Comments

DAMESATHOME@YAHOO.CO.UK
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.

Monday, 9 February 2015

MORE ON ROCKY FEILDING MELLEN AND VANDALISM


The Gardens In The Sky
A rather naïve resident of the Warwick Road estate told one of her local councillors she was submitting an application to English Heritage to list the Warwick Road Estate – to prevent its demolition.....

It got back to the Council who got in first and obtained a Certificate of Immunity from listing before they began the consultation with residents – to demolish the estate.
The emails below show the very spivvy goings on...

Rocky Feilding Mellen, behind this vandalism, has form for destroying things of beauty. 
He tried in Norfolk but the Norfolk bumpkins gave him a good kicking and saved the beautiful ancient woodlands Rocky planned to build 'socially conscious housing' on.


From: Sent: 09 February 2015 20:10
To: Rock Feilding-Mellen;
Cc:
Subject: RE: Pembroke Road Depot and Warwick Estate Site Review

Dear Mr Feilding-Mellen

Thank you for copying me in your reply to Mrxxxxxx

In contrast to what you said, by applying for a Certificate of Immunity, it is self-evident that RBKC at that point was already of the view that Option 1 and 2 are to be ruled out, bearing in mind that RBKC's application for the COI was made in July last year at the same time, if not before, when the LSH consultant's report was presented to the residents for consideration. In other words, by virtue of this application, RBKC's has ruled out the other options whilst asking the public to express their opinion. This whole consultation exercised is proved to be nothing but hypocritical, not to mention the other evidence to justify this conclusion. It is exactly due to RBKC's application for COI which shows the Council's prejudice against the other options recommended in your consultant's report. It was doubtlessly dishonest that the application for COI was not explained to the public at the beginning of the consultation.

I have written to you in my email dated 5 February 2015 asking the Council to re-consider putting back Option 2 into further detailed examination in light of this dishonest and insincere consultation conducted last year. I would appreciate if you could give a reply accordingly. 

I would sincerely request the Council to take this occasion to review this matter entirely and consider the various possible scenario under Option 2 in order to demonstrate that public opinion is being appropriately addressed.

I look forward to receiving your favourable reply.

Yours sincerely,


Subject: Re: Pembroke Road Depot and Warwick Estate Site Review
From: cllr.feilding-mellen@rbkc.com
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 17:34:50 +0000
CC:
To:

Dear Mr xxxxxx

Thank you for your e-mail, in which you objected to the Council applying last summer for a Certificate of Immunity for the Warwick Road Estate. I have also copied in other residents of WRE, who have emailed me on the same matter, as well as the ward Councillors.

Having carried out the options appraisal, which demonstrated that full redevelopment was a viable option, applying for a Certificate of Immunity (CoI) was a sensible precaution for the Council to take, in advance of any decision about the desirability and scale of any potential redevelopment. 

If we had waited for the discussion and decision by the Council’s Cabinet in October last year, and only then sought a CoI, an avoidable delay would have occurred - indeed, we are currently experiencing a pause while we all wait for English Heritage's decision, but this pause would have been months longer without the CoI application last July. Applying for a CoI did not prejudice the Cabinet's ability to choose options 1 or 2, had it thought either of those options best met the Council's overall objectives, whereas it might have, and may still, rule out the full redevelopment option, should English Heritage decide to list the building.

It is also important to note that such an application does not change the outcome of English Heritage’s deliberations: it simply brings it forward. If a building is to be listed, it is better for all concerned that we discover this promptly.

Kind regards,

Rock Feilding-Mellen. 

On 5 Feb 2015, at 15:43, XXX wrote:

Gentlemen, I am abroad at the moment but was very disturbed to receive this communication.
On the face of it, it would appear that " you have been found out".

On a number of occasions I have challenged the RBKC experience in evicting large groups of families and Cllr Feilding-Mellen's own experience in issues of this magnitude. On no occasion have my questions been answered, so I shall repeat them yet again. Please do not ignore this email as these are critical questions to be answered, let alone one of common courtesy.

The Broadwood end of the estate is in complete melt down with an implosion of services, RBKC appear to be acting in an opaque manner and our friends in the press are salivating over the prospect of running stories on "compassionate conservatism" (or not). 

