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.

Saturday, 14 November 2015

AFFINITY SUTTON APPLY TO DESTROY SUTTON ESTATE



ABOUT TO GO

Demolition of existing estate buildings (Blocks A-K and N-O) and ancillary office and redevelopment to provide 343 residential units comprising 334 apartments and 9 mews houses within buildings of 4-6 storeys; provision of class D1 community floor space with associated cafe; class A1-A5 and B1 floor space. Creation of adopted public highway between Cale Street and Marlborough Street, vehicular access from Ixworth Place; creation of basement for car parking, cycle parking and storage and energy centre fuelled by CHP and works to adjacent pavement. (Major Application and EIA development))
 

What would the Dame do without her hyper alert readers?

Taking advantage of the 'noise' around Crossrail 2 Affinity Sutton thought they would quietly slip in their application to do a Marlborough Primary School on Sutton Estate. 
You can read about it HERE

Quietly assisting the thugs at Affinity Sutton the Council passed a motion in those lazy, hazy days of summer calling for the redevelopment of all low-density Council housing in Kensington and Chelsea. 
Fortunately few will be fooled by the Council’s call to build toy-town estates with pseudo-Victorian streets. They will see the motion for what it is: a call to socially engineer the few remaining corners of the borough not already invaded by foreign oligarchs hiding their criminally gained money, a call to further reduce the amount of land occupied by those on lower incomes, a call to enable mass profiteering by their property developer chums at the cost of those least able to defend themselves.

Central government for its part simply wishes to eliminate all Council housing in central London. The upcoming Housing Bill will force all Councils to sell off housing valued at more than £500k as soon as it becomes vacant. 
Large swathes of Council housing in the borough will be sold off to the highest bidder. Public property designed and built to serve a clearly defined social purpose will become the plaything of speculators and spivs.

The elderly and those with young families will be displaced. Those currently growing up in social housing will struggle to become productive and upstanding citizens having had their childhood blighted and their education disrupted by forced relocation. Worse still, having been ostracised to the edges of London, if not the edges of society, they will have nothing to aspire to.

Long-standing communities will be destroyed and the benefits of our mixed and vibrant borough will be lost forever.

Central London, and Chelsea in particular, is on the brink of becoming a mono-culture.

Is this what we want? All of the following are about to be/have been demolished:

The Balfour of Burleigh Estate
The Silchester Estate
Chesterton Square and Broadwood Terrace (Pembroke Road)
Marlborough Primary School
And the Sutton Estate … who will be next?
If you don’t like what you hear you need to urgently email Greg Hands


Greg Hands, MP for Fulham and Chelsea - handsg@parliament.uk or mail@greghands.com
Victoria Borwick, MP for Kensington - kensington@parliament.uk

122 comments:

  1. The absolute trail of destruction and arrogance of this Borough and its officers continue. It is a credit to the Dame that the electorate (for those
    Councillors who don't know who the electorate are ...it's the residents who voted for you to have salaries to care for OUR Borough) actually know what they are up to. Not to allow it to be destroyed. Word on the street is that in their tripe borough manoevoures they have lost a lot of money, maybe this is their way of recouping that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. None of us are safe. We are frightened to loose our homes and jobs.

      Delete
    2. We fear for our communities and our families.

      Delete
    3. The Dames Investigator15 November 2015 at 08:12

      2 bed 2 bath flats are priced at £2.3 million and the mews houses at £5.8 million in the business plan. High end finishes.

      Delete
    4. I smell corruption...

      Delete
  2. These vile Tories love money more than people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. selling our homes is not acceptable.

      Delete
  3. This is vintage behaviour from the Hornton Street planners. They know how to work the system. They are determined to find the cash for their holiday homes and the cash to renovate their UK homes. It is time to blow it all apart - journos need to look at the assets of a half a dozen officers and councillors and compare with declared earnings. And then ask some questions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This needs a Panorama investigation. They are beyond the pale.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Who does the Council think will run our transport systems, health and care services, schools, waste collection services, shops, restaurants, building sites, pubs, emergency services and everything else that is vital to a well-run community? The way of the future will be young immigrants from Europe and beyond, living here for a few years, in bed-sitter houses at the edge of London, hot-bedding and transported to and from their jobs in London in vans provided by their employers. As already happens with construction and waste collection. Not a good way for doctors, nurses and teachers to work well, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The London Ambulance Service (3 hour call out times) is already having to survive by recruiting "working holiday" paramedics from Australia.

