Thanks very much to those of you who have emailed in, if you have comments or would like to be involved, please leave a comment below. Thank you.


87 Responses to Contact

  1. mr s blenkinsop says:

    just to let you know reading will close on oct 22nd lats see how many people campaign to save that track

  2. The VAS says:

    Why don’t you check out local talent Steve White’s song all about Walthamstow Dogs.
    “You can keep your Chicago Bears I got Walthamstow Dogs…”

  3. The Waltham Forest Theatre Campaign fully Supports the Save our Stow Campaign and wish every success in saving the Track!

  4. David Scott says:

    We have written a quick article about the closure, here is the link.

    you have our support

  5. Steve of the Stow says:

    This has probably been considered already but if not, how about offering a compromise by losing the popular enclosure for a more limited development whilst retaining the rest of the stadium? This would allow L&Q to achieve its objectives of providing accommodation (albeir on a smaller scale) without losing the stadium completely. Their aim is to regenerate communities. Knocking the whole stadium down is hardly going to do that but a smaller developemnt whilst keeping part of the track surely would?

  6. martin donovan says:

    hello to all who want to save the stow, its saturday night and whilst on my way home i drove past the stow, i decided to park up and take a closer look, the place has been stripped and already looks derelict, even the lights on the track have been ripped out leaving the track looking wrecked, i am astonished at how much the chandlers have stripped from our beloved stow, something needs to be done to stop this, i love the stow and im gutted to see the place in such a state, i can only hope that the campaign to save the place will work before there is nothing left to save, shame on the chandler family, there grandad must be turning in his grave

  7. Ben A says:

    3 generations of my family have raced dogs at the Stow, and although I live in the far east now. I did fly back to UK to be at the last meeting.
    During my visit, I also attended meetings and Wimbledon and Romford. And what I saw at Wimbledon was a disgrace.
    The Prize money is terrible, and the sport needs to re invent itself. The support shown for the Stow has shown everyone the numbers could be there.
    Like the PDC re invented Darts, a new body is required to put an end to the NGRC and BGRB who have done next to nothing to help the sport.
    As seen in Australia, TOTE turnover is critical to the success of the sport, and currently the big boys of Ladbrokes and Corals etc have taken a huge amount out and put nothing back. There is no reason why a new body can not be set up and the top privatley owned tracks , trainers and dogs will come on board. This is the tip of the ice berg, but it truly the only way to bring the sport back and give it meaning again.

  8. Maud says:

    Picture a life with nothing other than your plasma tv for entertainment. No public houses, cinemas’, bingo halls or bowling alleys Infact lets go the whole hog and call this country Little America. Where socialising is limited to a quick chat over a meal and then home by 8:30pm. Or you could submerse yourself in your son’s little league team, or your daughter’s beauty pagent. And then after your kid’s leave home you’ll find yourself watching crap gameshows and sad reality tv.
    What’s this got to do with the Walthamstow Stadium closure you may ask ( but you’ve probably grasped where I’m coming from ) It’s about being British, our culture, our identity. The working class have already been all but pushed out of the terraces , football once being a working mans’ sport is now all but reserved for the well off.
    When I was a child my parents took us to The Stow to watch the stockcar racing. I remember just seeing those neon lights I almost wet myself with excitement. It was an excellent night. I can still picture that smashed up old yellow Ford anglia (I think) with the man hanging out waving to us, doing his lap of honour.
    I have wonderful memories from Walthamstow Stadium. I as much as anyone will be extremely sad to see the closure of a true piece of British history.

  9. Lb says:

    Are you aware of a company called ‘greenshoots’ being interested in the stow? It was mentioned in last night’s london paper

  10. Danny O Connell says:

    I lived and worked in London in 1988 and 1989 due to lack of work in Ireland. I enjoyed my time there until I managed to get a job back in Ireland. While in London, I often attended Walthamstow Greyhound Stadium for a night out with colleagues from work. We always had a great night.
    I have been aware of the subsequent closure of the track and have followed the progress of the “Save Our Stow” campaign with interest. Greyhound Racing has been flourishing in Ireland for the last decade and it provides a great night out. Of course it also provides employment in various categories from track personnel to those involved in the preparation of the dogs themselves.
    Last weekend, my wife and I spent 2 nights in Chiswick. It would have been nice to have brought her to see the track that I used to attend during my time in London.
    I really hope that Walthamstow Greyhound Stadium can be re-opened.
    I emailed a copy of this to the local Council Planning Department in the hope that it would help. Best of luck in your efforts.

  11. anonymous says:

    The Times have published the following article

    Note the lie about the track being “forced to close”

  12. Tom Corderoy says:

    The closing of the stow is nothing short of a disgrace. The area needs an attraction such as this wonderful stadium with its art-deco and heritage protected facia. I just wonder how long it will be before we hear on the news that a mysterious fire has burnt the place down completely destroying the site and seeing the site with houses being built on it. Before the sale of the stadium was complete why wasnt Waltham Forest council involved? perhaps explaining to the public their iconic stadium was being sold off and many hundreds of jobs being lost-no because its all down to money and contracts being won etc via building contractors rubbing their hands with glee for potential revenue. As for the Chandler family-they have no morals and no respect for the patrons who have helped build their empire.

    • GCNash says:

      I agree the stadium is part of our local history and should be given some level of protection at least, in the same way as the old Arsenal stadium. It is well-placed to offer family entertainment to people in Essex and North London – make it sporting activity like stock car or bike racing though, not dogs.