I think you run a response protocol which states it takes 10 days to reply to questions - I would suggest it is in your interests to dramatically reduce that response time.


Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: 5 February 2015 12:14:21 WET
To:
Subject: Fwd: Pembroke Road Depot and Warwick Estate Site REview

                       Dear Councillors
My familly received a leaflet yesterday giving an update of the above subject.
The document sent to all the residents recognised that there is currently an application by the local resident to English Heritage. That is indeed a very important application, and  well regarded local and national specialists recognised the uniqueness of the Warwick Rd Estate in Kensington by expressing strong support for its listing.
Disappointingly, RBKC submitted the application last summer to English Heritage, in preparation to impose decesion on the demolition of Warwick Rd Estate. Residents studied the document and concluded that in the application submitted last summer RBKC  failed to recognise special architectural importance of  this 20th century architectural masterpiece, instead , RBKC strongly recommended to the  English Heritage to issue Certificate of Immunity from listing, in order to prevent future listing status and to speed up demolition and total redevelopment activities.
Your application has been prepared months in advance , and registration with EH is dated  2nd of July 2014., weeks and months before consultation on the future of the Warwick Rd Estate has been conducted and discussed with the residents and number of local Residents Associations. This is however not mentioned in the leaflet, which clearly left residents to believe,  last September , that final decision is not preconceived,  and that residents of RBKC had been properly consulted prior to final decision on the 30th of October.
I will not comment now on the leaflet  section proposing the compensation and ambitions for the future development as most likely we will not need to discuss it, following EH decision. I noted that you  intend to appoint consultants now, on the taxpayers expense,  not knowing what would be exactly your brief after the decision on the building listed status in 5-6 months time.
It is disapointing to learn that massive inconsistencies in communication are associated with this consultation,  and that council's dishonest approach in this matter demonstrated  intention to  mislead and disturb residents of RBKC.
I look forward to receiving your reply.
Yours sincerely, 




9 comments:

  1. RBKC's so-called public consultations are a sham, manipulated to achieve the desired result. In 2005/6 the original LDF public consultation highlighted residents' strong objection to the borough wide loss of public lavatories. There was also great concern for the future of Portobello market. RBKC immediately scrapped the consultation and replaced it with an opaque and tightly managed exercise. The resulting set of highly complex planning policies are routinely ignored by the planning department. Mission accomplished.

    An example of the quality of the replacement consultation is that at the final stage of a 2 or 3 year process, in North Kensington RBKC slipped the building of 2,600 so-called 'market price' apartments into the policy.These are our future slums.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Someone aptly described Rock as a 'supercilious and condescending half wit'
    Seems about right...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another example of just how complicated the planning process is. It is impossible for mere residents to understand the complexities, intricacies and escape routes for the experts who are hell bent on doing whatever they want. Without dedicated and caring Councillors, whose loyalty is to their residents, the voters are lost. Completely lost and defeated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is not enough to have "caring Councillors" - although this would be a good start. We also deserve intelligent Councillors. It is distressing when rubbish is elected to the Planning Committee. Cllr Mackover, Deputy Chairman of Planning, is a case in point. Anyone can attend the monthly Planning Meetings and witness his inarticulate and thick efforts to "puff". Made worse by laziness. FOI reports that Cllr Mackover, who has no planning qualifications, has not bothered to attend a single briefing meeting before committee, laid on by Officers. Nor has he bothered to attend Training Meetings. Residents can judge for themselves. Just turn up and see the weasel wasting time and space. A disgrace.

      Delete
  4. Then there's the endless stream of officers presenting certain developers' cases to the committee. The same officers will manipulate evidence to disoblige others. It's an open secret that the applications system is routinely manipulated to benefit officers' favourites; yet no one is ever sacked.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lots of smoking and sniffing going on in N Kensington. Especially the Bedales set.

    Creative?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Council has to go through its sham consultation process because otherwise it would be vulnerable to judicial reviews of its decisions. But it always makes up its mind first, presents two or three so-called options - but the only option it ever selects is the one it has already thought of, regardless of the comments received during the consultation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rocky should resign.

    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.