A Call-In Or Not A Call-In?

Readers will recall that we recently appealed to the Mayor of London, and to the Secretary Of State for Communities And Local Government, seeking a call-in of the KALC planning decision. We are still awaiting a response from the Secretary Of State, but last week at the eleventh hour we got one from the Mayor’s office which said;

“This application has not been referred to the Mayor although according to the floorspace set out in the application form it falls within the criteria to be referred to the Mayor as it is more than 20,000 sq.m. floorspace. We are curenty investigating this…..The Council have now confirmed that they will be referring the application to us.  As such the GLA will be doing a combined Stage I and II response.  We will contact you again when we know the timescale for the report.”

The wording of this response is less than entirely clear, and so it’s hard to say with certainty exactly what it means, other than that RBKC appear to have been as sloppy and arrogant towards the Mayor, as they had been all along towards us. This does however seem to offer a glimmer of hope. We have been advised that the Stage I response referred to would involve an assessment of whether or not the application warrants a call-in. A Stage II response would therefore seem to imply that the application will indeed be called-in so that a fuller and independent assessment can be made of it.

ALL MAY NOT YET BE LOST!

Meanwhile, we thought our readers might like to check out some recent posts on the Hornet’s Nest blog suggesting that the suspicions we raised, of collusion between officers in the planning department and property developers seeking planning permission, are in fact widespread in this Rotten Borough.

http://fromthehornetsnest.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/rbk-planner-makes-flighty-old.html

http://fromthehornetsnest.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/too-matey-by-half.html

Public Art At Lancaster Green

The text below is from an email sent by Councillor Blakeman on 1st November. It should be self-explanatory and needs no editorial comment from us. However, we can’t resist the temptation to say WE TOLD YOU SO. This absolutely confirms what we have said all along – that the Council care nothing for the children of Lancaster West, nor anybody else who lives here. They LIED when they said the reconfigured and much reduced Lancaster Green would be designed to meet the needs of local people, and not just as a forecourt for the KALC complex.

(NB The illustration, for those who don’t know, is from the film “The Rebel” in which Tony Hancock played a talentless, but deluded, middle-class twit who fancied himself as a great artist)

Dear Residents’ Forum Member

I have asked for ‘Public Art’ to be included on the agenda of our forthcoming Residents’ Forum meeting.

Discussions with Ms. Johnson led me to believe that the “public art” designated for the KALC development is to be a piece of public art for the local community and not specifically for the Academy or the Leisure Centre. I was therefore concerned to read the following in a Report to the Public Art Panel meeting held on 24 October, which seems to suggest that the Aldridge Foundation and the Council have taken ownership of this part of the project without any local consultation.

As I recollect it, we believed strongly that local children should have a major input into the choice of the public art for this site, but their involvement – and also ours – seems to have been completely by-passed.

It is unclear who decided that the public art would have to be appropriate “for both parties”, i.e. the Academy and the Leisure Centre – but not appropriate for the local community – nor how it was decided that “a freestanding sculpture is needed”, nor why this particular theme has been adopted for the sculpture, nor who selected the preferred artists without first consulting the local community to see whether the community agrees that their work is suitable for this site.

Many thanks.
Cllr. Judith Blakeman

Arts in the Public Realm
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Report from Ann Elliott
October 2012

I have attended two meetings with the sponsors and architects of Kensington Academy on 17 July and 19 September. Representatives from RBKC with responsibility for the Academy and for the Leisure Centre were present for the first meeting, but unfortunately there was no one representing the Leisure Centre at the second meeting. On 17 July discussions were general and explorative with considerations for what kind of public art would be appropriate for both parties and where a work of art, or works of art could be located within the scheme.

The main themes of the Academy are Entrepreneurship and the Arts. The Aldridge Foundation has taken the image of Pegasus as its symbol for entrepreneurship. The Leisure Centre’s ‘brand’ is better – better quality of fitness, leisure, libraries, and performing arts facilities for all.
Any linking ‘theme’ for a work of art seemed to be elusive at this stage.

