaces, not 800. (The 800 is a different figure.)
Sorry I meant 630 spaces, not 800. (The 800 is a different figure.) ResidentTony

5:29pm Wed 4 Dec 13

LiberalsOut says...

ResidentTony wrote:
SLOW CLAP FOR CALLING FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW. The people who called for the JR are the ones to blame. 800 spaces does not mean 800 vehicles parked in them. There are plenty of empty spaces in other car parks nearby, some of which are now filled by the "Inconvenienced Few". The Centro property company and Councillor Shields are standing in the way of genuine progress and regeneration - for financial and electoral purposes respectively. It's just a pity that their needs are holding the town back. Sutton WILL get its brilliant new building, but, as ever, at glacial pace. Someone/something always throws a spanner in the works : - (
Take off your Lib Dem tinted glasses
This was a fiasco BEFORE any review was undertaken
The Council has 20 + years of this sort of thing so we do not expect anything to run as they claim
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: SLOW CLAP FOR CALLING FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW. The people who called for the JR are the ones to blame. 800 spaces does not mean 800 vehicles parked in them. There are plenty of empty spaces in other car parks nearby, some of which are now filled by the "Inconvenienced Few". The Centro property company and Councillor Shields are standing in the way of genuine progress and regeneration - for financial and electoral purposes respectively. It's just a pity that their needs are holding the town back. Sutton WILL get its brilliant new building, but, as ever, at glacial pace. Someone/something always throws a spanner in the works : - ([/p][/quote]Take off your Lib Dem tinted glasses This was a fiasco BEFORE any review was undertaken The Council has 20 + years of this sort of thing so we do not expect anything to run as they claim LiberalsOut

6:39pm Wed 4 Dec 13

ResidentTony says...

I'm not a Lib Dem or any other party member. My glasses have no tint.
I'm not a Lib Dem or any other party member. My glasses have no tint. ResidentTony

8:00pm Wed 4 Dec 13

charlesmcg says...

This is a shame for Sutton and a shame for Subsea 7 and looks like more cost to the Council. Presumably its either Reed or Centro that has commenced the legal proceedings. One wonders what the legal reasons might be. My previous assumption was that only Centro remained as a major Objector and they (and Barratt Homes) obviously have an interest as they made a number of discredited, and subsequently withdrawn offers for the same site so that they could build tower blocks of flats (and a supermarket?) on the same site. Presumably The Sutton Guardian will give us more detail when it emerges, ie who and for what reason ? Are there separate news stories naming Centro ? Untinted Charles.
This is a shame for Sutton and a shame for Subsea 7 and looks like more cost to the Council. Presumably its either Reed or Centro that has commenced the legal proceedings. One wonders what the legal reasons might be. My previous assumption was that only Centro remained as a major Objector and they (and Barratt Homes) obviously have an interest as they made a number of discredited, and subsequently withdrawn offers for the same site so that they could build tower blocks of flats (and a supermarket?) on the same site. Presumably The Sutton Guardian will give us more detail when it emerges, ie who and for what reason ? Are there separate news stories naming Centro ? Untinted Charles. charlesmcg

8:15pm Wed 4 Dec 13

charlesmcg says...

...and by the way, do we really want a major technology employer like Subsea departing the Town/Borough? I don't think we do. If the end result of all this is that effectively the residents and existing businesses of Sutton throw out such a significant company, then we should all be disgusted with ourselves.
Untinted Charles.
...and by the way, do we really want a major technology employer like Subsea departing the Town/Borough? I don't think we do. If the end result of all this is that effectively the residents and existing businesses of Sutton throw out such a significant company, then we should all be disgusted with ourselves. Untinted Charles. charlesmcg

11:41pm Wed 4 Dec 13

col says...

