A BANKER'S VIEW OF OPERA HOLLAND PARK!

A POMPOUS BANKER

This comment from ex Cllr Fairhead is interesting....he still believes his other, ex councillor colleague, Andrew Lamont is a councillor!

Can Fairhead be so out of touch he had not heard 'Cllr' Lamont had been convicted of the possession of serious child pornography and booted off the Rotten Borough?

In this email Fairhead tells us planning decisions should not be reflective of aesthetics-merely of money.

Fairhead has a skewed idea about 'investment'.

The 'community'....meaning you and I, had little say in whether we wanted millions of pounds spent on a Cockell 'folie de grandeur'. But then ex cllr Fairhead doubtless felt the 'community was also 'pleased' to see £27 million spent on Exhibitionist Rd and  a further million of a party to 'celebrate' it!

I suppose he thought the £1million loss making Chelsea Care was a cracking good 'investment' too! He was in on that decision, after all.

We should not forget that Fairhead was a cabinet member for 'purse strings' when Pooter went off on his expensive jaunts to the States. Did he join the chorus demanding Pooter pay back the money for his mystery guest dinner? Of course not.

Opera Holland Park has not just cost us all millions: it could now cost us the Park itself.
We should be very wary....maybe Mr Fairhead is angling to put one of his 'waste disposal facilities' in our Park!

And another thing....is the Dame's memory failing her or is not  David Potter an ex banker.....what a coincidence that they both agree with each other!

> Message Received: Dec 31 2012, 12:57 AM

> From: "Thomas Fairhead" 

> To: "'David Potter'" , "'Fergus Kinmonth'" 

> Cc: Cllr.Lindsay@rbkc.gov.uk, Cllr.Lamont@rbkc.gov.uk, Cllr.Lightfoot@rbkc.gov.uk, Cllr.Feilding-Mellen@rbkc.gov.uk, Cllr.Collinson@rbkc.gov.uk, Cllr.Buckmaster@rbkc.gov.uk, Cllr.Mills@rbkc.gov.uk, Cllr.Blakeman@rbkc.gov.uk

> Subject: RE: Holland Pk Opera canopy proposal. Action

> 

>

Dear All

I entirely agree with Mr Potter.  Opera Holland Park has reached an artistic standard of which the Friends – and all the rest of us – are entitled to be proud.  It is not something to be merely tolerated and limited in the interests of “conservation” (which are in this case just demands for someone else’s subsidy).  As we all know, far from being the “focal point of the Park”, the terrace is closed when the Opera is not in season.  And the funds provided by the Council for the conservation of the Holland House frontage were provided in the explicit context of the Opera’s cultural importance and the investment the community has made in its success; in no way do they justify opposing this application.

We all hope this application is granted as soon as possible.

Best regards

Tom Fairhead

From: David Potter [mailto:david@davidpotter.org] 

> Sent: 30 December 2012 22:13

> To: 'Fergus Kinmonth'

> Cc: Cllr.Lindsay@rbkc.gov.uk; Cllr.Lamont@rbkc.gov.uk; Cllr.Lightfoot@rbkc.gov.uk; Cllr.Feilding-Mellen@rbkc.gov.uk; fairhead@gent-fairhead.demon.co.uk; Cllr.Collinson@rbkc.gov.uk; Cllr.Buckmaster@rbkc.gov.uk; Cllr.Mills@rbkc.gov.uk; Cllr.Blakeman@rbkc.gov.uk

> Subject: RE: Holland Pk Opera canopy proposal. Action

Dear Fergus

Frankly I disagree with you. The Holland Park Opera seems to me to bring culture to a wider audience. Everything has plusses and minusses (like wind farms). If it helps the Opera to continue at less drain to public and private costs then I would say "so much the better". I do not agree with the view that "CONSERVATION" means nothing ever changes, no trees get cut down and replanted, no vista is ever changed (how were the great vistas of London or Northumberland changed, develped or improved?). I am sorry but this approach is "advanced nimbyism" and smacks of the worst type of conservation = either no change or neglect.

I will be interested to hear other views

Happy New Year

David