Despite what you may hear the Dame supports NO political party and is not connected in anyway to any of the political organisations in the borough. The Dame reports on issues that matter, speaks as she finds, and tries to be fair and objective. No one should assume that because a particular story is critical or supportive, indicates a preference of the Dame in anyway to the subject discussed. It doesnt. In other words, this is no more a Labour blog, as it is a Conservative or Lib Dem one. It is a community blog.


Comments posted are the views of the poster and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinion of the Dame.
Responsibility for comment content is that of whoever posts. Inappropriate comment shall be removed and the poster may be banned.
If you want to contact the Dame she would be delighted to hear from you.
You can be certain that the Dame NEVER divulges her sources.
She is waiting to hear from you-whether you are an officer, a councillor or a resident, you can be sure of her ear!

For technical reasons the Dame's very personal email address has had to be changed.
If you have recently sent her anything scandalous.....or not so scandalous, please do
resend to her new address

Commenting is easy. At the end of each story you will find, for example, 10 comments just click on comments and you will be taken to comment section. Write your comment in the box, choose a profile-eg: anonymous and then click to publish. If you still have difficulty then email your comment to the Dame and her vast staff will publish it anonymously for you. Comments are vital so please do so.

Local News Sources


Tuesday, 15 April 2014


The Dame reported that Pooter followed Fragrant-Howells's advice and pootled down to Sutton Buildings....it was not a success.....
Here is a pic of Pooter looking lost and lonesome....not one resident could be bothered to meet him. 

Where the hell am I?

Why don't they talk to us?

Monday, 14 April 2014


If you live in Chelsea Green and see a lost looking chap studying a map offer to help....it maybe a rare sighting of Sir Pooter Cockell.....odd that it comes just before an election, but it must be one of life's coincidences....
Pooter Cockell has been told by Jonathan Fragrant-Howells, Association agent and part time Spanish hotelier, to get out and meet the locals: something Pooter has always felt to be beneath him.

Fragrant-Howells instructed Pooter to go and visit Sutton Buildings and pretend to be interested in what residents have to say.

The problem is that Pooter and Fragrant-Howells detest each other and Pooter is suspicious that he may be being 'set up' and likely to be set upon by residents worried their much loved homes are to be torn down.

The Dame advises Pooter to be wary of the machinations of Fragrant-Howells......


New book slams ACCUSES Lib Dems of cover up

Sunday, 13 April 2014


Click to enlarge
The proposed Mansion Tax will destroy the lives of income poor Borough residents.
Most bought their property years ago. 
Thanks to Vince Cable they will be forced from their homes and the Borough. 
And the beneficiary? 
More buyers using dirty off shore money. 
They will now be able to pick up those long term residents' properties 'on the cheap', at fire sale prices.
The money raised by this stupid tax will be minimal. 
It will hardly compare to the £2 billion lost by that economic genius Cable through miss-pricing Royal Mail.
Again, not a word from the ludicrous Lib Dem trio on our council....probably too busy trying to grasp a Leader's Allowance.

In Touch circulating in Stanley Ward has Cockell and his crew perpetuating the blatant lie a Conservative council would be able to kill off the tax....
What a bunch of liars: they will have nil influence on the introduction of this tax...
But maybe this is what Cockell calls a 'political lie'. 
Cockell should be called to account and asked to substantiate his extraordinary claim. 
But good to see he now supports the Royal Marsden!


This excellently constructed letter to Mr Bore by planning expert and Chairman of the Kensington Society's Planning Committee, Michael Bach, throws down a challenge to RBK&C to justify any proposed departure from its Core Strategy and the London Plan. 
It is crucial reading if one wants to understand the implications of Royal Brompton agenda.......

Dear Mr Bore,

I am writing on behalf of the Kensington Society to express our concerns about how the Council is seeking to justify a departure from the development plan – the London Plan and the Council’s Core Strategy – through a Supplementary Planning Document rather than through the Development Plan which would enable the legality of these proposals to be tested for soundness.

The Society’s main concerns about this draft SPD are:

  • the document is written in a manner which is geared to facilitate the specific development that the Royal Brompton Hospital say they propose to develop.

  • There is nothing in the Core Strategy which supports these proposals;

  • the proposals would be in conflict with the London Plan Policies 2.1, 3.16, and 3.17;

  • the proposals would conflict with the Borough’s own Core Strategy Policy CK1 to “protect land and/or buildings where the current use is or last use was a social or community use for re-use for the same, similar or related use”;

  • the draft document misconstrues the wording of Core Strategy Policy CK1;

  • no evidence has been presented on the cost of building the proposed new hospital as opposed to accumulating funds for alleged longer-term plans for refurbishing the existing hospital; and

  • loss of housing through conversion of houses currently in flats into single-family houses.

The Society considers that:

  • Draft SPD is designed as a vehicle for redeveloping the Royal Brompton Hospital’s estate – not to promote London’s leading position in the health field: 

  • The Society is concerned about the success of all our hospitals and their contribution to maintaining London’s leading position as centre of excellence for medicine. The Society is concerned to see both the Royal Brompton Hospital build a new hospital and for the Royal Marsden Hospital expand – to secure the future of both hospitals as world leaders in their fields. This is recognised in the Borough’s Core Strategy in paragraph 13.3.10, which says:

The hospitals in the area, including The Royal Marsden and Royal Brompton Hospitals, will be supported as they provide both a local as well as a national and international health care function.”