Yes ResidentTony, I think a slow clap is warranted for closing the car park clearly before it was sold and all legally approved. Now instead of a car park that provided a service and generated money for the borough, we now have an empty and closed off car park that is costing the borough money. Judicial review or not, what were they thinking?
Yes ResidentTony, I think a slow clap is warranted for closing the car park clearly before it was sold and all legally approved. Now instead of a car park that provided a service and generated money for the borough, we now have an empty and closed off car park that is costing the borough money. Judicial review or not, what were they thinking? col

10:16am Thu 5 Dec 13

David7 says...

Has anyone ever seen charlesmcg and ResidentTony in a room at the same time?
Has anyone ever seen charlesmcg and ResidentTony in a room at the same time? David7

8:44pm Thu 5 Dec 13

ResidentTony says...

I think the fundamental issues here are quite simple. The town needs to keep its key employers/businesses happy. It should not be beyond the wit of man to keep both longstanding Reed and up-and-coming Subsea happy. Subsea want to simultaneously improve themselves and Sutton and they should be given every encouragement in their endeavours.
I think the fundamental issues here are quite simple. The town needs to keep its key employers/businesses happy. It should not be beyond the wit of man to keep both longstanding Reed and up-and-coming Subsea happy. Subsea want to simultaneously improve themselves and Sutton and they should be given every encouragement in their endeavours. ResidentTony

8:55pm Thu 5 Dec 13

ResidentTony says...

Col is determined to slow hand clap the poor accessory to an unfortunate situation rather than the actual perpetrator. Funny old world.......
Col is determined to slow hand clap the poor accessory to an unfortunate situation rather than the actual perpetrator. Funny old world....... ResidentTony

9:27pm Thu 5 Dec 13

ResidentTony says...

One last little point - the Brighton Road car park would not generate any additional net income for LBS were it still open. The relatively few people who ever used it are now using the other town car parks and paying their parking fees there instead. So no net loss on that front at least to LBS. Meanwhile there must also be some further savings in not having to keep the place up and running. This is not the main point by any means in this story but it is worth mentioning in passing.

The main point is keeping both Subsea and Reed happy. The really useful improvements to the rail station must quietly please Reed - the direct egress to the Quadrant that is being created will be a real boon for them.
One last little point - the Brighton Road car park would not generate any additional net income for LBS were it still open. The relatively few people who ever used it are now using the other town car parks and paying their parking fees there instead. So no net loss on that front at least to LBS. Meanwhile there must also be some further savings in not having to keep the place up and running. This is not the main point by any means in this story but it is worth mentioning in passing. The main point is keeping both Subsea and Reed happy. The really useful improvements to the rail station must quietly please Reed - the direct egress to the Quadrant that is being created will be a real boon for them. ResidentTony

9:40pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Giles C says...

To paraphrase Neil Kinnock
"We now have the spectacle of a Lib Dem council, yes a Lib Dem Council having security guards looking after an empty car park costing the borough £2400 per week whilst they are cytting back on grants to the voluntary sectir and pleading poverty"
Remember the Gibson Road poro project where residents werent being protected by security guards. But an empty car park is!!!!
Oh and Cllr Cliftons claim to be the most succesful cllr in Britain has gone up in smoke.
Anyone see the news from Croydon last week with the agreement on the regeneration creating 5000 jobs and 800 homes... And thats really going to happen...
To paraphrase Neil Kinnock "We now have the spectacle of a Lib Dem council, yes a Lib Dem Council having security guards looking after an empty car park costing the borough £2400 per week whilst they are cytting back on grants to the voluntary sectir and pleading poverty" Remember the Gibson Road poro project where residents werent being protected by security guards. But an empty car park is!!!! Oh and Cllr Cliftons claim to be the most succesful cllr in Britain has gone up in smoke. Anyone see the news from Croydon last week with the agreement on the regeneration creating 5000 jobs and 800 homes... And thats really going to happen... Giles C

9:44pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Giles C says...

