Cllr Faulks, one of the Hillgate Village Ward Councillors, has written to the Council objecting to the proposed Newcombe House development.
A good start for the new Councillor but she needs to sharpen her act.
Furious residents approached Cllr Faulks and asked her to help them represent their views to the Planning Department about the proposed skyscraper for Nottinghill Gate.
Her letter starts well. The first paragraph is all about her residents and their concerns. Then she goes on to list six major objections and why they should be taken seriously.
So far, so good.
Then the letter starts to collapse. “Many aspects of the development that I commend” she chirrups.
Then she sells out completely. “I commend the developers for their efforts to involve and listen. Exemplary”
The developers seem to have listened in the tradition of Cllr Weale. “We agreed to listen but not to hear”.
Cllr Faulks cannot have it both ways.
Residents have just put in a petition with 750 signatures to the Council objecting to the plans.
How could these resident views have been missed by the “exemplary consultation?”
Cllr Faulks needs to learn that she cannot be all things to all men when she joins a campaign. When she represents residents she has to represent their interests. She should not maintain an eye over her shoulder.....
Yours respectfully etc
xxxxxx
Doesn't Faulks also have an interest in property search?
ReplyDeleteCllr Faulks has her own Property Development company. "Catherine Faulks, Property Consultant. Relax while I work for you" the website blurb says. She needs to be careful because, like Cllr Fielding-Mellen, there is a clear conflict of interest. She does not want to upset her development mates in case they can do her a favour one day.
ReplyDeleteThis is the second time I have been disturbed by representations from Cllr Faulks and her hidden property interests. She made some very strange submissions as part of the Brompton Hospital property speculation.
Foxy Faulks is what they called her in Norland Ward before she was offloaded to Campden Ward. Fellow Ward Cllr Julie Mills is not a fan.
DeleteCllr Ahern and Cllr Freeman are not fans either
DeleteLady Faulks is a very nice gal. Her husband is a Lord
DeleteThe Planning Department is at it again. The Hillgate Residents have just submitted a detailed petition of objections to the proposed sky scraper. 750 objections to be precise. The Planning Department has included this in the website as "general comment". Furious Chairman John Learmonth has written to Officers asking what on earth they think they are doing. For a starter, he points out that objections from 83 Campden Hill Tower, 4c Pembridge Gardens and 36 Royal Crescent Mews are listed as support!
ReplyDeleteThe blatant manipulation by K&C planning takes ones breath away. Officers recently tried to recommend a basement in Abingdon Villas for retrospective approval which had been overbuilt by 1.6 meters. Cllr Mackover visited with his tape measure and sent the Officers packing.
Cllr Coleridge, it is time to sort your department out.
Why is Cllr Ahern, another Campden Ward councillor, not visible in this fight? He knows the ropes. He thinks planning is a shambles and represents the interests of the developers. He has said so many times. Now he needs to act.
ReplyDeletePaddy is tired. He gave up long ago. He just moved house and is concentrating on the next phase of his life
DeleteMrs. Ahern also owns a property finding company. Will Pascall is a Royal Borough landlord. The Council paid £26 million last year for rents to private landlords in and out of the borough. Pascall is a member of the Housing Committee. He has never declared that interest yet that committee overseas the payment of rents to private landlords.
ReplyDeleteFaulk's actions are nothing but a stunt....
ReplyDeleteAll who claim that the developers haven't listened have obviously not followed this three year project. There have been two public exhibitions and numerous meetings with the the local residents' associations. The first proposed tower was much, much higher and the public benefit offers were much less interesting.
ReplyDeleteTom, developing our locality should not be a game of monopoly. "Start high (eg huge tower, no local contribution) and then come down in height and up the contribution" to see what you can get out of it. Society and culture takes generations to develop and it needs to be preserved. Developers who want to do "exciting things" should go and find a green field site. But no - they want to come and crap in areas of outstanding attractiveness because they can sell for £6000/sq foot and make £2000/sq foot profit.
DeleteAs for the consultations, I attended them all. The first was put on in one of the developers buildings (made available gratis to the Council), it was fronted (ie sold) by Officers using materials and models provided by the developers. A joke. The other "consultations" were fronted by expensive PR staff telling their stories to bemused passers by. I am surprised they were not handing out M&S well .