Lime Grove public meeting

St Stephens School is proposing to expand into new buildings around number 6 Lime Grove and is holding an open night this evening for residents who might be interested to know more.

The plan, I'm told by the reader who has sent me this letter, is to demolish number 6 Lime Grove and recreate the bigger original Victorian semi in its place, filling the space between 6 and 10 Lime Grove which is currently used as a car park and for vehicle access.

Please attend if you would like to ask questions about parking issues, the proposed demolition of number 6 and the extent of the building works likely to occur and when.

And consider the difference in tone and approach between the school, who clearly want to talk to local people and have them shape the future of their local area before submitting planning applications, to that of our Council to date. Let's hope this is something they might be able to emulate in future. Top marks to the school and best of luck with their plans.

West Ken: H&F Council hits back

Myers An extraordinary letter. I have never seen a Chief Executive of a local authority feel the need to write or send anything like the letter which you can view here, passed to me by the residents campaigning to save their homes from the property developers demolition ball.

Derek Myers, now joint Chief Executive of H&F and overseeing services across the new three borough giant of H&F, K&C and Westminster, took the allegations made by the residents of willful obstruction and bad faith on the part of our Council so seriously that he responded to each and every one in detail, rejecting each.

You may remember the Council sought to restrict access to response forms that had been submitted, even though the personal information had been redacted, on the grounds of "data protection." Apparently 45 minutes access was enough to "protect data" but any more was not. Perhaps realising this is a bit silly Mr Myers now accepts that the residents can have as long as they like but in the main he absolutely refutes their allegations of bad faith.

And this from the Council that surrounded a 9 year old girl with beefy security men when she wanted to hand in her form at a supposedly "public" event.

The residents have responded to this with the letter you can also read below. Amid the claim and counter claim I found this little exchange most illuminating as to the complete breakdown of relations between the Council and the people they are supposed to be there to serve. The Council had disqualified one form from a resident opposed to the development on the grounds that he was "violent". This is what he actually said:

"I disagree because it is not plesent and it is a load of bullocks. All my friends live here and I love my estates, West Ken and gibbs green. The Council will benefit from it because there taking 10 million quid from the developer. It will destroy our neighbourhood. If you come round here I will lamp you in your head for rudeness. I WANT YOU TO FUCKING Read this!!!!"

It's this sort of little guy that doesn't really stand a chance when up against a Local Authority and a global property developer determined to make serious money and with all the means at their disposal. But while he might not be able to express himself in writing very well he certainly seems to understand the main motivation behind the development, and his own position of relative helplessness.

But thankfully they're not on their own. Here's what the Community Organiser fighting their corner Jonathan Rosenberg has to say:

"Our determination to save our community is boundless. We are not intimidated by threats from the Council, veiled or otherwise; and we shall not allow the Council, Capital and Counties PLC, the Mayor of London, nor any other collaborator or contractor, to bully residents out of their much-loved homes".

I think the interesting thing about this letter is not perhaps the contested details of every bullet point but the fact that the Council has responded like this at all. It is hard to imagine Stephen Greenhalgh permitting the Chief Executive to do anything like this under his reign, when the modus operandi was simply to ignore and steamroller. So amid the anger and irritation that this latest exchange between the Council and residents of West Ken, perhaps there is a chink of light, that there can at least be some degree of dialogue.

Or maybe I'm grasping at straws. Read the residents letter below.
Letter to Myers June 2012

Oh dear. It seems Hammersmith & Fulham Council have no interest in listening to residents at all. Instead this has been the response to this article from Peter Graham, who sits on the infamous planning committee:

He seems to want to fiddle with semantics in this article, quoting online dictionaries, than deal with any of the substance. Disappointing. But very revealing.

TUESDAY UPDATE - Many thanks to the reader who sends in the official definition of "refute" from the Oxford Dictionary. Mr Graham would do well to note the second bullet point - and perhaps to start thinking about residents interests rather than cheap point scoring.

verb

[with object]

• prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove:these claims have not been convincingly refuted
• prove that (someone) is wrong:his voice challenging his audience to rise and refute him
• deny or contradict (a statement or accusation):a spokesman totally refuted the allegation of bias

Palingswick House: West London Free School exhibition

The West London Free School will be opening its doors to residents and other groups interested in their plans for Palingswick House in Hammersmith, set to be their new home from September 2013. All the details are on the flyer above, which you can see in greater detail by clicking on it.