At the next meeting I gave two presentations, one on artists whose interest might be aroused by the Pegasus theme, and another on sculptors whose interest was in materials, surface treatments such as paving and words.

The Landscape Architects have since the meeting advised against any interventions into road or paving surfaces. Therefore, it would seem that a freestanding sculpture is needed. Of the artists whose work was represented the groups preferred Emma Biggs, Gary Breeze, Zadok Ben-David, Sally Matthews, Nick Hornby and Tom Hill. Please find attached printouts of the two presentations.

As this was just the first round I need to think further and deliver more ideas on suitable artists to the next meeting, which is to be held on 8 November 2012. I should be most grateful for any guidance or suggestions from members of the Public Art Panel, especially regarding the issue of whether one or more pieces should be placed on the site.

To The Secretary Of State

As promised, following the granting of planning permission for the KALC development, the Grenfell Action Group began work on appeals to both the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles MP, asking each of them to call-in the decision for independent scrutiny. We sent off our letter to the Mayor on 23rd October and followed this with a similar letter to Mr Pickles on 30th October. You can find the full version of this letter via this link:      Our Objections

Until recently local residents believed, and were entitled to believe, that the Lancaster Green open space was protected by the Council because of its vital function as both residential amenity and public open space, and believed that its designation by the Council as a public park was a guarantee of that protection.

In our letters we claimed that the planning committee was negligent, failed to exercise due diligence, and did not subject the planning application to the rigorous scrutiny it warranted, despite clear and voluminous information we had provided which highlighted the need for such scrutiny.  We claimed that neither the Local Planning Authority nor the Major Planning Development Committee acted with proper regard in assessing the application, which was promoted and championed by the Council itself.

We also presented additional evidence, gleaned from the Committee Report which had been authored by the Executive Director for Planning (ie the supremo of the Local Planning Authority) of improper collusion by the Local Planning Authority with the applicant for planning permission, to the great detriment of the local community.

We argued that local residents, who are vehemently opposed to this development because of the damage it will do to their neighbourhood, and to their quality-of-life, were entitled to expect the Local Planning Authority, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, to be scrupulously impartial and even-handed when assessing whether the proposals in the Planning Application would comply with policy, and whether the interests of the local community would be properly protected if the plans were approved. This had clearly not happened. The interests of the local community had been ignored, and their rights trampled on.

In closing we reminded the Secretary Of State of the response of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to the Mayor of London’s consultation on the Open Space Strategy for the London Plan, which was conducted in the winter of 2009. The RBKC response stated;

“Unlike, most other London Boroughs we do not have any spare capacity for open space to be released to other uses. Open space that has existing or potential value is protected from inappropriate development by Policy LR8 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, which states that:

To resist the loss of existing open space which meets leisure and recreation needs.

This policy has been strengthened in the Publication Core Strategy to read:

The Council will protect, enhance and make the most of existing parks, gardens and open spaces, and require new high quality spaces to be provided.

We are simply not in a position, and nor would it be appropriate, to release open space for other uses which meets the criteria listed above. In those very limited circumstances where open space needs to be re-configured, such as estate re-development, we would expect open space to be provided of an equivalent or better size and quality.”

These words are, of course, utter hypocrisy. The Rotten Borough’s councillors, and the quisling officers who do their dirty work for them, stand condemned by their cynical and shameful lies. In our view these deceitful words, and the misrepresentations, manipulations and distortions of the Core Strategy and London Plan policies we discovered in both the planning application and the Committee Report, are an affront to the RBKC policy on parks and open spaces, an affront to the Mayor of London’s open space policy, and an affront to the Secretary Of State’s Planning Policy Guidance for Open Space Sport and Recreation. They are also an affront, and a grotesque insult, to the residents of Lancaster West Estate for whom we speak.