The draft SPD fails to address this – it solely geared to maximising the value of the estate of the Royal Brompton and Harefield Trust, which may be an appropriate aim for the trustees of the Trust, but inappropriate for an SPD. The Royal Brompton have paid the Council over £200,000 to enable this SPD to be produced and were undoubtedly primarily informed about the Royal Brompton Hospital’s proposals by the Hospital and its planning consultants (DP9). It appears to have been written as a promotional document.

  • Conflict with the London Plan

London Plan Policy 2.1 seeks to promote London’s global role as a centre for world-class health facilities – this applies as much to the Royal Marsden as to the Royal Brompton. This would support the Borough trying to help both hospitals, not design an SPD to solely favour the Royal Brompton Hospital.  The Council should be seeking to retain and extend the global role of the Borough’s hospitals – in this case taking the opportunity to promote the Royal Brompton Hospital and the Royal Marsden Hospital by enabling both hospitals to expand to and maintaining key buildings in hospital use – in accord with the Council’s own policy (CK1).

London Plan Policies 3.16 and 3.17 require the Council to:

  • promote the continued role and enhancement of London as a national and international centre of medical excellence and specialised facilities (3.17F)

  • If the current use of a facility is no longer needed,  take reasonable steps to identify alternative community uses where the needs have been identified (3.16E)

  • Misconception about Policy CK1

The social and community use runs with the land and the policy is very clear that it relates specifically to the protection of land and/or buildings where the current  or last use was a social or community use, for re-use for the same, similar or related use. This means that, regardless of whether a large amount of additional additional hospital space is proposed on another site, the decision to be made for disposal of a site in hospital use is still subject to the sequential test with regard to the proposed change of use. It makes no difference that there could even be an increase in hospital floorspace elsewhere in the area, the issue is whether there is still an outstanding need for hospital space. In the case of the Fulham Wing, there is a strong need for space for the neighbouring Royal Marsden Hospital to expand. This means in terms of policy CK1 any proposal for change of use to housing must be resisted. The Fulham Wing would offer 10,500sqm of hospital space, immediately adjoining the existing hospital. Even if not needed by the Royal Brompton Hospital it is still needed for hospital use. 
Any suggestion of striking an area-wide balance – probably an invention of a planning consultant – demonstrates a misconception of the sequential approach to the disposal of health facilities and social or community in both the London Plan and the Royal Borough’s Core Strategy. There is no scope for “trade-offs” whilst there is still a major need for the Fulham Wing in its current use as a hospital. 

No information about the resources needed just to build the new hospital – rather than alleged longer-term projects
There is no information on the cost of building and fitting out a new 25,500sqm hospital to justify the scale of change of use to super-prime housing explored/proposed in the draft SPD. The Society considers that until the need for this scale of change is clearly demonstrated, the Council should not be “trading-off” an extremely clear sequential test policy which is in effect a presumption in favour of retaining hospital use on the Fulham Wing site.

  • Loss of housing through conversion of houses in Foulis Terrace into single-family houses:
The Society is concerned that the Council would be compromising its policy for retaining HMOs and even the diversity of size of units. Changing from an HMO housing hospital staff to private single-family houses would involve a considerable loss of housing units.
Implications for the Draft SPD:
Whilst the Society supports the development of a new hospital on the site of the Sydney Street campus, we are totally unconvinced that this requires the disposal and change of use of the Fulham Wing for which there is a clear and continuing need for it to remain in hospital use. 
Paragraph 1.7 of the draft SPD acknowledges that “to fund consolidation, the hospital would need to sell some buildings and redevelop other sites in its ownership.” 
The Society objects to the second sentence of para 1.7 as it seems to be not merely a factual statement but implying that the increase in total floorspace would result and that would offset any “losses”. If that were the intention, it suggests a misunderstanding of how Policy CK1 should work.
Para 1.11: This mentions the London Plan, but fails to mention the policies that relate to this development.
Para 1.13: The Society fundamentally objects to the statement that “the plan taken as a whole therefore clearly meets the aims of Core Strategy CK1” - this is a fundamental misreading of the policy which does not deal in trade-offs but requires the retention of the existing social or community use (a hospital) if there is a clear continuing need for the use – which there is in this case. The new hospital does not justify the change of use of the Fulham Wing as long as there is still a clear and continuing need for it to remain in hospital use.
Para 1.14: Policy CK1 is very clear – it specifically deals with the existing or last use of a building or site and the sequential test relates to the successor user of that building or site. The question of change of use to housing would only arise if the preceding tests had been exhausted. 
Para 1.15: The Society has not seen the Hospital’s viability report, but is concerned that the numbers being bandied around are far larger than the likely cost of a new 25,500sqm hospital. We understand that the Royal Brompton has suggested that more money may be needed to “refurbish” the existing hospital in Sydney Street in 10-15 years time. This is highly speculative and has been added to justify wider redevelopment than needed to enable the development of a new hospital. The Society objects to the apparent acceptance of the proposed direct conflict with CK1 with regard to the proposed change of use from hospital to housing of the Fulham Wing. 
The Society objects to paras 2.54-2.65 about the Fulham Wing which would appear to be promoting a departure from the Development Plan – changing policy through an SPD 
Finally, since these proposals seem to be promoting a departure from the development plan, these proposals to exempt these sites from the requirements of Policy CK1 these changes should be brought forward through a Development Plan Document where a departure from the plan could be debated properly. Attempting to override such a strong development plan policy through an SPD is unacceptable as well as premature. Such changes should be taken through an amendment to the Local Plan.
Yours sincerely