      It is beyond a joke

      Delete
    2. Had the council's plans to demolish The Cremorne Estate gone ahead to build the Crossrail station the local primary school would have been left without most of it's support staff.

      Delete
    3. Most of these people will become unemployed, the disabled loose their services and the elderly loose their support as families are displaced.

      Delete
    4. Services for the most vulnerable, the elderly, the disabled, etc would have to reapplied for as these are dependent on different boroughs. The hardship that the most vulnerable would suffer is unimaginable. While property developers make big profits at the expense of the suffering of our residents.

      Delete
  6. We are being socially cleansed from the area we were born in and have brought up our families. Where we work and help to build communities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We should oust from their positions at the next council elections as Hammersmith and Fulham did in anger at the Earls Court Redevelopment.

      Delete
    2. That is true, but the Labour council are not exactly helpful the Labour council & leader Stephen Cowan had a secret meeting in 2014 which ensured the destruction of Earls Court Exhibition Centre 1 & 2. The whole project could have been scuppered if Labour council said no to the developers. Those in Earls Court relied on the Labour Council but they are all talk and no action. See very little help or assistance to West Ken Gibbs Green residents. I hope to high heaven that their homes are saved and is the beginning of the end of the greed that has saturated London and Great Britain.

      Delete
  7. £350 Million Profit ( Figures EC Harris )- Making money out of a legacy for housing for the poor . Disgusting . We shall not take this lying down .





    £350 Million Profit ( Figures EC Harris ) Making money out of a legacy left for poor housing . Exford should be stripped of his Knighthood.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can they call themselves a housing Charity - when they are selling off social housing stock for profit ( surplus ).

      Delete
  8. Social Cleansing of London!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Exford has a Knighthood - not much of a Knight is he !

    ReplyDelete
  10. 12 Four Bed Room Houses for Private sale - Probably to overseas investors . 2 for Affordable Rent .Just what Chelsea needs.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Greg Hands was invited to the Estate -he was too busy !

    ReplyDelete
  12. Words fail me about how truly terrible this is. This housing was by acphilanthropist in perpetuity to house the poorer workers in our community, and his vision and his financial and spiritual generosity is being destroyed in a flash by the greed of a housing charity whose director whilst letting it fall into disrepair claim it is not financially viable to refurbish it, but yet manage to pay the director an exceedingly high salary and 5 figure bonuses for his good work. Whilst they planned this whole exercise, they also decided not to offer secure housing in any flats that became vacant but just temporary accommodation meaning they these tenants do not have to be rehoused .There has always been a thriving community at the Sutton Estate, with a lovely communal gardens that the tenants have worked on and this will be lost to them in any new development. The Sutton estate is to my mind a good example of what mixed communities are all about. Added to this they want to replace yet more of Chelsea's architecture and heritage with yet another white box with retail. The Chelsea Society have shown once again that they are a complete dismal failure as far as their remit to preserve the heritage of Chelsea which makes me pleased to live in Kensington where at least the Kensington Society has the balls and integrity to stand up to these sort of issues.Disgusted by the council on this one, and by Greg Hands who obviously finds it easier to keep away from anything controversial, and as a minister is just following this governments policies rather than dealing compassionately with the interests of his constituents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We would beg everyone to write to GREG HANDS and and to oppose the PLANNING APPLICATION . Both links are in the story. Get everyone involved.

      Delete
  13. Nick Pagett-Brown stated at an Ask Nick event last year "the biggest obstacle to middle bracket earners coming into the borough are life long tenants and right to buy lease holders" This describes all social housing tenants. These properties paid for by the public purse to protect the most vulnerable, are being sold to developers. This is corruption at it's best.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Most countries would give their eye teeth to have the ancient building stock and Institutions of Britain. But of course they never will have them.

    We in our wisdom are knocking everything down and destroying it to be replaced by high spec glass and concrete buildings and the foreigners cant wait to buy up and transfer their wealth from their countries. For "buy to leave".

