IT''S TONIGHT
A. Witness writes to the Dame about the meeting tonight and This is North Kensington gives more background HERE
The Communications Dept costs a million a year....to forget to publicise this event would get a consultancy fired. The council could reduce the costs of comms substantially by using a consultancy or sharing with other councils
Shortly before COVID-19, an RBKC Culture officer appeared. Efforts were made to advise her on local culture. A draft Culture Report duly appeared. It lacked an explanation of culture. No more was heard of it. The officer remains in post.
Consultants appeared and consulted; discovering that almost everyone loves Portobello Market. It must be supported and otherwise left alone. The consultants disappeared.
Meanwhile; one summer Saturday, a self-professed estate agent emerged from the market Gin Palace to tell a market trader: that he’d soon be gone. There was an agreement with RBKC to put restaurant and pub tables & chairs on the street. The trader said it wouldn’t happen because he was a legally protected, licensed, Street Trader. (See the London Local Authorities Act 1990 etc.). The estate agent fled and the trader advised his colleagues.
No one was surprised. For years, local commercial property owners have met to plot higher rental incomes from ridding Portobello of street trading. A 1.5km long string of restaurants & bars is the answer. Like the Highland Clearances, the poor will be evicted; so the already wealthy will become richer. This appeals to RBKC.
In the summer of 2022, FTHN reported that: under the auspices of Cllr Faulks, a rash of table & chairs licence applications appeared; each on a market pitch. Each met strong objections; each was ultimately rejected. Cllr Faulks disappeared.
Then for a year, Cllr Kemahli trooped around Portobello trying to find ways of improving the Market into oblivion. He gave up.
In late January 2023, a resident spotted notices of 3 Market public meetings in a single day - on RBKC’s website. RBKC had forgotten to inform the public of the meetings. FTHN reported the details. Within days, 300+ people appeared. At the morning meeting an officer declared the ‘improvements were imminent. After lunch, the traders rejected the plan. By the evening, Cllr Rendell rambled. Then Cllr Kemahli rowed back at speed. Nothing would happen without public consultation.
Meanwhile, a few more applications for tables & chairs licences in the market appeared. One was even granted.
Hence a far more extensive & expensive public consultation. Guess what? Residents; business owners and market traders all agree that the Market must stay! Just renew the fabric and support it. A citizens' Oversight Panel was created - worth £200 per attendee. In practice, members were excluded from all but a a couple of hours from each group meeting. Consequently there was no oversight!
Recently, Cllr Kim Taylor Smith -Deputy RBKC Leader and ‘fixer,' took over. He was reminded that RBKC cannot legally, unilaterally double traders’ rent. Having failed to price the traders out, an alternative is being considered. The consultation findings will be ‘reviewed' by RBKC till May. During that period, the so-called Oversight Panel will not see them! So is it possible that the consultation results will be amended to suit RBKC’s agenda? At a traders’ meeting last week, KTS announced RBKC's intention to ‘investigate' one of the primary results of the unpublished consultation. The road design is the issue. Significant change is likely to benefit restaurants & bars. That’s RBKC public consultation. That’s the plan and it won’t work!
This final point will sound familiar. On Friday, the Market Office invited locals to the Market Streets Action Group, on Tues. 19th March. Attendees will have had just 1 working day’s notice of the last RBKC meeting before election ‘purdah’. Purdah will prevent any discussion of the future of the Market till 2nd May; allowing RBKC 6 weeks to manipulate the public consultation results. As ever, the aim is the destruction of the Market for private profit!
Further updates to follow. In the meantime, perhaps the Dame’s many readers will be kind enough to pass on their views on the above to their respective Councillors.
Yours faithfully
A. Witness