Michael Bach
Chairman: Planning Committee
Kensington Society

Saturday, 12 April 2014


K&C residents should consider,when deciding whether to vote for Cllr Caruana and her little flock of Lib Dems, what their 'holier than thou' leader, Nick Clegg, had to say about the 30 stone Liberal child sex abuser, Sir Cyril Smith.
 ‘a beacon for our party in the Seventies and Eighties’, who continued to be ‘an inspiration to the people of Rochdale’.,

Putative Lib Dem voters should remember that Clegg and David Steel lobbied hard for a knighthood for this evil monster. Read here DAILY MAIL
It's staggering that Cllr Caruana, who desperately attempted to extract  a 'Leader's Allowance' from Pooter, has not had the moral courage to condemn Smith for his crimes against children-some as young as eight.
The Lib Dems have a long and inglorious history of harbouring sexual perverts in its ranks:Smith was the 'beacon' of that hypocrisy of this dysfunctional party.

Friday, 11 April 2014


A couple of years ago the Dame tipped off the Sunday Times Insight Team about the extra mural, 'business' activities of London MEP, 'Doc, the Shrink' Charlie Tannock,
Those with long memories will remember that the Doc was, at one time, a Rotten Borough councillor.
Anyway, with the EU elections upcoming the Dame thought she might dwell on the Doc and the huge bunce he made in the fracking industry.
The Sunday Times published a major exposee on Doc Tannock, which filled him with fury....letters from heavyweight lawyers and threats to the Dame followed. 
He even reported the Sunday Times to the Press Complaints people and intimated his lawyers, Lewis Silkin, would be coming after the frail and aged Dame!

What did the PCC do? They told Tannock to (read here) FRACK OFF in a 'no uncertain terms' 14 page dismissal of his pathetic whining.
Here is the official Press Complaints REJECTION

Perhaps London voters should do the same and tell this odious man.... FRACK OFF 'DOC'

Thursday, 10 April 2014


 When residents come to vote in Stanley Ward they should bear in mind the views of the chairman expressed here in red. Reading Cllr Warricks' views on planning it comes as no surprise residents feel downtrodden. 
It took courageous young Cllr Mosley to break ranks and side with residents.

Cllr Warrick, has form for lack of interest in those he represents: it's pompously articulated in his response to this resident.
Worse still, is the fact that Conservative members of the Committee are told, pre the meeting, how they should vote!
Cllr Warrick is telling us that the Planning Committee jumps when told to by officers! 

Or, as one friend of the Dame commented....

...so, 1, we are told to obey officers ADVICE (nb, advice is not the same as instruction).
2, I find it quite extraordinary that Warrick believes we don't make Council policy. Who does then?

'Members are expected to take advice from officers and to follow the law.

 We take account of Council policy, but we do not make that policy.'

Dear Mr xxxxx,  

Thank you for your email addressed to members of the RBKC planning committees which I chair.
It is worth pointing out that the job of these committees is to
consider applications which come before them.

Members are expected to take advice from officers and to follow the law.
We take account of Council policy, but we do not make that policy.

When councillors sit on either committee they act in
that special context which used to be described as
quasi-judicial.   It will often be the case that
members agree with some of the points you make. They may
regret the effects of Planning Law, and they may hope that the Council’s submission to the Inspectorate will succeed,
but if they believe that a basement application is compliant
with law and policy it will be granted. You write that
members and officers are frightened of applying Council
policies in case applicants appeal and the Council is
ordered to pay costs. Perhaps you meant to write
“frightened of not applying”, because we do apply our
policies.  You exhort us to be brave and
refuse applications whether or not they are compliant. None
of us would do that; it would lead to uncertainty, loss of
reputation and influence in the planning world, and would as
well be pointless. These wealthy buyers you refer to would
appeal or judicially review us and they would
succeed.  By all means draw attention to the
consequences of existing law and policy, and to weaknesses
and improvements as you see them. But you may also consider
supporting this Council when it seeks change in law and
policy to improve the local planning regime – and, as in
recent months, to resist Central Government proposals to
change the planning regime in ways which would weaken powers of this authority.   

I have added Mr Bore and Mr Stallwood to the cc. list and they will ensure your comments in this letter are included as objections to the two applications at its head. I also copy to Cllr Coleridge the relevant Cabinet member.  
Yours sincerely,      
Cllr Paul Warrick