Comments

DAMESATHOME@YAHOO.CO.UK
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, 26 April 2017

RUBBISH SITE DEFERRED

My Dearest Dame(if I might be so familiar)

Residents packed out a Town Hall Planning Meeting, leaving no standing room as they came to voice their protest at the high-handed way RBKC plans to plonk a rubbish depot on their common space, without even consulting them.
But, for once, all the tricks in the book didn't stop Councillors such as Cllr. Thompson questioning planning officer Richard McBride about residents' concerns, such as noise, lack of consultation etc. RBKC had played the old trick of 'burying' bad news, by sending an email notification of the planning meeting on Good Friday, leaving residents five working days in which to marshall protests.
Now, thanks to Councillors voting to defer the application, residents will find RBKC will have to give more notice, and as one of the Councillors pointed out, there had been a massive amount of protests, all with different concerns.  It was obvious that this was not an orchestrated protest, but genuine residents expressing concerns - from safety of children, noise, loss of amenity up to those who have purchased their flats, and now find the value has gone down by £100k.  
Now one wonders what will happen to Council funds; Cllr. Coleridge, when questioned by a resident who couldn't believe he and fellow Councills Weale and Paget Brown could allow such a development without informing residents, Coleridge had excused their conduct by saying the £30 million they would get by selling the depot was sorely needed, as "the Council is short of funds".
As disabled residents struggled out to the street to find their transport, they had to pass one of the Council's gleaming Bentleys.  That can park right outside - disabled residents have to walk

Respectfully

The Residents

14 comments:

  1. Planning Director Graham Stallwood needs to have his knuckles rapped. Hard. The Leader needs to make it clear that playing with residents is off limits. No more working the system by sending out short term notices on Good Friday in a pathetic attempt to bounce public opinion. And no more Cllr Wealies ("We agreed to listen but not to hear")

    And silly Cllr Tim Coleridge also needs to be slapped down. "We need the money" he bleats. Rubbish. The Council has been overtaxing for years and has £300 million in the bank. It would be twice this amount if fripperies like Holland Park Opera and flying saucers were abandoned.

    Shape up, Piggy!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is there a date for the deferred hearing? We will make sure that there is standing room only!

    ReplyDelete
  3. OK - anon 09:49 - let us know if you can and those interested should marshal the mob to make sure of this possibility....

    ReplyDelete
  4. What about the rats - the 4 legged kind - that a waste depot on their doorstep will introduce into the flats? RBKC has long treated council flat tenants as less than human.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Garbagegate Fairy27 April 2017 at 13:22

    To explain RBKC's attitude to residents: RBKC tends to act as a wholly owned subsidiary of its waste contractors. It's contracted for 16 years to spend £25 million a year on waste: twice the UK norm per household. RBKC's waste practices are comprehensively unlawful.

    While 85% of domestic waste can be recycled, landfill is taxed at £86 per tonne. Across the UK recycling firms pay councils for deliveries, while under its contract, RBKC has to pay for this service. RBKC tries to limit its bills by rationing recycling bags. This in turn explains RBKC's appalling recycling rate.

    Why did RBKC sign such grossly disadvantageous waste contracts? The answer lies deep in supposedly competitive, public tendering processes. Garbagegate is a scandal across London.

    For a decade RBKC has failed to explain its waste costs. It has spent £1 million+ of residents' funds trying to escape the issue. Residents objected to RBKC's 2015/16 accounts over it. RBKC's paid district auditor's sole response was to threaten the objectors with criminal prosecution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dame, This has been pointed out before many times. What is the relationship between the council and waste managements?

      Delete
  6. The Garbagegate Fairy27 April 2017 at 19:06

    The Dame doesn't know. The Garbagegate Fairy knows and is glad you asked.
    For 20 years RBKC's waste management has been a multi-million pound a year racket. It's so huge and deep-rooted, that rather than go to the proper authorities to address the matter, RBKC has spent years trying to keep it going.

    RBKC's real problem is that Garbagegate is not restricted to K & C. It's to be found all over central London; possibly across the entire city. A group of very large companies tender against each other for London's municipal waste contracts. However, they do not compete with one other, but take turns to provide the "winning" tender in each borough. So each London borough ends up with a waste contract costing residents twice what it should. It's all seriously criminal of course. In fact there's a word for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GF send it to newsinvestigations@bbc.co.uk they're looking for stories

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36173907

      Delete
  7. Makes us wonder how mach has passed from the contractors to the RBKC waste management dept? Should be pretty rich by now - perhaps already retired to Costa del Watneys, perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Garbagegate Fairy27 April 2017 at 21:55

    The RBKC officer responsible for the most recent 16 year contract was punished with early retirement and a £250,000 golden handshake.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Decision Title: Waste Collection Agreement on the Markets Street Trading Account Decision Number: 05036/17/T/AB Decision Rating: ♦♦ Decision Details: The report recommends approval of the terms of the waste collection recalculation settlement agreement with the Portobello and Golborne Markets Committee (PGMC). The Council will recalculate traders' payments for the last financial year, repaying £200,000, and repay traders £50,000 on an annual basis. A number of other items will be provided in a non-cashable format.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What o, what!? Is that why Earls Court residents have paladin bins in their roads? To make money for private waste management companies?

      This is not making me want to vote conservative!

      Delete
  10. Dame, are the Planning department going to release their decision on the 8th June whilst everyone is concentrating on the GE?

    ReplyDelete
  11. In response to Anon 8.20, the Decision quoted is RBKC's second attempt to sweep this scandal under the carpet. A few years ago, amid much publicity, RBKC "gave" the street traders £728,000 of residents' cash, supposedly for an error. This, plus the current £200,000 plus the retiring officer's £250,000 golden handshake etc, begins to look like serious money. Residents' money. However, the street traders' account is very small: only about £1 million pa. But it is ring-fenced; rendering the extent of overcharging visible. Over the last 20 years the total overcharge is thought to be £5 or £6 million. The real issue is the potential overcharging of the residents' £25 million a year waste account, in a borough with well over 1,000 empty homes.

    Referring to Anon 16.16, The GF cannot comment on paladins in Earls Court. She has not fluttered past to inspect them. However, it is possible to say that under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 s.34, all loose waste is unlawful.

    ReplyDelete

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.