with thanks to thisisnorthkensington.wordpress.com

Comments

DAMESATHOME@GMAIL.COM
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.

Friday 3 July 2020

THE DAME HAS ERRED

The Dame does make mistakes and when she does she is abject in her apologies. Sue Harris is head suit for Environment and Communities-not planning. 
This Sue was the idiot who gave the green light for the Carrabino piano legal fiasco. You can read about that waste HERE



To the left in every way in every way is Sue Foster who now runs RBKC planning. 




Sue has done well out of local government picking a close to £100k payoff funded by the poor bloody ratepayers of Lambeth.

We K&C folk must hope we don't get turned over!

Sue must be a bit overwhelmed having to deal with highly educated and articulate Kensington folk.
Sue, coming from Hackney and Lambeth is probably used to getting her own way: she might find life not so easy doing battle with residents living near Avon House.

Foster seems to think she can just ignore residents and steamroller the planning committee into granting permission for mysteriously rich Swiss-based 'Bimbo' Hart's disgusting redevelopment of Avon House in Allen St. 
To catch up readers to need to read THIS
But then why would Sue care? 
Like Bimbo she doesn't live in the Borough. Here' s what a resident had to say about Foster's ludicrous statement supporting Bimbo.





Dear Dame,

I am writing to you as a resident of Kensington who lives adjacent to Avon House, Allen Street. I read with great interest your 'expose' on Harry Bimbo Hart, a connected financial investor who is behind the redevelopment into an “ultra-luxury” care home. 

The Director of Planning has just released an addendum to their original report recommending the planning committee approve the proposal. Some of the statements in the report, however, are so very clearly biased that I feel the Director of Planning should be ashamed of herself. For reasons known only to herself she is deliberately misleading elected councillors.

For instance, 16 Allen Street have had their own surveyor assess the light impact which results in reduction in daylight distribution of 54.1% (down from 55.9% before the amendment of this current design). This is very significant and much more than the 20% BRE target value. 
Yet  her report then says “ Despite this conclusion from the neighbour's consultant, it is clear that the revised scheme has helped to reduce the impact upon 16 Allen Street in terms of loss of light. Nonetheless this impact would not so significant as to result in a harmful impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of this property.”

It is wholly irrelevant if the revised scheme has “helped reduce the impact” when that impact is a very tiny improvement from 55.9% light reduction to 54.1%. 
How can a light reduction of this magnitude not be harmful? More than half the light in that room is gone. 
This is truly disingenuous...actually, it is a lie from a highly paid Council officer.

RBKC gave permission for a double basement for purposes of a neurological care centre. 
Yet now we read “The proposal includes two levels of basement accommodation, as established by an extant 2016 permission and in order for the care home to function successfully” 
So do care homes without a second basement not function successfully? 
Sue Foster must think the Planning Committee are idiotic to accept such a dimwitted claim!
This exception was for a specific medical purpose yet this purpose no longer exists. 

How RBKC can endorse this development when there are 127 objections to date with 20 support statements is truly astonishing especially when this care home will be an “ultra-luxury” care home. 

We all want the site to be used to good purpose and a thoughtfully designed care home to be operational. Yet an “ultra-luxury” care home developed by financial investor Melford Capital will not likely generate the benefit to our community which we all seek. I would strongly encourage RBKC planning to revisit their endorsement, consider their statement that a 50%+ daylight reduction is not harmful and respond to residents' emails. 
In other words, RBKC planning officers should do the job taxpayers pay them to do.

As per your previous article on this matter I now truly wonder what “pull” Harry “Bimbo” Hart has in RBKC and their planning department.

AN ALLEN ST  RESIDENT







43 comments:

  1. I see the Planning Dept have found a lone local anonymous GP to support the application. Probably thinks he will get some work!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Where are the ward councillors? Come Cllr Addenbroke you and your husband earn enough in allownaces. Let's have some support for us residents.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This application is just plain corrupt! double basement for an ultra luxury care home? Why is there no mention of KYN, the ultra-luxury care home operator in the report?
    No hard to surrounding buildings yet a 50% light reduction. What is harm to RBKC? Losing all light?
    I read through the report, the objections and support statements today.
    Support is mostly from people who want it redeveloped as the existing site is ugly. That is fair. But how will ie be redeveloped is the question. Not to the benefit of a financial investor whilst making the life of Kensington resident a misery.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The planning department’s continued support for this scheme is absolutely outrageous. One just needs to read the Kensington Society’s objection to understand all the issues here, let alone who will benefit from this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dizzy never had an ounce of political judgement in her tiny birdbrain. Appointing a person from Waste Management (even if Harris is a friend of quirky Quirk) to be Director of Planning is not the cleverest of moves.