    Our people are being priced out of the market and "buy to leave" spends no money in the community on shops, super markets, petrol stations, cleaners, pharmacists, restaurants, etc. The community and culture in London is being destroyed.

    Our politicians are supposed to be a safety net against this kind of destruction. When will they wake up?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I hear - allegedly - that Affinity Sutton Staff are holding ' Kangaroo Courts ' making false claims on some residents - threatening them with loss of tenancy on charges with no basis .Residents are frightened and scared to speak out !

    ReplyDelete
  16. They are having meetings with residents and telling them to come to meetings with no representation and the police in attendance ! The Police have said there is no reason for them to be at these meetings. Smacks of Rachman , not a Charity !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Disgusting - they should have their Charitable status revoked and the Chief Executive should be made to resign .

      Delete
  17. That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Palmer...you bore....

      Delete
    2. In what respect - anonymous 12.32

      Delete
  18. Affinity Sutton will be selling off £380,000,000 of new flats and mews houses on the estate, which is what they claim is the minimum to maintain social housing on the estate.
    Hopefully our councillors will follow their own rules and throw out this plan which reduces social housing numbers and floorspace, and sells off Chelsea to the money launderers, drug dealers and overseas interests using London property as a safe haven.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Enough of this Socialist nonsense, if you can't afford to live in Chelsea then get out, you are not welcome.
    This is why Cameron and Osborne need to privatise housing association charities as soon as they can and get the market to sort out the housing problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By your infantile logic you think only rich foreigners should live in Chelsea.
      Chelsea has always been socially mixed and that has always been its charm.
      You really need to think(if you can) about the consequences of illogical thinking

      Delete
    2. By your infantile logic you think only rich foreigners should live in Chelsea.
      Chelsea has always been socially mixed and that has always been its charm.
      You really need to think(if you can) about the consequences of illogical thinking

      Delete
    3. Chelsea does not need the socialists living amongst us on these estates. If they don't like and can't afford it here, move out.

      Delete
    4. What utter rot! Go back to Basingstoke you oik!

      This is not about being a socialist most of the people who read or comment on this blog are tory or conservative. The taxpayer are paying twice for social housing where is the logic in that, whilst we are overcharged by Osborne and Cameron's developer mates and construction companies.

      Sooner we get rid of your lot the better!

      Delete
  20. The residents there can afford to live in Chelsea- thanks to William Sutton !

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yes and wait until the housing bubble bursts ! Loads of empty over priced homes that no one can afford .

    ReplyDelete
  22. The worry must be that Rock Fielding-Mellen, a long time supporter of the South American economy, will push the planning committee into accepting Affinity Sutton's plans for the £10 million in community levy. He might be comfortable seeing the estate sold to drug dealers and money launderers, but the residents of Chelsea will not forgive or forget.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Council are all in favour of this and the other social housing developments they are planning to sell off to the highest bidder. Do not be fooled. Read the motion. Social cleansing is the order of the day.

      Delete
    2. Which bit Peru or Colombia?

      Delete
  23. The housing market is about to burst, one developer in the borough is in so much need of capital that they are selling Olympia Exhibition Centre for £300 million and company directors and other board members are having to buy non existent flats because there are no buyers not in Britian the far east or Russia.

    Investment in property is now moving from Britain to Malaysia and Singapore other far east joints. Every developer and estate agent is now trying to get every penny they can but the Chinese market is about to have another dip which will effect most developers over here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hear that the developers of Chelsea Riverside Hutchinson whampoa are only selling the properties in Hong Kong. None in England.

      Ugly tall buildings. Empty. Without any contribution to the community they are being built in.

      Delete
    2. Whampoa is of course owned by Li Kai Shing, Hong Kong's richest man and also a major property developer in Hong Kong. Makes sense for them to sell to their Chinese mates and keep the commissions in house.

      Whampoa gave Cllr Coleridge (Cabinet member for Planning) the usual Royal treatment. Council permission was required to clear the site, rezone for domestic properties, and approve the plans. The usual value creation stuff but without any regard for "affordability" and preserving British society. The dreadful Bore was deeply involved in all of this.

      Delete
    3. Whampoa set up eleven dormant companies at the time of the crossrail fiasco on The Cremorne Estate last year.

