Hospital closures: where does your GP stand?

Here's a recording of local Tory Peter Graham addressing the recent rally against the closure of hospitals in H&F. I described the scene here, as this sole Conservative stood alongside some pretty unusual comrades, which included members of the Socialist Workers Party and the Revolutionary Committee for Health in the Middle East who had come along to pledge "solidarity".

Listen in as one bloke cries "ere, you're a Tory!" to which Peter replies "yes, I AM a Conservative!"

So it was an amusing scene during what was an inspiring march and rally, but do give what he says a close listen. What he's arguing is that if local GPs come out against the plans they have no chance of going ahead. Peter gives more detail on the local Conservative blog here.

So why don't you ask your own GP where they stand next time you go to see them?

West Ken/Earl's Court: LibDems enter fray

Vince Cable: Coalition heavy hitter

Vince Cable has been drawn into the increasingly dramatic and fraught battle over the future of the Earl's Court redevelopment. Coming days after a High Court Judge said that the legality of our Council's approach was open to question, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats on the London Assembly has written to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills outlining her concerns at the economic impact on London of the loss of jobs this would entail.

Caroline Pidgeon

Ms Pidgeon, in her letter to Mr Cable which you can read below, argues that the loss of exhibition space as the existing buildings are removed would be profound, and quotes the "thousands of small businesses" who rely on the space as a "marketing platform".

She also can't resist a swipe at our local authority, saying that it is "a matter of regret that these economic concerns do not appear do have been given appropriate consideration by the local planning authorities". Welcome to Hammersmith & Fulham, Caroline. 


Ms Pidgeon concludes by asking the Secretary of State to urge his colleagues to "call in" the application, which would mean excercising a possible power of veto. So now we have gone from a position where H&F have blustered their way through local residents, insisting all the way that they would do it come what may, to a very real threat to the scheme from both the High Court, and potentially the Coalition Government itself.

Dark days ahead at Hammersmith Town Hall, but that glimmer of light for little people like these may just be glowing a little brighter this evening.

Earls Court Opportunity Area - Letter to Vince Cable

Save our Hospital march: The Movie

Heard about the march? Now watch it in this film put together by the community based campaign which has emerged to fight the proposed closure of both Charing Cross and Hammersmith hospitals.

I really don’t think I can add anything of value to what the people, the MP and the patients themselves have to say. Worth a watch if you didn't get a chance to go along yourself.

H&F to buy Market to give to developers

Boutique Bush: No more historic shops on Goldhawk Road

Fresh from their approach to planning having been ruled open to question by a High Court Judge, the Cabinet of our Council will on Monday rubber stamp a compulsory purchase order which enables them to take ownership, against the wishes of the shopowners, of the Goldhawk Row of shops, in order to knock them down.

This of course follows their approach to this scheme having been ruled unlawful too. But this Council don't seem to get too hung up on annoying little details like that.

So no surprises here, it's another scheme that enables developers to make a ton of cash, but turfs out people who have become as much of the fabric of Shepherd's Bush as the textiles some of them sell in their shops.

But what might raise an eyebrow here, is that Orion the developers are only providing an indemnity of £10 million. Considering that the purchase order is for the entire site set for redevelopment - the shops and the entire market area - this seems very unlikely to cover the whole cost. What this means is that if the development goes belly up the public purse will be exposed to a whacking great loss.

You might think that's quite a risky way for a public authority to do business. And you'd be right. What was also risky was sending the uncensored Cabinet papers, marked "not for publication" and detailing the amounts of money involved by email, because it's ended up being forwarded to me. And I publish it here in the spirit of public service and transparency, despite it being marked "exempt" from Freedom of Information Act disclosure. Oh well.

This is not a set of papers that would be provided to opposition councillors or the general public, because our Council took action some months ago to enable themselves to censor what they deem to be "sensitive" information. So they'll be particularly pleased to see the report online here. All in the spirit of public service.

 

West Ken Court ruling: Reactions

Last night I broke the news of our Council's defeat in the High Court, which ruled that the legality of their plans for the area were open to question. This morning politicians and residents themselves have been reacting to the news that the whole thing will now be subject to a High Court case.

Here's our Council first of all:

"Our planning guidance was adopted correctly and in full consultation with the community. We will be vigorously defending this claim. The regeneration of Earls Court is a major opportunity to attract thousands of new jobs to the area, improve the neighbourhood, build new homes for people currently living on the estates and bring much needed new community facilities such as new shops, a school and health centre".

Here's a residents' spokesperson, who I quoted last night:

"Despite the outcomes of the Cabinet Meeting on 3 September and the Planning Application Committee on 12 September, the Council and CapCo will never succeed in demolishing our homes, causing harm to vulnerable people and disrupting well-established community networks, to please greedy developers and for the sake of gerrymandering".

Here's Murad Qureshi, Member of the London Assembly:

"At the last PQT in Hammersmith Town Hall before GLA election in May, we saw the depth of feeling of these development proposals from local residents. So l am sure this High Court decision will be welcomed and goes much further then the District Auditor decision on Shirley Porter activities at City of Westminster which disappointedly did not look into planning decisions during her reign"

Here's Dave Hill of the Guardian, who has also followed this story closely:

"I acknowledge the idealism of some of those backing the scheme and think I understand their arguments. Yet I'm finding it ever harder to resist concluding that the Earls Court project has been rashly conceived, ineptly executed and pursued with an ideological zeal that has bulldozed aside the more attractive localist principles that modern Conservatism espouses. There is regeneration and there is regeneration. Did the Earls Court saga really need to be this way"?