ResidentTony wrote:
SLOW CLAP FOR CALLING FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW. The people who called for the JR are the ones to blame. 800 spaces does not mean 800 vehicles parked in them. There are plenty of empty spaces in other car parks nearby, some of which are now filled by the "Inconvenienced Few". The Centro property company and Councillor Shields are standing in the way of genuine progress and regeneration - for financial and electoral purposes respectively. It's just a pity that their needs are holding the town back. Sutton WILL get its brilliant new building, but, as ever, at glacial pace. Someone/something always throws a spanner in the works : - (
Oh dear Resident Tony is getting his knickers in a twist..
There is an old adage abt not blaming the messenger.
Isnt that all that Cllr Shields has done...
He is not employed either by Centro or Reed according to the register of members interests.
It makes me laugh when ex civil service members of the council like Ruchard Clifton claim they understand business when they have never had to worry abt where the next £ is coming from in his life because its all come from the taxpayer.....Actuall
y like 95% of this lib dem adminstration
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: SLOW CLAP FOR CALLING FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW. The people who called for the JR are the ones to blame. 800 spaces does not mean 800 vehicles parked in them. There are plenty of empty spaces in other car parks nearby, some of which are now filled by the "Inconvenienced Few". The Centro property company and Councillor Shields are standing in the way of genuine progress and regeneration - for financial and electoral purposes respectively. It's just a pity that their needs are holding the town back. Sutton WILL get its brilliant new building, but, as ever, at glacial pace. Someone/something always throws a spanner in the works : - ([/p][/quote]Oh dear Resident Tony is getting his knickers in a twist.. There is an old adage abt not blaming the messenger. Isnt that all that Cllr Shields has done... He is not employed either by Centro or Reed according to the register of members interests. It makes me laugh when ex civil service members of the council like Ruchard Clifton claim they understand business when they have never had to worry abt where the next £ is coming from in his life because its all come from the taxpayer.....Actuall y like 95% of this lib dem adminstration Giles C

9:52pm Thu 5 Dec 13

charlesmcg says...

Interestingly Mike Pyle has chosen not to publish this story in the printed newspaper. Why not? – are there some local folks worried that this JR attempt maybe a commercially motivated attempt to win back this site for personal profit? Is this not a story worth telling ? I note that Mike Pyle has print published a letter from David Pickles entitled “Are Tories for or against development ?”. The same argument can be applied to Subsea. Are the Tories against Subsea’s planned growth ? Lets hope that Tory HQ are not regular readers of the Sutton Guardian !!

One last thing Giles 7, Liberalsout and David7, what do you prefer – a modern new graduate filled office, employment and S106 income or twin tower blocks of Barrat hutches (with social housing) and another supermarket ? That’s your choice……
Untinted Charles
Interestingly Mike Pyle has chosen not to publish this story in the printed newspaper. Why not? – are there some local folks worried that this JR attempt maybe a commercially motivated attempt to win back this site for personal profit? Is this not a story worth telling ? I note that Mike Pyle has print published a letter from David Pickles entitled “Are Tories for or against development ?”. The same argument can be applied to Subsea. Are the Tories against Subsea’s planned growth ? Lets hope that Tory HQ are not regular readers of the Sutton Guardian !! One last thing Giles 7, Liberalsout and David7, what do you prefer – a modern new graduate filled office, employment and S106 income or twin tower blocks of Barrat hutches (with social housing) and another supermarket ? That’s your choice…… Untinted Charles charlesmcg

10:46pm Thu 5 Dec 13

ResidentTony says...

Giles C - I don't look upon Tony Shields as the messenger; he passed a crowd-pleasing comment which was reported by the messenger (Mike Pyle). I am sure that, were he in power rather than opposition, Cllr Shields would be able to show his common-sense side rather play the populist card. All pretenders to political power have to do this. I have the luxury of being able to look at this from a completely rational viewpoint rather than a vote-catching, political one.
Giles C - I don't look upon Tony Shields as the messenger; he passed a crowd-pleasing comment which was reported by the messenger (Mike Pyle). I am sure that, were he in power rather than opposition, Cllr Shields would be able to show his common-sense side rather play the populist card. All pretenders to political power have to do this. I have the luxury of being able to look at this from a completely rational viewpoint rather than a vote-catching, political one. ResidentTony

11:24pm Thu 5 Dec 13

ResidentTony says...