      Delete
    4. I hear that they were going to use the transport levy on The Chelsea Riverside Development to build the second entrance of the station on the Victorian Cremorne Gardens. Nick Pagett-Brown, Tim Coleridge and our ex Mayor were all in favour of it.

      Delete
    5. Cllr. Maighread Simmons still boasts when she talks to shop keepers in the area that she thinks it is a terrible shame that hundreds of homes were not demolished in the area.

      Delete
    6. She knew all about it. She is on the TMO board.

      Delete
    7. It was just before that the name of the ward was changed to Chelsea Riverside from Cremorne Ward. Was it just a coincidence or in anticipation of Whampoa being involved in the building of the Crossrail Station in Chelsea West ?

      Delete
    8. I hear they expressed an interest in buying and developing the vast amount of land around the main entrance on the Kings Road , once the station had been built. The land where thousands of people have lived for generations and would be displaced out of the borough.

      Delete
    9. They would make an enormous profit in demolishing and selling public housing just as they are doing with The Sutton Estate. Oppose the planning application. Who is going to be next ?

      Delete
  24. Social cleansing is not about party politics as a previous blogger seems to suggest. It is about standing up for human decency. Social housing is at the core of our social infrastructure. A George Orwellian society of gated privileged developments and ghettoes where the most vulnerable live in poverty not only is against the principles of our democracy but is a social disaster waiting to happen. Those who have nothing to loose and who do not see themselves as an integral part of society become outcasts. Dropping out of our education system and joining the rank and file of our criminal system. Poverty and segregation creates a society in which those at the bottom of the heap do not aspire or contribute to a future. They merely become survivors in a society none of us want to live in.We will need higher railings to protect us, an armed police force and armed security guards to protect our privileged compounds. This is not far fetched. This is describing many countries which have a two tier wealth system and no middle class. Anyone who has visited South America will recognise what I am describing. Societies that are extremely violent as there are no public services to protect the most vulnerable. The poor survive by criminal activity. So Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Paget- Brown keep telling us that we have no right to live where we were born and that we do not deserve to give our children the opportunities that a borough such as ours offers. You might just live long enough to reap the terrible seeds that you have sowing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should the scandalous proposed housing bill be passed most of our social housing will be sold by the council on the open market. Properties over the value of £ 500,000 that become vacant will be sold off. Where will the many homeless young families be housed ? Many children's lives are already being blighted by living in bed and breakfast hostels with no cooking facilities, strangers in the corridors and shared bathrooms. This at a huge cost to the taxpayer. Where is the sense in this ?

      Delete
    2. And the council are complicit in the selling for private profit of wonderful buildings such as The Sutton Dwellings.

      Delete
    3. Creating 'ghettos' on the outskirts of a city, with a disenfranchised group of people, who believe they have no connection with the country in which they reside is folly. Evidence of this can be seen in major capital cities all across Europe.

      Delete
  25. Social Housing means people can step up in life . It enables them to secure low paid employment, raise a family , pay their taxes , and put less of a strain on the benefits system ,. Far better to give them homes they can afford to pay out of their own wages , rather than relying on the state to pay/top up their rent .This also leads to healthier individuals , who will not put such a strain on he NHS. Far better surely to have people playing an active part in the economy , rather than being sat on the sidelines in the benefit trap. All of the above is the reason why Victorian Philanthropists decided to leave their fortunes to social housing.By removing social housing more strain will be put on Council/Government Finances by having to pay over inflated rents to private landlords, in order to fulfil their responsibilities to provide housing .

    ReplyDelete
  26. The council surely has a responsibility to their constituents first, and not property developers, many of whom do not even live in the borough.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Why is it so difficult to convince our Councillors that these developments are not what the people of Chelsea want. Most of us feel we are being cast aside , our opinions don't seem to count. Time and time again , large petitions and protestations of RA's and residents are being ignored. When are bodies like 'the Chelsea Society who were founded ' with the aim of protecting the interests of all who live and work here to preserve and to enhance the unique character of Chelsea', going to stand up. The demolition of these victorian building is not in keeping with that statement on their website .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our councillors believe in Social Cleansing.