  13. Steve Hayes says:

    So called afforadble housing or “pop up ghetto’s” have shot up everywhere recently in E17 & E4. Local services cannot cope with the huge influx of people affecting local buses, schools, doctors surgeries etc Are the company going to build a school? nursery? No of course they’re not!

    Let’s get the site open again as a thriving community race track, that can diversify into other profitable leisure activities also!

    How can a so called Olympic borough let this happen is beyond me like-wise with the EMD cinema!

  14. I have an idea which might help swing things with the council. I would like to talk to David Sullivan for five or ten minutes, it’s a simple concept but somewhat ‘outside the box’ My phone number is 07761 102 540, e-mail

  15. I am standing as an independent candidate in the General Election. I am convinced that community facilities for all ages are a good thing and that this site is suitable for this purpose. I missed the January meeting, is there another one? e-mail me at or call 07761 102 540
    None of the Above

  16. empress ave resident says:

    No planning application has been received by London Borough of Waltham Forest as at 1st March 2010.

    The Public Notice in the Local Guardian was put there by TP Bennetts.

    The public notice in the Local Guardian dated 25 February 2010 was not placed by London Borough of Waltham Forest who are being inundated with phone calls regarding this.

    Hope this information is useful to you.

  17. username says:

    It’s the story from a month ago but there is an anti spouting lies about dog racing

  18. Steve says:

    I understand that tomorrow, Saturday’s so-called ‘public CON-sultation’ has been cancelled. I work late so had no chance to attend the Thurs and Fri eve ‘public CON-sultations’ . Does anyone know if there will be a reschedule of Saturday’s cancellation/post-ponement?

    Also, does anyone know whether L&Q are legally obliged to give a minimum amount of hours public consultation and also if there is specification about the time periods etc?


  19. Emily Leadbetter says:

    I went to Walthamstow Library this morning…3 other people were standing in the foyer looking lost……None of us knew that the event had been cancelled. Even the staff at the library had no idea….typical of L&Q really…! I heard that there was a big meeting yesterday? Do you have any information about this???

  20. We’re finding it quite difficult to get information on when the public consultation events are being rescheduled for, as we’d like to publicise them on our blog. Grateful for any info!

  21. Please contact me if there are any significant news developments on saving Walthamstow dogs stadium. I’m interested in covering the story

    • saveourstow says:

      Hi Andy,
      Thanks for the message and we will certainly get in touch with any new significant developments.

  22. Matt Conway says:

    Bit of a side issue, but here’s a copy of an email I have today sent toWaltham Forest planning department:

    Further to our conversation a moment ago, I am writing to express my concern that application number 2011/0275, that relates to the car park opposite the Dog Stadium, has been submitted too early. That is, the fate of greyhound racing at the stadium is still a hotly contested topic, and allowing the car park to be redeveloped would jeopardize the ability to host greyhound racing on a commercial level at the stadium.


    • saveourstow says:

      Thanks Matt, your support is very much appreciated and SOS agree that the car park is integral to the stadium and planning permission should not been given.

  23. john trowbtidge says:

    HELP….. L&Q have plans for another hugh overdevelopment at 123 chingford mount road. Our lovely leaders have chosen them as prefered bidders to develop the old Walton house site.
    The CON-sultation period is being rushed through now, with the 5th July set for the planning decision. Does anyone know how to fight this? The planning application no is
    2011/0518 L&Q plan to build 4 storey high buildings with 61 units causing security/traffic chaos. Future slums? All for sale, surprise, surprise thanks john

  24. I have been keeping up to date with events regarding Walthamstow Stadium and would like to pledge my support. Please let me know how I can be of help particularly in raising awareness by means of publicity etc. I was a regular visitor to the stadium as child a child and my father was a friend of Percy Chandler, the original owner. It was a focal point of the community for so long and I believe it to be part of our heritage. I would love to see the track re opened.

  25. koko brown says:

    Can anyone let me know how i can contact someone with regards to doing a project in the stadium?

    • saveourstow says:

      Hi Koko, the stadium is closed to the public and has been left to disintegrate by the current owners London & Quadrant while they try to get plans to knock it down for housing !

  26. Carol M. Kemp says:

    The dog track belongs to the East End, it is an important part of our culture, archtecture from the 1930’s is distinct. We lost Leyton baths, a beautiful Art Deco building simbolic of the 1930’s, it is time to put a stop to letting go our treasures from the past. Our history and culture are our identity, fought for it in 2 great wars, the Stow holds many memories of our way of life in the East End

    Wikipedia states 400 homes to meet the need of a growing Muslim population. May I remind folks of Chingford Hall estate, where residents were moved from when it was taken over by the Housing Ass., many residents never got back – promised they would get back to better housing!
    I was at the meeting with the Housing Ass. and remember well what was agreed!! Housing for East End folk, moved out to improve high rise areas, is needed. Not on the Stow site!

    Good to see so much effort and support! Thank you all esp. those who took the time to get the petition together and leaflet!

  27. G Inglis says:

    Re problems trying to fill in planning objection form on line,phoned council and was advised to mail my objection through to
    They know their form is bad,problems with I.T dept

  28. Michael Bull says:

    Planning application will not accept my on line ‘refusal’ requires ‘letter’ reference.
    Chingford resident so did not get one?

    • saveourstow says:

      Hi Michael, letter reference does not need to be filled in, so please try and give it another go …. Deadline has now been extended until 22nd August !