Regarding Centro, it may have done some useful things for the town in the past (who knows?) and may yet do likewise in the future but its spanner-wielding antics regarding this plot of land have not been its finest hour. Unless I am missing something........
Regarding Centro, it may have done some useful things for the town in the past (who knows?) and may yet do likewise in the future but its spanner-wielding antics regarding this plot of land have not been its finest hour. Unless I am missing something........ ResidentTony

11:36pm Thu 5 Dec 13

charlesmcg says...

If a local Property Developer is ultimately exposed as the perpetrator of the legal proceedings and the reason is purely for profit and not for the good of Sutton, then I shall be interested to see whether the Tory support remains for these guys. For those folk who were suckered into signing all those various petitions, just ask yourself, was it to save the Car park or help secure the site for a monstrous residential tower block development ?
If a local Property Developer is ultimately exposed as the perpetrator of the legal proceedings and the reason is purely for profit and not for the good of Sutton, then I shall be interested to see whether the Tory support remains for these guys. For those folk who were suckered into signing all those various petitions, just ask yourself, was it to save the Car park or help secure the site for a monstrous residential tower block development ? charlesmcg

2:42pm Fri 6 Dec 13

col says...

ResidentTony wrote:
One last little point - the Brighton Road car park would not generate any additional net income for LBS were it still open. The relatively few people who ever used it are now using the other town car parks and paying their parking fees there instead. So no net loss on that front at least to LBS. Meanwhile there must also be some further savings in not having to keep the place up and running. This is not the main point by any means in this story but it is worth mentioning in passing.

The main point is keeping both Subsea and Reed happy. The really useful improvements to the rail station must quietly please Reed - the direct egress to the Quadrant that is being created will be a real boon for them.
Yeah, but it wouldn't be costing LBS £2000 a week for a fence. Think I've made my feelings on this clear. Can't be bothered to repeat myself again, bye. :-)
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: One last little point - the Brighton Road car park would not generate any additional net income for LBS were it still open. The relatively few people who ever used it are now using the other town car parks and paying their parking fees there instead. So no net loss on that front at least to LBS. Meanwhile there must also be some further savings in not having to keep the place up and running. This is not the main point by any means in this story but it is worth mentioning in passing. The main point is keeping both Subsea and Reed happy. The really useful improvements to the rail station must quietly please Reed - the direct egress to the Quadrant that is being created will be a real boon for them.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but it wouldn't be costing LBS £2000 a week for a fence. Think I've made my feelings on this clear. Can't be bothered to repeat myself again, bye. :-) col

12:10am Sun 8 Dec 13

charlesmcg says...

Col, you have missed the point. The OPEX/labour/running costs of this ex-car park were probably higher than £2k per week and by closing it, the Council have avoided the huge maintenance costs in the near future to renovate and upgrade it. I agree that the Council looks bad here, but they had no option and are avoiding future maintenance and repair costs. The car park was declared surplus to requirements and post closure has subsequently proved that it was really not required, the parking in the Town centre has not deteriorated and there are still hundreds of empty spaces in public, private and road parking areas. The traffic situation is unchanged. Bashing the Council over the early closure is perhaps an obvious thing to do, but who would have imagined that Centro or Reed would pursue a legal challenge ?? I feel strongly that Sutton Town centre deserves the redevelopment schemes promised for this site, Sutherland House, South Point and UCB House, and the sooner they are implemented the better.
Untinted Charles
Col, you have missed the point. The OPEX/labour/running costs of this ex-car park were probably higher than £2k per week and by closing it, the Council have avoided the huge maintenance costs in the near future to renovate and upgrade it. I agree that the Council looks bad here, but they had no option and are avoiding future maintenance and repair costs. The car park was declared surplus to requirements and post closure has subsequently proved that it was really not required, the parking in the Town centre has not deteriorated and there are still hundreds of empty spaces in public, private and road parking areas. The traffic situation is unchanged. Bashing the Council over the early closure is perhaps an obvious thing to do, but who would have imagined that Centro or Reed would pursue a legal challenge ?? I feel strongly that Sutton Town centre deserves the redevelopment schemes promised for this site, Sutherland House, South Point and UCB House, and the sooner they are implemented the better. Untinted Charles charlesmcg