      I witnessed Nick Pagett-Brown defending their policy of targeting long life tenants and right to buy leaseholders at two Ask Nick Events.

      Delete
  28. As a long standing Conservative member i am worried about the long term effect this is going to have on the party locally.We are falling into the same apathetic trap that Labour followed in Scotland .Do something for Gods Sake ,or our electorate will turn against us !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, when our politicians fail to protect the most vulnerable and only serve themselves we loose all faith in those we elect to make the right decisions on our behalf.

      Delete
    2. Corruption corrodes. It eats away at all that is good and decent.

      Delete
  29. Be quiet - That is not the Conservative way. These people can easily be moved out to the outer areas of London and use Crossrail to get to work. They do not have the same standards as the rest of us. Many of them use public transport anyway to get to work what does an extra half an hour or so on their journey time matter to them . These people are used to living in cramped conditions.The sooner this kind of lower class vermin is made to move out the better .We can always use 'immigrants' to take the low paid work - they wont complain , they will think themselves fortunate to have a job and wont worry about working long hours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nick Pagett- Brown, Tim Coleridge and Maighread Simmonds should tread carefully. Vast amounts of conservative voters live, have friends and family in social housing.

      Social housing tenants are not stereotypical. The vast majority are hard working, proud residents who's families have helped to make this borough what it is.

      Delete
    2. Yes. Many generations have fought in the war, worked in the power station, in service and in our schools throughout the years.

      ...tread carefully.

      Delete
    3. Yes. That is why Maighread Simmonds canvasses on Social Housing estates.

      I hear she is now targetting The Thomas More Estate. Do those residents need to worry?

      Delete
    4. The Cremorne trusted her and voted for her. Little did they know what she and her friends were up to.

      Delete
  30. When i think my Grandparents went to war and gave all for Queen and Country-not much of a country fit for heroes and their descendants

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, but these politicians are showing that they do not care for the well being of the majority of our decent families. The only language they understand is money.

      Delete
  31. Yes - The Sutton Estate was bombed in the war. Are Affinity Sutton and the council going to succeed where the Luftwaffe and the Nazi's couldn't. They were into social cleansing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point. These policies do have a wiff of Mein Fuhrer.

      Delete
  32. We should oppose the planning application and write to Greg Hands MP.

    ...and remember to vote at our next council elections against these people.

    People who we are paying to represent our interests and are targeting the most vulnerable.

    ReplyDelete
  33. These 'proles' don't know any better - give them a sky box and a packet of 'fags' some 'dole' and a pair of 'trainers' - they'll soon forget and get on with things.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Imagine what it must be like to be a resident of The Sutton Estate. To know that you are going to be ousted from your home. Possibly loose your job, your friends and neighbours. Your children will have to interrupt their studies and move school. The community that supports you no longer there.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I have some friends from oversea's who have had a nightmare trying to find a suitable property to live in when they visit. The new homes on the Sutton Estate will be perfect for them when they visit. They are only in the country for a couple of month's a year.They can provide employment such as housekeepers, nannies etc, this is called the trickle down effect. Im sure these estate's are full of lefties anyway. With them out of the way, we can ensure a Conservative majority in perpetuity. There will be less strain on local resources as these kind of people have private health insurance and so forth, and will be far more valuable to the borough. Dame Shirley Porter had the right idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Sutton Estate was built for the vulnerable. Not for your friends.

      Delete
    2. Luckily you do not represent the vast majority of kind well meaning residents of this borough. Whatever their financial status.

      Human decency is a quality that most of us subscribe to. It is not the monopoly of any political party.

      Delete
    3. I think and hope anonymous 14.07 is just stirring the pot for a bit of fun reactions. Sure it's not for real, and he is as disgusted by what is going on as we are.

      Delete
    4. My dear fellow
      I suspect you are some irritating little middle class failure whose pathetic income is garnered from penny share dealing and claiming your cllr's allowance. I suppose you can't even afford to pay for overseas calls.

      Delete
    5. Dear Troll

      Your written grammar only serves to show your limited ability - or, as you would write it, ability's.

      Delete
  36. Greg Hands will be too ' busy'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg Hands does not believe in social cleansing.

      Nick Pagett-Brown, Tim Coleridge and Maighread Simmonds do.