Andy Slaughter MP has responded with this:

"It seems this council will never learn that it is better to talk to and listen to residents than put themselves in hock to developers. Now they are being taught that lesson by the courts. The is another great victory for the people of west Kensington, campaigning on shoestring against the corporate might of the Town Hall and Capco. But the cost in stress, uncertainty and damage to the community – not to mention public money – is shameful. 

"For four years the council has bullied, tricked and bribed in support of corporate greed and its own warped ideas of social engineering and displacing established communities. It has suborned its planning, housing, and general duties of wellbeing to this end. Now – predictably – it is all beginning to unravel".

More to come...

West Ken: Judge rules against H&F

West Ken & Gibbs Green Estate

Dramatic developments this evening in the battle over West Ken & Gibbs Green Estate, which our Council wants to demolish but the majority of residents want to save. I've reported on some of the sharp practices our local authority has been deploying against the residents in the past, and this culminated in September with the handing to police of a report alleging misconduct in public office - which is a serious criminal offence.

The local press thus far have been unimpressed, with one reporter repeatedly referring to the "doomed" estates.

But in an extraordinary move this evening a Judge sitting at the High Court of Justice has ruled that there is indeed a case to answer. Judge Sycamore is far from impressed with our Council's shenanigans, and has had this to say:

"..the lawfulness of the defendants' [Hammersmith & Fulham Council] master plan for the area in question is clearly arguable and should be considered at a substantive hearing."

Let's just remind ourselves that the Judge is talking about plans that the Council have insisted are lawful. It seems that this is, in fact, in doubt. Devastating.

And the Judge gives short shrift to our Council's expensive lawyers who tried to get the application by the residents thrown out on the grounds it was submitted late. He had this to say:

"The defendants and interested parties [Hammersmith & Fulham Council and the Developers] argue that the claim was not filed properly and that permission should be refused. I am not persuaded that the claimants [the residents] should be denied permission on this basis."

Simples.

He then goes on to give a series of directions in his ruling which you can read for yourself in the document below. There will therefore now be a full scale hearing at the High Court.

Residents coming together to fight for their homes - no multi million budgets here

Reacting to the ruling a residents spokesperson said this evening:

"Despite the outcomes of the Cabinet Meeting on 3 September and the Planning Application Committee on 12 September, the Council and CapCo will never succeed in demolishing our homes, causing harm to vulnerable people and disrupting well-established community networks, to please greedy developers and for the sake of gerrymandering".

The importance of this extraordinary development, to me, is threefold.

Firstly, this is another case of residents faced with the might of multinational property developers, a Council determined to ride roughshod over them and even the London Mayor who have managed not to be intimidated or go away - and have just won an important victory by the strength of their arguments alone.

Secondly, this is far from being the first time our Council's willingness to use sharp practices has put them on the wrong side of the Courts. Think back to this ruling over Shepherd's Bush Market.

And thirdly this ruling puts the whole damn shebang at risk of never happening at all - the enourmous public expense that will now be incurred by our Council on lawyers fees should make them sit back and think about it alone. That's your money they're burning after all. And if indeed the legality of their plans are debatable then it follows that they may never happen at all.

It just goes to show - bullies never win in the end. But then this nine year old little girl could have told them that.Earls Court SPD - Order Granting Permission 2012 11 10

Hotel developers outsmart Council with revised application

How the pavilion used to look

The developers who are at present knocking down the old Mecca site on the Green in order to turn it into a hotel have outsmarted even our Council, famed for it's dealings with developers. Having already knocked down the historic building they have just submitted a revised document which aims to increase the number of rooms from the originally agreed 242 to 322.

The Pavilion building now gone, and with our Council thus in a very weak negotiating position, developers Marvel Green Limited seem set to get their way. And the locals are not happy about it. Mainly because they think that an increase in room numbers will mean that the character of the hotel itself will be fundamentally different. 

Having been pitched as a 4 star hotel the extra numbers they believe mean it is more likely to be a 2-3 star operation, favoured by backpackers and budget travellers. Useful that there is a Walkabout next door then.

The residents are organising themselves to object, the deadline for which is October 30th, with one of them arguing that this is: 

"clearly a down-grade to a 2-3 star budget operation that Developers are trying to sneak under the wire... in essence they are dividing twin rooms into buget units adding 8 extra rooms on the 1st floor, 12 on the 2nd, 11 on the 3rd, 12 on the 4th, 12 on the 5th and 10 on the 6th floors with one extra on the top floor.  

The plans detail 66 extra rooms but obviously planning consent is being sought for 80 extra rooms so that the owners can off-load quickly and easily with planning consent for more rooms already in place if they cannot generate the expected profits! 

If this planning consent is granted it cannot be revoked! a Budget Hotel/Backpackers Hostel on our door step is I believe worth fighting against".

At the heart of all of this is the character of the Bush - often seen as a poor relation to Holland Park next door the chance of the regeneration of the area had been seen by many as a chance to give the area a lift. The much delayed works on the Green are part of that picture too, and to give the Council credit it is signed up to that goal as well.

But on this occasion it seems that the developers have managed to outsmart our Council, and the residents are left fighting a rearguard action to save what they thought they were originally promised.