Please read our full text here:     Our Objections

Lancaster Green Goes Viral

We thought our readers might like to check out an excellent news segment about the doomed Lancaster Green that appeared earlier this week as the lead story on the Community Channel’s UK360 programme. The piece was researched and presented by television journalist Laoise Hayes, who did a first class job, in our opinion. Along with some lovely shots of Lancaster Green, and some less than lovely shots of the replacement MUGA at Westway Sports Centre, the segment included interviews with a number of people, including our own roving reporter Eddie Daffarn and Councillors Judith Blakeman and Nick Paget-Brown. If you missed it on the Community Channel you might like to watch it now via this link;

Community Channel UK360

One of the odd things about this report is the way it points up, yet again, the peculiar position taken by local Labour councillors throughout this sad affair. In her interview Councillor Blakeman is severely critical of the impact the KALC development will have on local children, whose beautiful play-space (Lancaster Green) will be bulldozed into oblivion. It will be replaced by a greatly reduced area of manicured lawn which might serve the needs of the Academy and Leisure Centre, but will certainly not serve the needs of our children. Blakeman even goes so far as to threaten to appeal to the Secretary of State to call–in the KALC planning decision for independent scrutiny. We’ll have to wait and see if she makes good on that threat (readers will be interested to know that we are currently working on our own appeals to the Secretary of State and the Mayor of London – more on that later).

Meanwhile, you might like to compare Blakeman’s fightin’ talk with the content of some of her recent emails, one to the Grenfell Action Group, and another addressed to residents generally, following the approval of the planning application.

“We have always made it absolutely clear to the Grenfell Action Group that we support the Academy because it is desperately needed and has been desperately needed for well over 15 years now. We have never offered any comfort that we would oppose the development, only that we would join with you to campaign to mitigate its effects…..

The two Labour members of the Committee voted against the decision solely because the inclusion of the Phase Three market housing will seriously reduce the amount of open space, over-develop the site and lose the car parking spaces and small formal garden outside the current Leisure Centre. We welcome the development of the school, for which we have been campaigning throughout the last 15 years.”

No mention in the emails of that tiny irreplaceable wilderness that doubles as our children’s play-space, the beautiful and much loved Lancaster Green, which will be completely destroyed. No mention either of the popular and much used MUGA’s lost to the Westway Sports Centre, in the poisoned shadow of the motorway.

Incidentally, there were some great shots in Laoise’s report of the constant flow of motorway traffic on the sliproads and ramps surrounding the replacement MUGA. Even without her commentary these shots would bear eloquent testimony to the crime committed against the sporting youth of Lancaster West, and North Kensington generally, by concentrating so much of the area’s outdoor sports provision in this polluted stygian blackspot.

Labour councillors appear to have recently renewed their efforts to raise the profile of Westway pollution, and of the polluted Westway Sports Centre, with the ruling Tories on the Council (thanks to some less than gentle prodding from us). They deserve some credit for that, but they deserve none whatever for the shameful manner in which they have betrayed and sold out the Lancaster West community on the KALC issue.

Councillor Blakeman didn’t much like it when we called her two-faced before, but Lancaster West residents might be well advised to think hard before voting for this lot next time they’re called upon to do so – not that they’ll have any real alternative.

Oh the joy of the two party state!

Great to have a choice, innit?

Never Fear – We’re Still Here

If you are checking back looking for recent updates, and are hoping that we haven’t given up the ghost – rest assured we haven’t. We do, however, need a little space to recover from the body blow that we suffered last week with the approval of the planning application, and perhaps not surprisingly, we’ve had some issues with illnes in our editorial team. Despite this we are still working away behind the scenes preparing our next moves in the face of this appalling decision.

More news on that coming soon.

In the meantime here’s a wee snippet, just to keep you amused, from the revised transport assessment submitted as part of the planning application.