  29. Centaur Decree says:

    Thank-you everyone for trying to get my Walthamstow back – I loved my time racing at the track and seing all the crowds. Please dont make me the last ever Arc winner at the track – can I please come back and lead the parade for the first Arc back at Walthamstow?
    Good Luck in the final stages.
    All my love,
    James (Centaur Decree)

  30. Alan Final says:

    Please do not let London & Quadrant completely ruin the site by cramming in houses to try and recoup the £18.1 million they overpaid for the site, we all want Bob Morton`s plans and Greyhound Racing to return to Walthamstow. Alan Final.

  31. peter clarke says:

    Did no one notice a possible solution to the stadium problem in last weeks guardian, they mentioned walthamstow track and field site, why not build a running track around the dog track where the stock car racing used to be, the other athletics can be held inside the track oval, and let L&Q have the track and field site, that way we end up with a dog track and an athletics stadium…

  32. Peter Lay says:

    Why not build and athletics track at the stow where the stock cars used to run, and then let L&Q have walthamstow track and field site, that way we get our dog track back and an Athletics stadium aswell…

  33. sean switzer says:

    No cinema – No dog track – why not just close all pubs as well???

  34. Mark says:

    Watch the new 45min documentary about the closure of the Walthamstow Stadium – Dogs Gone directed by local Walthamstow filmmaker Jonathan Brind. Watch on You Tube link:

    There was something that made London’s East End special for dog racing. There used to be loads of tracks in the area. The Stow, Walthamstow Dogs, was the last but the 75 year old stadium was the best in the world, with a huge fan base. There are several groups on Facebook devoted to it and one has more than 10,000 members…

    Dog racing seemed as traditional as jellied eels, warm beer, flat caps or fish and chips. The Stow was a lot more than that and even had its own night club, Charlie Chans.

    So it was a huge shock when the Chandler family, who owned and ran it for the entire 75 years it operated, announced that The Stow was to close. The last meeting was held on August 16, 2008.

    This video features some of the beautiful sights and unforgettable sounds of the old place. It was made in the months leading up to the closure when huge crowds packed out the place.

  35. Junior says:


  36. I simply could not depart your site before suggesting that I extremely enjoyed the standard information a person provide for your visitors? Is gonna be back steadily to check up on new posts

  37. Nick c says:

    Looks like you are doing a great job. I would love to help…I am part of a theatre company who are taking over a shop in Walthamstow in April and I want to make a show that reminds us of the glory days of the Stow and how fantastic the atmosphere was. I would really appreciate it if you could email me and hopefully we could set up a meeting?



  38. Chris says:

    Firstly great job with the publicity so far, but I think we can all do more. I think it’s time that we all emailed our politicians, mayors and local authority bosses and demanded that they listen to us. Somewhere on the site we need to have email addresses for the people we need to voice our concerns at. At present we have two MP’s publically backing us in Iain Duncan Smith and Stella Creasy. Boris Johnson was on the news on Tuesday 28th Feb 2012 spouting off how the Olympics were bring all these sport legacies to the East End of London, yet he is now backing a housing estate on one of London’s more iconic sporting venues.

    If we have a list of email addresses for all the local MP’s and senior officials at Waltham Forest as well as Boris Johnson and the like, we could each email them asking for answers. That way instead of just receiving the odd emails from you, they would be awash with emails from everyone in the area. If even 20% of the people in the area sent one email, their inboxes would be filled with hundreds of emails demanding answers. The site could have a section of generic questions we could ask, and when we get a response, we could upload it to the site. They can’t ignore us all. I think it’s also time that we started demanding information about this development under the freedom of information act. If our tax payer money is being used, then we have a right to know on what. Legally they have to respond to FOIA requests within 45 working days or be investigated by the Information Commissioner’s. If the Information Commissioners start getting a steady stream of complaints that they are flouting the FOIA, then they will be forced to act.

    We could direct emails at the culture, sporting and heritage ministers (and their shadow cabinet equivalents) and see what they have to say and get their public backing. Finally it won’t hurt making contact with people like the Prime Minister and Buckingham Palace; after all, they have press and publicity units to deal with such things. If we could persuade them into backing us then we are on a winner.

    • saveourstow says:

      Hi Chris,
      Thanks for the response and over the past 3 years we have emailed/written to the mayor, politicians, local authority bosses and even Prince Charles (he is a patron of L&Q) with little joy. We can not thanks Iain and Stella for all their invaluable support and hopefully with all the recent press more people with get on board !

  39. daftaida says:

    well, i’m down the road from Wimbledon Dog Track and from a regional office of the offending party so if you’d like to provide some leaflets and posters, i’ll put them to good effect.

  40. Michael Lane says:

    light up walthamstow again.

  41. nick cassen says:

    Hello everybody.
    I have made a fun interactive show inspired by the Stow which will be in Wood Street indoor market.

    Places are very limited so reserve your tickets quick at:​uk

    It’s free!

    Show times-
    Thursday 3rd May
    1pm, 2,30pm, 4pm, 5.30pm, 7pm

    Friday & Saturday 4-5 May
    11.30am, 1pm, 2.30pm, 4pm

    The details can be found at

  42. URL says:

    I’m not that much of a internet reader to be honest but your sites really nice, keep it up! I’ll go ahead and bookmark your website to come back later. All the best 542776

  43. Evadney Campbell says:

    Need to speak to someone urgently for possible news piece on BBC London TV News on Tuesday. Can you call 0207 765 0935 today – Friday4th May.

