send the Dame your information, discretion assured.
Comments are welcome but do not necessarily reflect the view of the Dame.
Offensive/inappropriate comments will be deleted and the poster banned.

Wednesday, 16 March 2016


This email popped into the Dame's Faberge style inbox and makes interesting reading.
To misplace one objection is acceptable: to misplace so many is unforgivable; especially when this application is so controversial having attracted over 700 objections.

Please, Miss Shearing, do sort this out promptly and ensure the Committee is fully aware of the level of concern.

Dear Ms Shearing,
Re mislabelling of Public Comments and thus under-representation of Objections to this application on the RBKC website.
I am writing to you on behalf of the Hillgate Village Residents’ Association in advance of tomorrow’s planning committee meeting to ask why many recent Public Comments, listed on your website under documents for this planning application, are labelled as “General Comment” rather than “Objection”?  Specifically the following are objections and need to be labelled as such:
1.       15 Mar Rosemary Plant
2.       15 Mar 83 Campden Hill Towers – in fact miss-labelled as Support!
3.       15 Mar Dr Dan Plant
4.       15 Mar 14 Ladbroke Terrace
5.       15 Mar Aude Grasset
6.       15 Mar Gilvray Peck
7.       15 Mar 27 Powis Gardens
8.       15 Mar Mrs Millett
9.       14 Mar 30e Linden Gardens
10.   14 Mar 22 Acfold Road
11.   10 Mar 4a Pembridge Gardens – miss-labelled as Support!
12.   10 Mar 36 Royal Crescent Mews – miss-labelled as Support!
13.   9 Mar Chepstow Crescent
14.   7 Mar Desmond Higgins
15.   2 Mar 58 Westbourne Park Villas
I have not had time to go back beyond the beginning of this month.  We would thus request your urgent attention to label these properly as Objections and to check all “General Comment” so that public opinion is fully and properly represented.
Many thanks in advance for your assistance and we look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,


  1. This is pretty rich. Not only does the Planning Department despise residents, it seems to actively distort and misrepresent communications from residents.

    Why does the toad Cllr Paget-Brown tolerate this?

    1. Follower of Phelps16 March 2016 at 19:18

      You could not make it up. How much are the developers paying for this latest subterfuge?

  2. Who is Ms Shearing? She seems to be an expert at sheering the sheep

  3. Dear Ms Shearing
    There are too many objections on the website to our proposal for developing Nottinghill Gate. Hundreds of objections. This is not satisfactory on the day before the Planning Committee is due to meet and discuss our plan. Please remember that you and your colleagues have already given us the "green light" in our pre application meetings.

    It is essential that you should label some of these objections as "supporters". Councillors and journalists are lazy and do not read the text. They just note of "supporters" and "objectors".

    I would like to see a level of support of at least 50%. Unless this is demonstrated immediately, there will be no Marks and Spencers vouchers for you in the post.

    Yours in generosity,

    Friendly Developer.

  4. Where did the claim about "over 700 objections" come from? Anyone checking the council's website can see that as of this morning (17 March), there are 222 objections, 33 supports, and 33 general comments. Some are mislabelled, especially among the "general comment" ones, but that mislabelling goes both ways: some should be objections and some should in fact be supports.

  5. The online petition was around 720 so that's the source

  6. This Hillgate Village Residents' Association does not speak for residents in the area. I have lived there for over 30 years and not once been approached by this self-appointed group.

    1. Maybe it doesn't speak for you. And why should it approach you? Get off yer arse and get involved. Why does everybody expect things to be done for them?

  7. The whole ridiculous proposal was thrown out at the Planning Committee last night.

    MP Victoria Borwick understood the concerns of residents and helped them to articulate their objections in a way that was noticed by the Town Hall. The Town Hall listened.

    Are we starting to see the end of Cllr Weale and her scandalous philosophy of "we agreed to listen but not to hear"?

  8. The Town Hall needs to understand that residents of Kensington and Chelsea want our ancient Borough to be preserved. We do not want whole areas knocked down and replaced by profit generating schemes.


Comments are your responsibility. Anyone posting inappropriate comments shall have their comment removed and will be banned from posting in future. Your IP address may also be recorded and reported. Persistent abuse shall mean comments will be severely restricted in future.