12:24am Sun 8 Dec 13

charlesmcg says...

and lastly Mike Pyle, if you published a petition and asked whether Sutton Residents would prefer a new Office from Subsea or tower blocks of Barrat hutches (with associated social housing) bringing lots more residents to the Town centre, what do you think they would choose ? I think I know the answer, economic growth would beat immigrant settlement any day.
If the Tories are going to win in the local elections next May, they need to start to focus on Tory values, which means supporting the expediting of all the major Town centre development schemes.
and lastly Mike Pyle, if you published a petition and asked whether Sutton Residents would prefer a new Office from Subsea or tower blocks of Barrat hutches (with associated social housing) bringing lots more residents to the Town centre, what do you think they would choose ? I think I know the answer, economic growth would beat immigrant settlement any day. If the Tories are going to win in the local elections next May, they need to start to focus on Tory values, which means supporting the expediting of all the major Town centre development schemes. charlesmcg

3:55am Sun 8 Dec 13

ResidentTony says...

I'm all for luxury apartment buildings in the town centre, and in this regard hope LBS will finally wave Sutherland Hse through now that a new application has just been submitted. But to keep the residential/commerci
al ratio in reasonable balance, the top-notch office building planned for this site from a top-notch firm will, when eventually built, be just the ticket.
I'm all for luxury apartment buildings in the town centre, and in this regard hope LBS will finally wave Sutherland Hse through now that a new application has just been submitted. But to keep the residential/commerci al ratio in reasonable balance, the top-notch office building planned for this site from a top-notch firm will, when eventually built, be just the ticket. ResidentTony

10:00am Sun 8 Dec 13

LiberalsOut says...

charlesmcg wrote:
Col, you have missed the point. The OPEX/labour/running costs of this ex-car park were probably higher than £2k per week and by closing it, the Council have avoided the huge maintenance costs in the near future to renovate and upgrade it. I agree that the Council looks bad here, but they had no option and are avoiding future maintenance and repair costs. The car park was declared surplus to requirements and post closure has subsequently proved that it was really not required, the parking in the Town centre has not deteriorated and there are still hundreds of empty spaces in public, private and road parking areas. The traffic situation is unchanged. Bashing the Council over the early closure is perhaps an obvious thing to do, but who would have imagined that Centro or Reed would pursue a legal challenge ?? I feel strongly that Sutton Town centre deserves the redevelopment schemes promised for this site, Sutherland House, South Point and UCB House, and the sooner they are implemented the better.
Untinted Charles
Boring
[quote][p][bold]charlesmcg[/bold] wrote: Col, you have missed the point. The OPEX/labour/running costs of this ex-car park were probably higher than £2k per week and by closing it, the Council have avoided the huge maintenance costs in the near future to renovate and upgrade it. I agree that the Council looks bad here, but they had no option and are avoiding future maintenance and repair costs. The car park was declared surplus to requirements and post closure has subsequently proved that it was really not required, the parking in the Town centre has not deteriorated and there are still hundreds of empty spaces in public, private and road parking areas. The traffic situation is unchanged. Bashing the Council over the early closure is perhaps an obvious thing to do, but who would have imagined that Centro or Reed would pursue a legal challenge ?? I feel strongly that Sutton Town centre deserves the redevelopment schemes promised for this site, Sutherland House, South Point and UCB House, and the sooner they are implemented the better. Untinted Charles[/p][/quote]Boring LiberalsOut

1:03pm Sun 8 Dec 13

ResidentTony says...