  44. boris says:

    Former Walthamstow Greyhound Stadium
    Introduction Dated 25/4/2012
    1.1 BPS Chartered Surveyors are a firm of consultant Chartered Surveyors retained by Waltham Forest Council under a term contract to provide advice to the Council regarding development viability.
    1.2 In the context of the redevelopment of the former stadium, the applicant London and Quadrant (L&Q) has indicated through their agents Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) ,that the scheme is not sufficiently viable to meet in full the Council’s Section 106 requirements and provide a policy compliant level of affordable housing. BPS has been asked to test the viability material provided by the applicant and their agents and other advisors and to assess whether the proposed level of S106 contributions and affordable housing is justified on the grounds of scheme viability.
    1.3 The discussions regarding viability have been ongoing since the application was submitted in July 2011. The applicant has also sought more recently to re-balance the planning obligations provided by the scheme to deliver a S106 package but has achieved this through a reduction in the level of affordable housing being offered. We have now reached an agreed position with JLL regarding the scheme’s viability.
    1.4 It should be noted that the appraisal material provided to BPS is viewed as being of a confidential nature by the applicant due to it being commercially sensitive. We have consequently not referred to any figures in this report which may give rise to a breach of that confidentiality.
    Description of Development
    2.1 The proposed development comprises the demolition of existing (unlisted) buildings, conversion, alterations and extensions to the retained listed buildings (comprising the Tote board and the dog kennels) for leisure and community uses, residential accommodation (comprising a total of 294 dwellings for a mix of private and affordable housing), open space provision (public, private and communal), car, motorcycle and cycle parking and access through the existing Chingford Road entrance. The residential accommodation includes a mix of unit sizes, including a significant number of family houses, and the height of the proposed new buildings will range between 2 and 8 storeys.
    Appendix 1
    2.2 The applicant is proposing to make S106 contributions totalling £4,148,260 which equates to £14,110 per unit
    2.3 The scheme will deliver a total of 60 affordable housing units which represents 20% of the scheme by unit number and 25% by habitable room. The affordable housing is provided in the form of 24 units of affordable rent and 36 low cost home ownership units.
    Recommendations and Conclusions
    3.1 After considerable discussion and adjustment of figures we have now arrived at an agreed appraisal for the scheme. We have also agreed to benchmark the development against a site value of £7,000,000.
    3.2 The residual value of the scheme shows that at the proposed level of affordable housing and S106 contributions the applicant will make an expected profit of 12.45% of gross development value of the private residential and commercial elements. This represents a shortfall on target profitability of 7.55%.
    3.3 The applicant is willing to consider a re-appraisal of the scheme on a phase by phase basis such that if target profitability is achieved by reference to the agreed land value benchmark, a proportion of any sum over this level will be allocated towards the delivery of additional affordable housing.
    3.4 It will be noted from the body of the report that we are concerned that the grant expectations assumed by the applicant appear to be below current programme allocations for other schemes. The site currently has no allocation and the applicant regards securing grant as a development risk which we accept. The applicant is willing to seek to maximise any grant allocation and for any additional grant to be applied directly to the provision of additional affordable housing outside of the provision for re- assessment.
    3.5 In conclusion we believe the scheme is providing a higher level of planning obligations than can be justified by the scheme’s current viability.
    3.6 We are also satisfied that we have an agreed basis from which to work in reviewing viability based on outturn costs and values as the scheme progresses and that this will ensure that should the profitability of the scheme exceed the applicant’s target level of profitability there would be the opportunity for the scheme to deliver additional affordable housing.
    4.1 BPS was initially supplied with a viability report prepared by JLL in July 2011. We considered this document did not provide adequate information in relation to the detailed assumptions on which the appraisal was based and a series of detailed information requests were made of the applicant and their advisor.
    4.2 A number of meetings have subsequently taken place between us, Council Officers and the applicant and their advisors where our information requirements were discussed.
    4.3 We have subsequently been provided with a number of supplementary documents including:
    a) A revised appraisal of the application scheme
    b) An appraisal of a policy compliant scheme
    c) A sensitivity analysis
    d) Schedules of area and valuation breakdown for the affordable housing for both the application and policy compliant scenario
    e) A schedule of proposed values of the private residential units
    f) A schedule of comparable evidence of residential sales
    g) A breakdown of the proposed affordable rents and their relative discount to market rent
    h) An outline development programme
    i) An assumptions paper
    j) Various e-mail exchanges providing further corroboration
    More recently
    k) A revised affordable housing offer
    l) A S106 proposal
    m) A revised appraisal to reflect the changes to the level of affordable housing and S106 contribution
    n) A revised unit mix for the affordable element
    4.4 This information has been provided to us on an incremental basis and wherever possible our analysis of this information has been shared with the
    applicant to provide a basis for further discussion and where possible clarification and agreement.
    4.5 The initial cost plan of the proposed scheme was produced on behalf of the applicant by Martin Arnold. A more detailed cost plan was subsequently requested and provided which was then analysed by our retained Quantity Surveyor. This was achieved through producing a detailed benchmark against relevant BCIS data at an elemental level. Our initial findings required further clarification and these issues were addressed through a third report also prepared by Martin Arnold. Based on the analysis of these documents we now have an agreed cost estimate for construction of the scheme.
    5.1 In common with the majority of development proposals we examine for our local authority clients, the approach taken by the applicant’s advisors is to assess viability through using the Residual Value method of appraisal.
    5.2 JLL have used a commonly used developed appraisal package termed Argus Developer (formerly Circle Developer) to model the viability of the scheme.
    5.3 The Residual Value Appraisal uses the basic calculation principles set out below to establish what is termed a residual value. The residual value is then compared to an appropriate viability benchmark to establish whether the scheme is in surplus or deficit.
    Total value of the proposed development £GDV Less
    Total development costs Professional fees Development finance Developers profit
    Total Costs
    £A £B £C £D
    £GDV – TC = Residual Value
    5.4 If the residual value is equal to or greater than the adopted viability benchmark then the scheme is deemed to be viable. Where a scheme demonstrates a significant surplus there is an argument to suggest the scheme should deliver a higher level of planning obligations.
    5.5 The choice of valuation benchmark is therefore a key factor in determining the viability of the scheme.
    5.6 There is no mandatory approach to establishing an appropriate valuation benchmark.
    5.7 The London Plan Guidance notes produced to accompany the use of the 3 Dragons Development Appraisal model suggest that the existing use value (EUV) or where appropriate Alternative Use Value (AUV) should be adopted. There is also a suggestion that under some circumstances it would be reasonable to allow a premium on this benchmark as an incentive to release the land for development. These guidance notes do not form planning policy.
    5.8 More recent advice from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors suggests that an appropriate benchmark should be the Market Value of the site. However this view is tempered by the assumption that Market Value should have due consideration of relevant planning policy. This approach does not achieve the desired clarity of approach as it does not give clear guidance as to whether price paid or planning policy should take primacy. This guidance does not represent a mandatory valuation approach.
    5.9 Evidence of rulings from Planning Inquiries and from regional planning policy suggest that the price paid for a site is of interest but is unlikely to be useful as a benchmark figure. In this instance the price paid for the site is not shown on the title held at the Land Registry. We have concluded that this can only be because the price paid was in some way variable such that a fixed figure was not capable of identification for listing on the register.