      Greg Hands fought to save The Cremorne Estate.

      Delete
    2. He's shown no interest in the 'Sutton Estate ' - get the soap Greg , let the cleansing begin.

      Delete
    3. I heard that he was warned off.

      Delete
  37. Most social housing tenants are professionals. Nurses, teachers, etc, etc.

    I would be very careful about what you wish for.

    Voting out the present self serving greedy councillors is more feasible than you imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I and many of my friends now wish we had voted for the Independent Candidate in the elections, at least he would not have been 'bogged' down by party politics. I now realize he was standing for all the right reason.With the debacle over Thamesbrook and Marlborough School -many of us in the 'No to Crossrail ' Campaign are now realizing what a bunch of self serving twits our Stanley Ward councillors actually are.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Is it me or does this feel like the 1800s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The difference being that most of the primary schools our children still use were built in the 19th century and wonderful philanthropists with a social conscience left a legacy in which parents could strive to better the lives of their children.

      The irony being that these councillors are arrogant enough to think it their born given right to profit from this.

      Delete
    2. Councillors have a right to earn money. What they earn at the Town Hall is simply not enough.

      Delete
    3. Misanthropy.

      Delete
    4. Maybe Exford could give them a position. He's on £300 Grand .How philanthropic is that.

      Delete
    5. Exford = Silas

      Delete
    6. wonderful !!!!!!

      Delete
    7. Do not be fooled into thinking that we do not pay our councillors enough.

      Their declared expenses are shocking.

      They are not become councillors to benefit the electorate they have sworn to serve.

      But to serve their own and the interests of their special friends.

      Delete
    8. Come off it - That Warwick chap can't even afford to get his teeth fixed.

      Delete
    9. I believe that this is an intended fashion statement.

      He has expressed that that he does not wish for any sympathy.

      Delete
  40. Paget Brown -aka Mr Bumble.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Why don't they sidestep the arguments and just pay the residents with a share of the profit . £100k per resident should do . That'll shut them up . Its the Tory way.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Legacies that transcend generations is what really transforms a society. William Sutton and other like him knew this.

    In one various business deals this council will destroy this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a fool William Sutton must feel - in hindsight - he would have been better off leaving the money to his siblings. Rather than a 'Housing Charity' making a profit out of his money.

      Delete
  43. That wouldn't work .Affinity Sutton have shareholders they have to look after i assume .They must come first..

    ReplyDelete
  44. We are replacing beautiful buildings with hideous new concrete boxes.

    We are loosing the character of Chelsea for all our residents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just take a look at what they are doing on the Olympia site and what they have done next to Holland Park.

      It is beggars belief that we are allowing Nick paget-Brown and Tim Coleridge to do this to our beautiful borough.

      Delete
    2. Money Talks !

      Delete
  45. What do the 'oiks' know about architecture.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Most of these oiks are perfectly educated.

    ...and quite capable of giving these councillors a run for their money.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ha Ha Ha - we are not talking a level playing field here. The dice is loaded. They will never be allowed to win no matter what pathetic arguments they manage to scrabble together. Its all been decided in the boardrooms already. Just a matter of going through the motions - listening to boring , whining poor people .wasting their time . Why don't they just get on with it - start the demolition of the estate -like the Marlborough- we don't hear any protests now do we . The decision has been made .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You really do sound fatuous.

      Delete
  48. We should vote them all out.

    That is the only way to stop this hedonism.

    ReplyDelete
  49. We are quite capable as has been proved recently to threaten the position of councils.

    Greg got quite a shock in Hammersmith and Fulham over The Earls Court Development.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Shock and horror! And quite right. The Sutton Estate was built by Thomas Sutton. His will was contested, but the philanthropy prevailed. Chelsea was a very different place not many years ago, much poorer with many people living in great penury who were working to serve the very rich houses along the Thames. I have lived in and around the borough all my life. I remember sheltering on the Sutton Estate during an air raid and taking shelter from the shrapnel in a doorway. In those days the estate was lived in by those for whom it had been built. This service to the community should be preserved and not torn down and sold at commercial market rates.

    ReplyDelete
  51. ...and these are the residents these councillors want to banish from our borough.

    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.