"LiberalsOut" is openly only commenting for political reasons and (like Cllr Shields) prefers crowd-pleasing, populist sound-bites to careful analysis and weighing of the facts. The latter is dismissed with the word "boring".
"LiberalsOut" is openly only commenting for political reasons and (like Cllr Shields) prefers crowd-pleasing, populist sound-bites to careful analysis and weighing of the facts. The latter is dismissed with the word "boring". ResidentTony

9:23pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Giles C says...

charlesmcg wrote:
and lastly Mike Pyle, if you published a petition and asked whether Sutton Residents would prefer a new Office from Subsea or tower blocks of Barrat hutches (with associated social housing) bringing lots more residents to the Town centre, what do you think they would choose ? I think I know the answer, economic growth would beat immigrant settlement any day.
If the Tories are going to win in the local elections next May, they need to start to focus on Tory values, which means supporting the expediting of all the major Town centre development schemes.
Why don't the Lib Dems concentrate on not blowing thousands of pounds of Taxpayers money.
Their view is planting a few bulbs and trees will make people blind to the real waste that is taking place both at Denmark road and the civic offices.
This JR mat take up to 7 months so why didn't the council take this into account in. Their risk assessments when appraising the sale of the building...
I'll tell you why...because there was and is a political imperative to actually get a spade in the ground on any projects around the borough which so far has been sadly lacking.
[quote][p][bold]charlesmcg[/bold] wrote: and lastly Mike Pyle, if you published a petition and asked whether Sutton Residents would prefer a new Office from Subsea or tower blocks of Barrat hutches (with associated social housing) bringing lots more residents to the Town centre, what do you think they would choose ? I think I know the answer, economic growth would beat immigrant settlement any day. If the Tories are going to win in the local elections next May, they need to start to focus on Tory values, which means supporting the expediting of all the major Town centre development schemes.[/p][/quote]Why don't the Lib Dems concentrate on not blowing thousands of pounds of Taxpayers money. Their view is planting a few bulbs and trees will make people blind to the real waste that is taking place both at Denmark road and the civic offices. This JR mat take up to 7 months so why didn't the council take this into account in. Their risk assessments when appraising the sale of the building... I'll tell you why...because there was and is a political imperative to actually get a spade in the ground on any projects around the borough which so far has been sadly lacking. Giles C

2:37pm Mon 9 Dec 13

ResidentTony says...

Giles C et al - If LBS had been that desperate to have "cranes moving on the skyline", they would have waved Sutherland House through six months ago when they had a chance to. Hopfully they will expedite Criterion Capital's latest town planning application for said development.

Separately LBS and others involved should do all they can to get the car park site sorted out, and enable Subsea to build the state of the art office space that will be so good not only for themselves, Subsea, but for the whole town's prosperity.
Giles C et al - If LBS had been that desperate to have "cranes moving on the skyline", they would have waved Sutherland House through six months ago when they had a chance to. Hopfully they will expedite Criterion Capital's latest town planning application for said development. Separately LBS and others involved should do all they can to get the car park site sorted out, and enable Subsea to build the state of the art office space that will be so good not only for themselves, Subsea, but for the whole town's prosperity. ResidentTony

5:11pm Mon 9 Dec 13

LiberalsOut says...

ResidentTony wrote:
"LiberalsOut" is openly only commenting for political reasons and (like Cllr Shields) prefers crowd-pleasing, populist sound-bites to careful analysis and weighing of the facts. The latter is dismissed with the word "boring".
Unless you are a mind reader you can only give your view and I have to say like most things you write on here you are wrong
You repeat the same clap trap the Lib Dems spew out about how great things are in Sutton
The next time they need a press officer maybe you should apply for the job
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: "LiberalsOut" is openly only commenting for political reasons and (like Cllr Shields) prefers crowd-pleasing, populist sound-bites to careful analysis and weighing of the facts. The latter is dismissed with the word "boring".[/p][/quote]Unless you are a mind reader you can only give your view and I have to say like most things you write on here you are wrong You repeat the same clap trap the Lib Dems spew out about how great things are in Sutton The next time they need a press officer maybe you should apply for the job LiberalsOut

6:30pm Mon 9 Dec 13

ResidentTony says...

to liberalsout et al - I don't say what the LDs say every time; paragraph one of my last post before this one is a case in point
to liberalsout et al - I don't say what the LDs say every time; paragraph one of my last post before this one is a case in point ResidentTony

6:51pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Giles C says...