    5.10 Throughout our discussions about an appropriate valuation benchmark with JLL it has not been suggested that the price paid for the site should be adopted as the relevant benchmark figure. It is therefore of no relevance to our assessment of viability.
    5.11 The site’s former use as a Greyhound Stadium ceased some three years ago and we understand the final year of its trading showing a net loss. JLL accept that the existing use value as a stadium is effectively zero on this basis.
    5.12 Therefore the value of the site hinges on its ability to secure planning consent for a higher value use. At the point the application was submitted the site was identified in the Council’s emerging Core Strategy, the relevant extract is quoted below:
    5.13 The Waltham Forest Core Strategy 4.23
    During the plan period, it is expected that a number of key sites will come forward for redevelopment, including Walthamstow Dogs Stadium, Chingford Municipal Offices and some underused land at Whipps Cross Hospital. Redevelopment at these sites is expected to contribute to overall housing, employment and leisure provision.
    5.14 We consequently accept that prior to grant of a planning consent there was a reasonable expectation that the site would be deemed suitable for redevelopment to a higher value use. This intended allocation gives rise to what is generally termed “hope value”.
    5.15 This allocation of the land to a higher value use does not in our view provide grounds for overriding the requirement for the site to make relevant contributions towards planning obligations and affordable housing.
    5.16 Were the site to have no existing use value or alternative use value we would normally expect the value of the site to be determined by the residual value generated by a policy compliant scheme.
    5.17 As apart of the process to establish viability consideration has been given to the viability of a benchmark scheme. This is based on the same development density, costs and values as the application scheme but with a fully policy compliant level of S106 and 50% affordable housing.
    5.18 The policy compliant appraisal suggests that the site would have a negligible or even negative land value. We believe it would be unrealistic to expect the site to come forward for development if a land receipt of this order was all that was achievable.
    5.19 JLL suggest that site value should reflect the tone of other land sales in the area. The land sales provided to us by JLL do not explore the circumstances surrounding each of these sales and consequently we do not agree that a purely comparable approach is adequate to accurately assess the value of the site given its own unique circumstances. The four land sales provided by JLL indicate a sales value range from £2.5m per hectare to £4.5m per hectare (£1m to £1.9m per acre).
    5.20 We have also explored the benchmark land values adopted for a number of planning viability assessments we have recently undertaken for the Council. We believe these figures relate not so much as to what the market might pay for land but what underlying value land typically has in the borough which is partly based on existing use value and the figure considered a by the applicant as a minimum return on land. This analysis suggests a land value per hectare towards the lower end of the range indicated by JLL.
    5.21 We are of the opinion that land value should reflect a combination of factors including:
    a) Viability of the proposed redevelopment
    b) Viability of the site for a policy compliant development
    c) Relevant planning policy
    5.22 We also recognise that site value will also be a product of competition within the land buyer market and this is a prominent site with a clear expectation that development is a possibility.
    5.23 Based on our analysis of benchmark land values and JLL’s suggested price range for sites in the Borough we believe that an appropriate benchmark value should be at the lower end of the land price band to reflect hope value but otherwise based on development maximising its policy contributions.
    5.24 A figure of £7,000,000 has been adopted which reflects a land value of £2,135,00 per hectare (£865,000 per acre)
    5.25 It is in our opinion a realistic benchmark value to adopt for the purposes of assessing viability. In making this statement we acknowledge that land buyer market may choose to bid at a higher level, however we believe it represents a prudent balance between an acknowledgement of the site’s undoubted “hope value” and the requirement to as far as possible meet planning policy requirements.
    Residential Values
    Private Sales Revenue
    5.26 We have been provided with a detailed schedule of anticipated sales revenues for the private housing within the scheme. Based on our analysis of the limited number of new build schemes in the locality and the borough as whole we are largely satisfied that the proposed average sales values are reflective of the local market.
    5.27 We believe the suggested range of values anticipated on units which are otherwise identical due to issues such as location within the scheme, daylight and height is too wide. However the appraisal is reliant upon average unit values which we are willing to accept therefore the impact of this issue on overall viability is consequently negligible.
    Affordable Rent Levels
    5.28 We have reviewed the levels of proposed market rents and the level of discount proposed by JLL and confirm that the proposed rental discounts match the Council’s rent level guidance in terms of the levels of discount proposed. We are of the opinion the proposed market rents for 4 bed units reflects the upper end of expectations but given the limited evidence of new build larger family homes we have concluded that there are no substantive grounds for disputing the figures proposed.
    Value of affordable rent element
    5.29 We have agreed with JLL the basis of the valuation to be applied to the affordable rent element in terms of the explicit assumptions and our calculations concur.
    Value of shared ownership element
    5.30 We are in broad agreement with the private unit values on which the shared ownership values have been based. It should be noted that in general the units selected for this tenure reflect the mid to lower value expectations for the equivalent private sale units. We accept that in practice this is a logical approach to maximising scheme revenue and consequently we accept the market values that have been proposed for the shared ownership units.
    5.31 Following discussions as to the approach taken in valuing the unsold equity the applicant has adopted our suggestions regarding staircasing assumptions which reflect what is considered to be the market norm of 75% of the equity will be staircased over a 20 year period with a rent ranging from 2.75% to 2.5% on the balance.
    5.32 Based on our knowledge of current grant allocations we would have anticipated a higher level of grant being assumed on the affordable rent units and approximately 50% of this rate assumed for the shared ownership units.
    5.33 The applicant has confirmed that the scheme is not within its current programme and as such has not received a grant allocation. Consequently any sum included in the appraisal is effectively a risk for the applicant to ensure it is delivered.
    5.34 We accept that without an allocation there can be no assurance of grant therefore the applicant has agreed to seek to maximise the grant it seeks for this scheme and to apply this grant to delivering as much affordable
    housing as possible irrespective of the findings of any subsequent re- appraisal.
    Value of commercial element
    5.35 The commercial element of the scheme is located within the listed buildings and is focussed around beneficial re-use of these structures and to offset the costs involved. The appraisal suggests that the value generated is below the overall costs. Given the location and the nature of the proposed uses this conclusion appears realistic.
    Scheme Costs
    Construction costs
    5.36 It can be seen from the earlier part of our report that an exacting process has been followed to arrive at an agreed cost for the scheme. This is supported by an elemental cost benchmarking exercise with BCIS data.
    Other development costs
    5.37 Allowances for other normal development costs have been made in the scheme appraisal are in line with our expectations for a scheme of this size. We believe the allowance for marketing costs may prove to be light if sales prove difficult to achieve but the budget represents a realistic starting point.
    Developers profit
    5.38 The target profit sought by the applicant on the private residential and commercial element is 20% of gross development value. This is a typical minimum return sought by developments across London and is in part a reflection of the funding market where lenders require a significant anticipated profit as security for the development.
    5.39 We would not anticipate a profit being sought on the affordable housing element of the scheme. However we accept that RSL based developments would typically seek to cover their internal costs associated with managing the development process and 6% of build costs for this element appears to be a realistic figure.
    S106 Contributions
    5.40 The appraisal has factored in a S106 contribution of £4,148,260 which includes an allowance for Mayoral CIL.
    BPS Chartered Surveyors – April 2012