      As we know, perception is everything in politics. For weeks, the press has been telling us about the inside track which vile Richard Desmond has with top Tory politicians - Johnson and his accident prone Jennrick. Desmond ran rings around Jennrick and got his £ billion development scheme in the docklands approved against all professional advice. Of course, Desmond is a major Tory Party donor. Which has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the approval.

      This is not the time for Hornton Street to be dishing out favours to the sprog of Thatchers insider, Mr Hart. Young Hart is an offshore property spiv with a site in prime Kensington looking for a building. First a hospital, then a research center, now a care home. Whatever makes most money at the moment. He just bungs in a different building design.

      The scheme has been canned by the Kensington Society. Councillors and Officers should take note. Even before the experts get down to business, Planning Director Harris is recommending DOUBLE basements, cutting down mature trees, and three years of traffic disruption for residents without any co ordination with another basement development next door at 47 Abingdon Villas. What planet is the woman living on?

      Delete
  5. Chelsea Resident3 July 2020 at 21:41

    I hope RBKC are reading this. You should be ashamed.
    Councillors do your job and look into this and do the right thing! This proposal is simply flawed from A to Z.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I suspect that through his father, David Hart, Bimbo has some powerful friends in high Borough places. There's a stench of something corrupt here in that very British way

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fly On The Wall3 July 2020 at 22:13

      Dizzy loves to tango with movers and shakers. It really gets the Sloanes pulsating

      Delete
  7. It's astonishing that Sue Harris got the job. Her qualifications are inappropriate for the job. Is she a mate of Doctor Quirk?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As per linked in she has an Msc in Environmental Deciaionmaking from the University of Roehampton. Must be that. Lol

      Delete
    2. Roehampton??? A university!!!!!

      Hornton Street is really scraping the barrel. For £120k/year they should be able to find a graduate from a real university. Must be some nepotism at work here

      Delete
    3. 120k? What for? What expertise does she have? She can't even tell that this application is BS. Sycophants everywhere.

      Delete
    4. Roehampton has a large Asda. Not sure about a university.

      Delete
  8. Cascade PR are a bunch of liars and have deliberately misled residents

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Couldn't agree more. What they pulled is beyond belief. Run a consultation on one design then change it completely and claim support. Wish PR was regulated

      Delete
  9. The Dame seems to have got very aggressive towards the Council just lately

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With good reason if you ask me.

      Delete
  10. I walk past Avon House quite often. Very narrow site and a number of trees there too. Will they be removed?

    ReplyDelete
  11. They work for us3 July 2020 at 22:03

    What's the point of a public consultation if RBKC don't listen. What do they actually listen to or rather to whom?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Public consultations are sops to residents. Rather like elections in North Korea

      Delete
    2. So let's get this straight.
      A high end care home by an unproven operator owned by a shady financial investor. And for this the council are disregarding and giving exemptions to RBKC policy and the London Plan. Why? On what basis? On balance this is detrimental to the community.

      Delete
    3. Its all a game. Job creation programmes for Officers and consultants to wear down residents. Paid for out of Council Tax

      Delete
    4. I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

      "Consultation is not negotiation"

      Delete
  12. I understand they will be-despite being in a Conservation Area

    ReplyDelete
  13. Call me a snooze. I just spent an hour going through the report and the objections and support statements. The report does not do the objections justice as there are many more areas and number of objections. The report implies a balance between support and objections. This is not so.

    ReplyDelete
  14. why does the mentioned operator KYN not have a website and why does the RBKC report not mention that this will be an ultra luxury development?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Should be BRKC. Banana Republic of Kensington and Chelsea. Anything goes so long as the price is right.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I saw that one of the objections was from law firm Lewis Silkin. I dealt with them before on an employment law matter. Good firm. They will put some pressure I suspect as there may be a few areas that can be challenged here.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Isn't this close to the odeon redevelopment on the high street? Would be two planning screw ups in close proximity.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm from an emerging market. I didn't expect the UK to be just like home. Especially the borough I love in.