ResidentTony wrote:
Giles C et al - If LBS had been that desperate to have "cranes moving on the skyline", they would have waved Sutherland House through six months ago when they had a chance to. Hopfully they will expedite Criterion Capital's latest town planning application for said development.

Separately LBS and others involved should do all they can to get the car park site sorted out, and enable Subsea to build the state of the art office space that will be so good not only for themselves, Subsea, but for the whole town's prosperity.
But that's not true..the reason they turned that down is that LBS wanted full control of the planning process like an 18th century demagogue.
They would rather in that instance the Dev not take place and blame the nasty and greedy developers for not allowing social housing.
They didn't think that through either in that Criterion will now just let that building rot and take the annual increase in valuation so they can pay themselves another dividend next year.
We are run by total muppets who do not understand how the real world works and that is the true problem of this administration...bog
ged down by liberal left ideology rather than pragmatic realism.
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: Giles C et al - If LBS had been that desperate to have "cranes moving on the skyline", they would have waved Sutherland House through six months ago when they had a chance to. Hopfully they will expedite Criterion Capital's latest town planning application for said development. Separately LBS and others involved should do all they can to get the car park site sorted out, and enable Subsea to build the state of the art office space that will be so good not only for themselves, Subsea, but for the whole town's prosperity.[/p][/quote]But that's not true..the reason they turned that down is that LBS wanted full control of the planning process like an 18th century demagogue. They would rather in that instance the Dev not take place and blame the nasty and greedy developers for not allowing social housing. They didn't think that through either in that Criterion will now just let that building rot and take the annual increase in valuation so they can pay themselves another dividend next year. We are run by total muppets who do not understand how the real world works and that is the true problem of this administration...bog ged down by liberal left ideology rather than pragmatic realism. Giles C

11:21pm Mon 9 Dec 13

ResidentTony says...

Criterion have compromised and offered 10 social housing units - LBS planning department should accept the compromise WITHOUT DELAY or I'll lose patience with them. If everyone pulls in opposite directions nothing will get done. Wasting time is by far the worst sort of waste. This building could have been finished by now!!!!!
Criterion have compromised and offered 10 social housing units - LBS planning department should accept the compromise WITHOUT DELAY or I'll lose patience with them. If everyone pulls in opposite directions nothing will get done. Wasting time is by far the worst sort of waste. This building could have been finished by now!!!!! ResidentTony

6:52am Tue 10 Dec 13

Giles C says...

ResidentTony wrote:
Criterion have compromised and offered 10 social housing units - LBS planning department should accept the compromise WITHOUT DELAY or I'll lose patience with them. If everyone pulls in opposite directions nothing will get done. Wasting time is by far the worst sort of waste. This building could have been finished by now!!!!!
It isn't LBS planning it's the administration..just remember that.
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: Criterion have compromised and offered 10 social housing units - LBS planning department should accept the compromise WITHOUT DELAY or I'll lose patience with them. If everyone pulls in opposite directions nothing will get done. Wasting time is by far the worst sort of waste. This building could have been finished by now!!!!![/p][/quote]It isn't LBS planning it's the administration..just remember that. Giles C

6:14pm Thu 12 Dec 13

ResidentTony says...

A bit of good news now that we have let the discussion move on to new developments more generally - I noticed yesterday that work has actually started on the UCB site.
A bit of good news now that we have let the discussion move on to new developments more generally - I noticed yesterday that work has actually started on the UCB site. ResidentTony

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree