18 BRITTEN STREET: THE BATTLE LOST: THE DAME BERATED

The Dame has been severely reprimanded by a 'learned observer' for impertinently suggesting the Battle of Britten Street had been 'won'.

Where the owner stacks his loot-tax free!

No such thing, says the Dame's expert.

He explains why below.

Please read it. 

It devastates,with forensic precision, the position of the Planning Committee.
The Planning Committee should be thoroughly ashamed itself: it has let down the residents and played patsy to a secretive investor from the Marshall Islands whose sole interest is making money.





In other words, "There is no longer the artistic hub in the centre of the local community, over which Heinz presided as a hairdresser supreme, a painter, a friend and a passionate advocate of all things new, curious and stimulating, whose door was always open to residents and passers-by alike.,

“ Britten Street Lost”, not saved, should be the headline.   There is nothing for the RBK&C Planning Committee to be proud of. 

The damage was already done when the Planning Committee refused to save Heinz Schumi’s salon, and granted the Landlord planning permission.   Their decision was taken despite being faced by powerful legal objections from Nicholas Padfield QC, who was acting for Heinz, as well as by the objections in support of Heinz from a considerable number of longstanding and distinguished local residents, over which the Committee rode roughshod .

The Committee was reminded of their duty to act in accordance with the Government’s policy, which had been adopted by RBK&C, which was effectively to preserve the artistic, cultural and historic parts of Old Chelsea from the relentless progress of predatory developers, in their avaricious pursuit of commercial gain at the expense of Chelsea’s heritage.

Nevertheless, the Committee, advised by so-called lawyers, rejected the advice of Leading Counsel and over-rode the objections of local residents, and gave the absentee Landlord permission.  In so doing, they were complicit in the destruction of a part of Old Chelsea, and what was an artistic hub of the local community.  

There can be no rational justification for the Committee to have taken the perverse decision which they did.  Having been warned by Leading Counsel that the Landlord’s application was not a genuine reflection of what he in fact intended, but would, if granted, lead to further applications which would transform his original application beyond recognition, the Committee for whatever reason proceeded to take the Landlord’s application at face value and granted him permission.  

When the Landlord finally showed his true colours, the Committee eventually woke up, and denied him the ultimate prize which was the creation of yet another development.   What was the reason for the Committee’s change of mind, one is entitled to ask?   Surely we are entitled to know in the interests of transparency and open governance what led the Committee to grant the original application, which has cost Heinz Schumi his livelihood, and then by an about-turn, to refuse the Landlord’s further application by eventually giving effect to government and local policy.

This is all far too late in the day.   There is no longer a Heinz Schumi salon.   There is no longer the artistic hub in the centre of the local community, over which Heinz presided as a hairdresser supreme, a painter, a friend and a passionate advocate of all things new, curious and stimulating, whose door was always open to residents and passers-by alike.

No thanks are due to the Planning Committee for their delivery, too late of too little.   They should not enjoy the support of residents of 'Old Chelsea'.   

They will be marked for all time as the encouragers of development, including sub-basements, the destruction of old Chelsea, and the panderers to big business interests.   Let us hope that they will be satisfied with currying the favour of foreign parvenus to keep them in office.   One wonders where their interests lie.