  45. Kim Coleman says:

    Hi. I am from the Campaign for Cat Hill, currently fighting L&Q in Hertfordshire. Sorry to see last nights result but hope the mayor will see sense. Our p,anning committee refused L& Q in March, as did the mayor. Now we are waiting to see what their next move will be. You have our continued suppport. Anything we can do.

  46. John Unwin says:

    I live in the same catchment area as the Stow and many years ago we had road closures there.
    At every Highways & Services Meeting the Council voted for them, against the wishes of the majority of the local residents.

    7 Labour – for
    4 Conservative – against
    2 Liberal – against

    Then we asked the Cons not to field a candidate in a Labour Ward where the Libs had a large vote.

    6 Labour – for
    4 Conservative – against
    3 Liberal – against

    After the local elections the barrier at the junction of Ainslie Wood Rd & Underwood Rd E.4. was taken down and us residents had an old fashioned street party celebration.

  47. john Kear says:

    Hi there i hope you are ok, me and a friend went to the meeting about the stow on tuesday 8th may and would like to be keep informed of what is happening with the stow, please can somebody put my email address on so we know what is happening it is many thanks take care and Godbless from John Kear.

    • saveourstow says:

      Hi John, Thank you for your support, we don’t currently do an email newsletter, but all the latest info is posted onto our website, Facebook page and Twitter.

  48. sean says:

    Anna kiss – legend

  49. graham hillman says:

    sent to Boris
    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: Graham Hillman
    Date: Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:44 AM
    Subject: Walthamstow Stadium – L&Q Hosuing proposals

    Dear Mr Johnson,

    I am an individual who has llived in London for over 35 years , during that time virtually every greyhound Stadium has been shut down from one reason or another.

    For the last 25 years I have lived in Hackney and have lived under a Labour Council , I have seen 1st hand thier truly amazing Planning department capabilities

    I urge you to review the recent decision made by Waltham Forest Council regarding L&Q’s Plans to demolish and Build some social housing on the site of Walthamstow Greyhound Stadium site.
    This Stadium would regaulary take 4000+ people on a Saturday evening who with their familes ( yes it was very children friemdly , with its own play park) . In former years you would get 6000+ on a Saturday evening and regularly 2000+ on Thursday evening . This was a great facility where people could gather , have a drink , socialise , relax and get a good meal too
    The stadium also provide full time and part time employment for many local people and could do again

    I am sure that the Private enterprise of people like Bob Morton who has twice submitted plans to accoodate the social Housing side of the equation are much better bet than the misguided decsion recently made by Councillers with little or no understanding of what the real issues are here .

    Thank you for taking time to read this and I look forward to the day I can get on my ” Boris Bike ” and cycle over to the ” the Stow ”

    I implore you to have a real close look at this decision and if you are able to support alternative Plans to re-open this place as a dog track

    Best regards

    Graham Hillman

    • saveourstow says:

      Thanks Graham … A great letter and lets hope the London Mayor takes note of the local feeling against L&Q building over the Stow !

  50. Kim Coleman says:

    We urged all our residents to write to the mayor. We believe he received in excess of 500 letters. He has to take account of the strength of public feeling if that many write to him. I urge your residents to do the same. Our application was refused and Boris agreed with Enfield Planning decision! I am sure L&Q will come back with something else but they are aware of the strength of feeling here and our determination, like yours, to defeat them!

  51. Terry Williams says:

    Many might be aware of a small anti Walthamstow demonstration on Monday afternoon (25 June) in front of the old track. I am a resident of Walthamstow and have many happy memories of racing at the track and so of course support the SOS campaign. I do, however, also believe in free speech … to a limit, but that limit was crossed on Monday by the above protestors and one person in particular who appeared full of her own importance. I understand her name is Trudy Baker and when it was politely made clear to the woman I do not support their cause I was told I should be ashamed of myself for allowing the ‘abuse of thousands of greyhounds’. Frankly the woman came across as unstable though in no way physically impaired. I mention the latter solely because I am reliably informed she is in receipt of Disability Living Allowance. Now we know how the campaign is funded.

    • GCNash says:

      Just to point out, Terry, that many people are genuine recipients of DLA and may or may not have mental health issues, learning difficulties or physical impairments. That does not mean they are ‘unstable’.

  52. denise marsh says:

    Hallo Stow supporters.
    I am dong a PhD on the social history of greyhound racing during the period 1926 to 1951 and I am interested in hunting down info on Walthamstow stadium during this period. Perhaps you or members of you family or friends frequented the place or worked there or you have photos, race cards or souvenirs you could scan and send the images to me? I would love to hear from you. On a more personal note my great uncle Reg `String` Marsh and aunt Meg Fairbrass [also known as Meg Marsh] were trainers working out of Walthamstow so if you remember them, better still! My grandfather trained at Hove, Portsmouth, South Shields and Stanley in Liverpool and great uncle `Nip` Marsh was head lad at Catford. Hence my interest in the history of greyhound racing so in fact if anyone has personal or handed-down memories of the sport at any track during the mid 20th century please let know.

  53. Matt Conway says:

    I have just received the following letter from the council about the proposed redevelopment of the car park opposite the stadium. I feel it is stilltoo early to allow this development to go ahead, the fight for the track is still very much on, but would be hampered by losing a key asset like the car park….

    PROPOSAL: Re­consuItation ‘Erection of vehicle showijoom, retail parts
    ‘ distribution centre, vehicle workshops and valet servicingINiOT
    facilities with associated landscaping, new `access from
    Walthamstow Avenue and closure of access opposite Empress


    LOCATION: Car Park Opposite Dog Stadium,

    457 Chingford Road

    I refer to your correspondence concerning the planning application submitted lo the Council in
    respect of the _above development. ‘

    This application will be considered by the Council at the meeting of its Planning Committee on
    12 September 2012 at the Town HallI Forest Road, Walthamstow, London E17 commencing
    at 7.30pm. – ‘ ‘

    There is also a provision to address the committee for a maximum of three interested
    neighboursand the applicant or agent (as stated on the application form). lf you wish to take
    up this opportunity you have to register with the above named officer by noon on the
    day of Committee. lf this advance notice is not given it will not be possible to address the
    Committee. The slots for speakers will be filled on come, first served basis.

    When any member of the public addresses the Committee they are limited to a three-minute
    verbal presentation only. There will be no right of reply, although there may be occasions when
    questionsI from Councillors through the Chair require answering. Speakers and other
    members of the public may leave the meeting after the item they are interested in has been
    decided, but are requested to do so quietly and promptly.

  54. Kim Coleman says:

    Good luck with this. Another side issue, probably by L&Q. If we can help let us know. Campaign for Cat Hill. As an aside, we met with Simon Baxter this morning, what a devious so and so. Is he the L&Q guy you have the problems with? Any word from the mayor yet?

  55. Christopher Jones says:

    I have just heard from Mayor’s office that Boris Johnson is at present waiting to receive the Stage II referral (whatever that is ?) from the council.Once he has this he has 14 days to make a decision.
    Would it be possible for Saveourstow team to arrange for a “gathering ” of supporters and Greyhounds outside of his offices on Southbank ,on a day he is at his desk ?
    Could any prospective new owners of the Greyhound Stadium agree with the Mayor that when it re-opens it would be known as Boris Johnson Stadium.This could well swing things.It would be a small price to pay for the return of Greyhound Racing in Walthamstow.