Ministry of Silly Walks: A Shepherd's Bush production

Did you know? The Ministry of Silly Walks was founded in the streets of Shepherd's Bush by the comedy genius that came together as Monty Python's Flying Circus back in the 1970s. It was invented on Thorpebank Road, W12.

No, I didn't either. But it was revealed to me by local historian Peter Trott, also a member of the Friends of Wormholt Park and present on the Thorpebank Road street party, who was in receipt of a signed card by Python Michael Palin to prove that it was so.

So if you're having a drink in the Bush this evening, raise a glass to our forebears, and perhaps do a silly walk across the bar. Nobody will notice. Much.

A day of street parties

Thorpebank Road

Bunting, paper hats and plastic cups dominated the Bush yesterday, when almost every corner you turned revealed a closed road and a picnic table. Balloons vied with fancy dress for attention as neighbours who'd never met discovered that in fact they both quite liked each other and should really say hello more often.

I'd been invited to the Thorpebank Road party and arrived to find a band playing under a gazebo. Half the road had been given over to a children's play area, complete with wooden toys, while the grown ups occupied the other half paying particular attention to the food and drink on offer.

But what was also on display was the streak of community spirit that the residents of this and surrounding roads have shown in recent months as they took over and began to transform a local park, which had been in sad decline in the last few years. For here was a banner of the Friends of Wormholt Park who we last met dressed in their Edwardian best.

Patriotism on display

And in this street party too we also got a chance to see images of Thorpebank Road and Shepherd's Bush as it used to be in times gone by, courtesy of a local historian. Did you know the Monty Python Ministry of Silly Walks was a product of the Bush? More on that later this week.

As people shared their experiences on social media it was interesting to see how different corners of the Bush interpreted what the whole thing was about. While Thorpebank Road was open and welcoming a couple of people told me they'd been turned away from the nearby Sawley Road party for not being a resident of that road - or having an official invitation! It seemed this wasn't unique as Boscombe Road had apparently adopted a similar "name's not down not coming in" strategy and had also turned people away - with one man reporting he'd been bizarrely told they were only allowed to stand outside and cheer!

Starfield Road was clearly a more capitalist affair with entry being open to all - but for a £3 fee.

Sawley Road: If yer names not dahn you 'aint cahmin in

Other roads joining Thorpebank in welcoming their neighbours, however, included Keith Grove and Gayford Road, and in the latter's case involved a party that went on well beyond the allotted end time. Although the road was cleared for traffic on time the revellers stayed on, prompting pimms-fuelled declarations of love for new found neighbours - but also one of them calling the police to tell everyone to pipe down!

And that, dear reader, is the Bush all over!

Nick Botterill on Shepherd's Bush Market

I've been talking to the new Leader of H&F Council, who has given me his first response to the Court decision over the Goldhawk Road shops. Speaking to the London Assembly this week Mr Botterill's predecessor Stephen Greenhalgh said he expected the Council to "learn" from the judgement, so I wrote to Nick to ask him what he made of it.

Here's what Mr Botterill had to say:

"On SBM I think it is important to understand that the court's judgement was not focused on the merits of the scheme, the planning application itself, or even the council's adopted planning policies for this area. The issue at stake was only the technical status of the supplementary planning document (SPD) and the appropriate procedure through which it had been prepared and adopted. I understand the concerns of Goldhawk Road traders and assure you that everything was done to see whether the original shop frontages could remain. In addition all the businesses have been given the opportunity to return to Goldhawk Road. I do want Shepherds Bush market to survive and to ensure that it remains a cultural icon for west London for another 100 years - I believe that this development will secure this".

So not much change there then, and it seems that lawyers will be the ultimate decision makers. The traders lawyers, who won the case, are very clear that the judgement means the development is now halted and are set to take further action.

But on a more positive note I described Nick as someone with better listening skills when it first became clear he was a candidate for leadership of our Council, and he also strikes a concilliatory note. Here's what he said:

"As the new leader of the Council, I want to connect with all residents in Shepherds Bush (as well as the rest of the borough) in listening and learning about what they think the Council is doing well on and where there are areas for improvement". 

I like Nick - he has a track record of intervening and getting things done where they need to be, and is much more of a consensus politician. I think he'll be good for Shepherd's Bush and the borough as a whole.

One of his challenges is going to be doing things his own way in the wake of Greenhalgh's bulldozer tactics. No doubt some of his more, er, radical colleagues will be urging him to carry on pressing on regardless with the approach to communities in the North of the borough that has been the case thus far but I'm quite optimistic that he'll resist that and do things in his own way. You don't have to steamroller people to earn respect.

God save the Queen

Happy Jubilee!