Forum Topics

Public Open Space Covenants & Stipulations on Council-held land

In the neighbouring London Borough of Hillingdon (our Prime Minister - The Right Hon. Boris Johnson's constituency), the Leader of the Labour Group of Councillors made the following Motion at Cabinet on 13th January 2022."That this Council believes that restrictive covenants on public & communal land plays an important role in ensuring that the value and enjoyment of the land is, and continues to be, preserved. Restrictive covenants enhance and protect our borough for our residents’ benefit and that of future generations.This Council, therefore, believes that it should set the example and do all within its power to uphold restrictive covenants especially on council land.This Council, therefore, calls on the Cabinet to abolish their current plans to remove the restrictive covenant in Yiewsley in order to develop on the recreation ground and library site.This Council calls on the Cabinet to enter into dialogue with local residents to devise alternative options for the use of the land in Yiewsley that complies with the restrictive covenants put in place to preserve the enjoyment and benefit for Hillingdon residents.Furthermore, this Council commits to uphold restrictive covenants across the borough for the benefit of residents."The above declaration in the Motion is reminiscent of the admirable Manifesto Pledge made by Cllr. John Cudmore, former Acton Councillor and the Leader of the Labour Group in Ealing at the time of his party's successful efforts to win the administration control of Ealing Council in May 1994 at the local 4-yearly election promising that the Council would respect the views of residents and protect the borough's conservation areas and green spaces from backland developments, etc.Victor Mishiku  16/1/2022"The Covenant Movement" Ealing.

Victor Mishiku ● 1736d2 Comments ● 1734d

The continuing tragedy of Gunnersbury Park

Neglected by two boroughs who could not manage to tie a shoe-lace together for decades, handed over in an appallingly formulated way to a Cop-out CIC, then packed out with Cronies of like mindsets and connections, a TfL approach to funding where even a tuft of grass is fiscally overpricedSome good stuff, but from a a lot of grant funding which is unaccounted for and overseen with sort of knowledge that would make an IKEA shelf priced at £2500 plus fitting seem "very reasonable". Much core infrastructure for a public park remains as poor as it has been for 25 plus years. A complete contradiction to 'Community Interest Company " and with not even a freedom of information clause - which needless to say this management wriggled out of. Because it's overseers, both Trustees and Councils, deemed it irrelevant.Even a Velcro shoe strap is too challenging for this CIOC who only know how to bully and manipulate with help from their 'friends'Loss of cheap affordable to all public park amenities and replaced by exclusivity with a patronising faux front of inclusivity.Change is welcome, but that will only be change for the better if ALL the existing league of cronies and those at the trough are not involved in any form.  A completely new broom of more open and honest management put in place properly answerable to the local people of Ealing, Acton and Brentford who seem to be considered as irrelevant unless they can afford it. Community groups must be on the board and as trustees, not just selected politicians and 'preferred' individuals.Local people, not council officers with close connections, or politicians who seem to have failed with Gunnersbury time and time again, need to be far more in control of a Park that was purchased at a knock down price on the premise that it was for the well being of All the local people of Ealing Acton Brentford and Chiswick.Will this be any better? With how things are carried out in our name?I doubt it. It seems more like another move to making it a pay to enter venue like Syon or Kew and not what it is supposed to be, a Public park owned in trust by two boroughs for it's inhabitants

Raymond Havelock ● 1752d1 Comments ● 1752d

Freedom of Information Refused by Ealing

I have strong reason to feel that the courts are partisan and are assisting Ealing Council in getting their way in court cases . ( at least with pricate individuals ) so i asked Ealing if they could provide me with some simple data FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUESTThank you for your Freedom of Information request received by the Council on 13th December 2021.Your request:• What percentage of court cases Ealing win and lose and where these court cases areheld?• The names of the deputy district judges and judges who hear your cases• I would also like to know how many court cases you instigate and how many courtcases are instigated against you.Your request has been assessed and the following information is provided in response:This information is not recorded. It would take longer than 18 hours to answer this request, due to theneed to peruse hundreds of files from many different council departments. Note that it is not just thelegal team that deal with legal proceedings brought against the council; many departments (eg.Insurance, housing, planning) deal with many cases independently. Some non-legal teams also onoccasion bring proceedings on behalf of the council.the reason for my request was to see if Ealing was given special treatment and if certain judges were given the cases related to the borough it seems a reasonable FOI request to me because my own experience suggests networking between Ealing Council and the judges who fail to act with impartiality and have ethnic and political links with the Councils senior leadership

P Taylor ● 1762d11 Comments ● 1754d

Is this ok?

I recently had a remote hearing at Brentford County court , Ealing Council won £1600 based upon their claim taht there is no law that requires the council to respond to a local resident . this means that according to the judge absolutely NOBODY has any actual right to a response regardles sof the topic . i regard this as a denial of basic justice . after the hearing I went online and discovered that the Judge Michael Shelton was a co religionist of the Councils lawyer and indeed the leader of Ealing Council . I am no legal expert but where there are significant political and religious links I would have thought it would be prudent to avoid any possibility of favouritism. I had emailed the editor of Ealing today but got no reply . Ealing Council have all kinds of stated policies on treating residents with respect that they violate , the new leader Peter Mason ( he probably is) claimed that his administration would be open and transparent and that is absolutely not the case . The council have an exprert legal team and very warm relations with Brentford Court , i have submitted a FOI request to ask what percentage of Ealings court cases are won and lost . in my opinion the small claims court should be a simple straightforward method for average people to get justice but in reality it is a minefield of corruption, legalese, jargon , how the hell can I who brought the case because i have been IGNORED for 6 years be given costs to the wealthy council of £1600 in the SMALL CLAIMS COURT based upon the idea that no law is actually some sort of law and using obscure civil procedure rules . so far a couple of people have been helpful but i am determined not to allow Ealing Council to get away with this and you should help me because the idea that teh council can legally ignore us must be absolutely unacceptable in a so called democracy and that there must be no overt links between the politicians and the judges as was in this case , you are welcome to call me on 07396534522 Paul

P Taylor ● 1766d9 Comments ● 1762d