    Quite a few of my neighbours are unhappy with Council services and their arrogance. I personally don't trust them either. With all the tax we pay I do expect much much better.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Planning. A total shambles. I will read through the application docs tomorrow. I'm curious but if the Kensington Society expressly objects then there is something not right.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A SENIOR EX OFFICER OF RBKC4 July 2020 at 07:39

    The reality is that Sue Harris lacks the qualifications or expertise to do this job. It is not her fault: it is the fault of the equally inexperienced leader, Cllr Campbell who allowed her appointment as interim director.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A fish rots from its head down

      Delete
  21. Why is the council so keen to get this through despite the all these objections including from the church next to it, ESSA, the Kensington Society etc?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Concerned resident, former Tory voter4 July 2020 at 08:06

    If Sue Harris supports even this application and recommends it goes ahead is there anything she won't support? Especially where exemptions were given contrary to policy for a specific purpose and while thaf purpose is no longer part of the plan yet the exemption continues to exist without reason. This is simple enough to understand that even Sue Harris should say hold on. This isn't right.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I live on Abingdon Villas and this affects me directly. This is a terrible proposal. Why won't town hall listen? Why don't they represent us ordinary residents? I was fully supportive of the previous plan with the different architect. I went to the public consultation they ran and thought that was it. This completely new plan is not acceptable. Then we learn from the objections this is because some hedge fund guy wants to make this a super luxury facility with far more rooms compared to before. A cate home without outdoor space saddens me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As someone commented before this will be an end of life facility. There is one support statement which I thought interesting. It is from Care England. That is until I realised it represents care home operators and is lobbying for them.

      Delete
  24. Any property owner take note. If you'd like an exception for a double basement here bis how to do it. Say this will be for something beneficial to the community. Maybe a shelter or storage for covid19 related PPE and then just turn it into what you like. A gym or a pool and it seems RBKC planning will not challenge that exception. For thr successful running of your house you may need a double basement.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I hope the lives of all those lost at Grenfell will not be in vain and we get real change to our borough.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Awful proposals yet the planning people recommend it. I don’t understand. Who put them in charge.

    ReplyDelete
  27. RBKC Planning Incompetence4 July 2020 at 22:15

    So on the Avon House planning issues I just noticed that they extended the consultation to 7 July but then publish their addendum on the first of July. This makes no sense. Wait until the consultation period you YOURSELF set is finished and THEN publish the addendum taking into account ALL comments submitted. Or is it that you knew that you were going to recommend approval of the application in ADVANCE? Is this INCOMPETENCE, CORRUPTION or BOTH?

    ReplyDelete
  28. About Sue Foster while at Lambeth....new borough same old tricks

    Sue Foster’s Hackney Mafia forcing the eviction of Lambeth residents

    Sue Foster, ‘place shaper’ extraordinaire, steamed through Hackney pushing out the locals and making space for the developers. At the moment she’s in Lambeth and it’s a re-run of her Hackney gentrification process.

    She’s recently brought in Simon Matthews, ex-hackney councilor and dodgy hatchet man. Try and negotiate buying your home and you have to deal with Foster & Matthews concocting inflated prices out of thin air, the borough valuers don’t get a look in. The situation is mind bogglingly filthy.

    Lambeth’s councilors are generally too gutless to stand up against this onslaught, and if they do try and make a stand then they get deselected… witness Helen O’Malley’s disgusting treatment at the hands of the Clapham Town Labour Party.

    They seem to want to keep Lambeth residents in check, ghettoise the low waged, free up street properties for developers, landlords and speculators, and they want everyone to toe some invisible line.

    Lib Peck, pull yourself together.

    What is Sue Foster’s agenda? What was she asked to do? Who asked her to do it?

    What line does Clapham Town Labour Party, toe?

    Bottom line… where is the money going?

    Say goodbye to democracy, or protest against the betrayal of ordinary Lambeth residents by a Lambeth council that’s slavishly enthralled to some ‘behind-the-scenes’ corporate interests.


    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.