“It is understood that the current leisure centre does not have a daily arrival of large coaches, instead, between two and three mini-buses would generally arrive to drop-off leisure centre users before vacating the site. These mini-buses would then return to the site to collect the leisure centre users. The need for long dwell times on-site for coaches and mini-buses is therefore not an essential part of the existing leisure centre’s activity, which, under the new leisure centre proposals this activity will see an increase in mini-bus activity in the order of four to five drop-off and collection movements per day, mostly associated with local schools.”

The picture above, obviously, shows three of these WEE SMALL MINIBUSES waiting in the main carpark on a typical schoolday. Unfortunately, on this occasion the WEE SMALL MINIBUSES all showed up at the same time (oops), all parked up to await the return of their respective school parties (oops again), and all appeared to be victims of the obesity epidemic we have all read so much about in the news lately (big oops).

Wouldn’t it just be a crying shame if they had got this little detail completely wrong –  about the WEE SMALL MINIBUSES?

(PS – We told them they were wrong – but they wouldn’t listen)

On The Nod

No prizes for guessing the outcome of yesterday’s Planning Committee. The Kensington Academy and Leisure Centre development was granted planning permission despite our last minute objections.

It is interesting to note that the Committee Report recorded 259 representations made to the planning authority during the final period of consultation, of which no fewer than 252 were letters of objection. As expected the Planning Committee ignored all objections in it’s rush to rubber-stamp the application.

An addendum report had been hurriedly prepared and tabled in reaction to late submissions from the Kensington Society and the Grenfell Action Group, in an attempt to gloss over some of the errors, inaccuracies and damned lies with which the planning application was riddled, and to which we had belatedly, and unsuccessfully, tried to draw the attention of the Committee.

One of these is particularly revealing and speaks volumes about the shambolic and incoherent nature of the planning application.

According to the Design & Access Statement in the initial application the total building footprint would be 11,326 sq metres.

This was  then contradicted by one of the revision documents, which showed a total building footprint of only 9,931 sq metres.

This in turn was followed by a later revision stating a total building footprint of 10,008 sq metres.

The Committee Report, produced just a few days before the decision, then produced yet more figures, this time stating a total building footprint of 10666 sq metres.

At this stage we submitted our letter of objection, drawing the Committee’s attention to the glaring inconsistencies in these figures.

Finally, on the day of the decision, the Addendum to the Committee Report was produced, with yet another, supposedly final and authoritative figure, of 12,739 sq metres.

Please note, dear reader, that the discrepancy between the figure in the Committee Report and the figure in the last minute addendum is 2,073 sq metres.

We would suggest that the tendency throughout this series of documents veered towards reducing the estimates of the building footprints, up until the point at which we blew the whistle on what we perceived to be deliberate under-estimates of the footprints in order to facilitate over-estimates of the open space that would result, bearing in mind that the loss of open space and residential amenity was one of the most contentious, and most fiercely resisted, elements of the project from the perspective of the local community.

We smell a rat – Don’t you?

Question: How is it possible for Churchman’s Landscape Architects, a major professional consultancy company,  to make such massive errors in measuring a few bits of ground?

Question: How could it be possible, and how could it be right and proper, for the Major Planning Development Committee of RBKC, when informed of this and many other glaring errors, inaccuracies and inconsistencies throughout the planning application documents, to ignore the objections, ignore the utter incompetence of the application, and approve the application regardless?

Please note, dear reader, that had we not warned the Chair of the MPDC, at the very last minute, that the building footprint measurements were completely wrong, the Committee would have approved the application anyway, wrong figures and all.

What  does this say about the planning system in the Rotten Borough, and the corrupt, incompetent and arbitrary way in which major decisions are made throughout this Rotten Council?

This is an utter disgrace.

It stinks to high heaven.

WATCH THIS SPACE BECAUSE WE’RE NOT DONE YET.

Please read the full text of our letter of objection. 

You will find it via this link;  GAG OBJECTIONS