  56. Gary Blake says:

    Are there any meetings/gatherings planned I livie in Chingford Mount and would like to get involved having moved back to London just a few months ago it brought a tear to my eye to pass the stadium and see it in it’s current state. My mother and grand mother were from highams park and my great grandmother was from Blackhorse road. the stadium was a sign of prosperity and reopening the stadium is a must for the local community and local busniess. I believe that the money for new housing would be better spent on refurbishing the many derelict and run down houses in the area.

  57. Sima Danial says:

    I would like to communicate with the organisers of STOW CAMPAIGN as soon as possible and provide you with very important information which could be helpful to your ongoing fight. Please email me with telephone contact details so that I can ring you.

  58. Kim Coleman says:

    The Campaign for Cat Hill offers any support we can give you. We were devastated on hearing the news. Please do not hesitate to contact me if there is ANYTHING we can do. I personally am happy to speak to the mayor and deputy mayor if you think that may help. I know it seems like grasping at straws but surely anything g is better than nothing. In the meantime our fight goes on. L&Q have submitted a second application and we will fight that to the bitter end.

  59. Cheryl Scribens says:

    Hi, I’m from Wembley originally and now live in Henley on Thames in an L&Q property. I felt I had to write to show my support as I went to the dog track on several occasions and always had a brilliant time (even though i suspect most of the dogs I backed are still running!!) The other reason is because of L&Q. They are useless, the block of flats that I live in is home to several drug users and residents who’s only mission in life is to make living here hell for the rest of us. I have complained to L&Q several times about the state of the place, but they have either ignored me or told me that they do not uphold anything I have said. They will never admit to being in the wrong over anything. No-one in this block of 15 flats wants to be here. L&Q are well aware of this but dont care as long as the rent keeps rolling in. I would hate to think that a much loved iconic place such as Walthamstow will be ruined by them. We need things like dog tracks, its a fun family night out and these things are a rarity these days. I will support you to the end.

  60. Dave Munro says:

    100% behind your tireless efforts to Saveourstow. Bitterly disappointed at Boris Jonsons misguided decision .Fight on.THANK YOU.

  61. GCNash says:

    By all means bring the dog track back into use – but not for dog-racing. If you want to know why not, then visit the Greyhound Rescue Centre at Waltham Abbey where the sorry rejects from this ‘sport’ wait to be rehomed. Do any of the ‘dog-racing fans’ take the trouble to donate to the dogs’ care or rehome them? If they have, then I am greatly reassured, but somehow I think not. Money is the motivator here – the welfare of the dogs counts for nowt. (Notwithstanding there may be some owners/trainers that care for their animals post-racing career). Too many dogs end up killed by a bolt gun and dumped in a ditch with their ears cut off.

  62. Raymond O'Connor says:

    Mr Holloway, I just saw you on Sky Sports at the Laurels. My father was Barney O’ Connor who trained at Walthmastow from 1958 until 1985 and I was looking in on
    Sky tonight as he won the
    Laurels at Wimbledon in 1973 with
    Black Banjo I am happy to suppfully behind your campaign. I was a partner in one of the largest law firms in the
    City and worked in corporate finance for 25 years. Although retired due to ill health, I would be happy to provide any support which it might be thought would be of any use when I can, even if it means just signing any petitions etc. It was a very sad day when the Stow closed . It was a huge part of my childhood and more importantly within the community and the wider greyhound racing community.

  63. Raymond O'Connor says:

    Mr Holloway, I just saw you on Sky Sports at the Laurels. My father was Barney O’Connor who trained at Walthamstow from 1958 until 1985 and I was looking in on Sky tonight as he won the Laurels at Wimbledon in 1973 with
    Black Banjo. I was also an owner at Walthamstow before moving to New York for work. Now back in the UK I am happy to support your campaign. I was a partner in one of the largest law firms in the City and worked in corporate finance for 25 years. Although retired due to ill health, I would be happy to provide any support which it might be thought would be of any use when I can, even if it means just signing any petitions etc. It was a very sad day when the Stow closed . It was a huge part of my childhood and more importantly within the local community and the wider greyhound racing community.

  64. Nancy Taaffe says:

    I am writing to invite your organisation,’Save Our Stow” to a public meeting on Wednesday 23rd Jan, 7.30pm at William Morris Community Centre in Green Leaf Road. This meeting is organised by The Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) and will be discussing fielding candidates in the local elections of 2014 against this rotten council. We have speakers from the RMT union, the FBU, the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, we will also be inviting community campaigners and local people who see their services disappearing and feel angry about it. We may not discuss exactly where we are going to stand at this meeting but it would be good if somebody, or a group of people, could stand against those on the planning committee who are handing the borough over to private property developers. Your organisation has witnessed the behaviour of people like Marie Pye and it may be an idea to consider standing against her in 2014? We will definitely stand against Akram, if he is still in the job.

    Maybe see you or a representative from your group there on 23rd where we can discuss this matter further.
    Nancy Taaffe

  65. Anton Lyons says:

    Is it all over as the demolition of THE STOW has started !!!

  66. graham hillman says:

    Shame on you L&Q, Boris Johnson & not last the Labour Council who wholly betrayed their people for what ? A 2nd rate housing project that benefits a few people, as oppsed to the 1000s who went and enjoyed the Stow on a weekly basis. Ps. I hope the Chandlers choke on thier ill gotten gains gh

Leave a Reply to Mark Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s