At South Area Planning Commitee on Thursday 2nd October, we were asked to approve an application for 17 residential units at 110-116 Elmore Street.
Islington Council's stated policy is that they will seek 50% affordable housing for all developments over 10 units. This development should have had at least 8 affordable units, yet the developer claimed he couldn't afford to provide any affordable housing.
The developer had an 'independent assessor's' report, which said the development was 'unviable', principally because he'd paid too much at auction for the site. And who did he buy the site off? - Islington Council. And there were the Lib Dems, supporting the developer's argument all the way, twisting the words of Council Policy, and saying that providing affordable housing was more-or-less an option for the developer if he felt like it.
The whole point of an affordable housing policy is to make sure we get affordable housing.
Along with Councillor Gary Doolan we bitterly opposed this application, and I said in the meeting that the argument put forward by the developer was clearly spurious, since the claimed unviability was entirely down to his own folly in paying too much for the site. Why should the less well-off people in Islington get pushed out yet again, just because this developer can't get his sums right? But the Lib Dems on the committee couldn't do enough to explain how policy had to be applied 'flexibly', and that a requirement for affordable housing had to be 'reasonable'. They all voted for the 100% private scheme in spite of the paper-thin arguments.
It is quite clear to me that the Lib Dems DO NOT WANT affordable housing if they can possibly avoid it, and are prepared to be sold almost any kind of a line by developers trying to wriggle out of it. In Westminster under Shirley Porter, this was called Gerrymandering. I'm not sure I can see the difference, except the Lib Dems haven't yet twigged that they are Gerrymandering themselves out of their own seats.
Sunday, 5 October 2008
The Mall Antiques Market Trashed
The new owners of 'The Mall' in Camden passage have demonstrated that they not only don't care about the character of the area, they are actually trying to destroy it, just so they can make a bit more money.
London and Associated Properties, who bought the building earlier in the year, thinking they could just kick out the antiques traders, gut the building, and put some fancy national Multiple retailer in there instead got a nasty surprise when over 300 people turned up to the Planning Committee and objected to the idea, and permission was refused. The Developers, vowed to appeal against the decision, but gave an undertaking to the Council to keep the Mall open until the result of the appeal was known. They have gone back on this promise and all the traders were evicted at the end of September. They are determined to try and kill the antiques market.
Readers may also be interested to know that LAP tried the same move at 'Antiquarius' in the Kings Road, where they evicted traders and commenced building work without Planning permission, but were stopped when Kensington and Chelsea statutorily listed the building.
LAP still have to convince a Planning Inspector that they are justified in destroying the most important part of Camden Passage, and if they fail, will have to re-open the Mall as a Market again.
The appeal is being heard at Islington Town Hall on 9th and 10th of December. Please come and object again.
London and Associated Properties, who bought the building earlier in the year, thinking they could just kick out the antiques traders, gut the building, and put some fancy national Multiple retailer in there instead got a nasty surprise when over 300 people turned up to the Planning Committee and objected to the idea, and permission was refused. The Developers, vowed to appeal against the decision, but gave an undertaking to the Council to keep the Mall open until the result of the appeal was known. They have gone back on this promise and all the traders were evicted at the end of September. They are determined to try and kill the antiques market.
Readers may also be interested to know that LAP tried the same move at 'Antiquarius' in the Kings Road, where they evicted traders and commenced building work without Planning permission, but were stopped when Kensington and Chelsea statutorily listed the building.
LAP still have to convince a Planning Inspector that they are justified in destroying the most important part of Camden Passage, and if they fail, will have to re-open the Mall as a Market again.
The appeal is being heard at Islington Town Hall on 9th and 10th of December. Please come and object again.
Sunday, 7 September 2008
Labour Success at the Angel Canal Festival
St Peters Labour Councillors received tremendous support at the Islington Canal festival this year. (Pictured right are local resident Chris Kenyon, Labour Leader Catherine West, myself, and Emily Thornberry MP). Hundreds of people stopped by to sign our petition to save the tree on Rheidol Green, which the Lib-Dem-run Council has agreed to chop down because they say it is in the way of rebuilding the Packington Estate. (See my separate blog on the Packington and the tree).
Many supporters expressed their thanks to Cllr Shelley Coupland for the fantastic work she is doing helping people with housing problems, and to Cllr Gary Doolan for his work in securing Estate Improvements throughout the Ward. A lot of people also took the trouble to tell us that our Local Labour MP Emily Thornberry is doing a superb job, following in the footsteps of her predecessor, Chris Smith.
The event was an excellent fun day out, with everything from a display of live birds of prey, through a portable kids climbing wall, to traditional hot dogs, a 'ring the bell' strength test, and a hilarious 'angel' on wheels, who was zooming about the festival, accompanied by loud heavenly music, blessing everyone. More's the pity that our friends in the Lib Dems had such a dismal stall, littered with negative slogans about their opponents (us and Boris), and nothing good to say about themselves.
Its good to see the Canal Festival going from strength-to-strength, and also Islington Boat Club and the Canal Boat Trust standing smiling in the middle of it all. Roll on next year, and perhaps we will have our good weather back.
Tuesday, 26 August 2008
The famous Islington Council 'Dog Consultation'
The Council's recent 'Dog Consultation' is a classic example of how this Lib Dem Council completely failed to engage with local people on an important local issue.
The 'consultation' was entitled "How to deal with irresponsible dog owners" - which sounds fine, and something everyone would want. Yet hidden in the small print and the colour-coded diagrams that went with the consultation was the proposal to allow dogs into a number of previously dog-free areas, which included Arlington Square in St Peters ward. The completely barmy idea being that as long as dog-owners 'pick up' after their dogs, and accept to put their dogs on a lead if asked by an 'authorised person', it is OK to allow dogs anywhere in public parks.
Now I am not against dogs, or people owning dogs, but there is a very practical problem with mixing dogs and toddlers in the same bit of grass. Dog-owners cannot be counted on to 'pick up' 100% of the time, and the chances of one of Islington's 2 dog wardens being in every park in the Borough at the moment when a dog needs to be put on a lead are laughable. And if there is any chance at all of a crawling toddler encountering doggy poop, or being frightened by a boisterous bonzo, parents will not take the risk, and the children will be driven out of the park.
There were other cock-ups, like when the Council tried to email everone who had objected to the misleading wording of the consultation, they managed to 'cc' the list of objectors to everyone. And the final insult was that lead member Lib Dem Ruth Polling, who should have taken responsibility for the decision on the consultation, instead decided to 'delegate' the decision to a senior officer, presumably in an attempt to duck criticism for the shambles.
Quite apart from the unnecessary and unworkable rules that this sham consultation has introduced, it has also succeed in setting dog-owners and non-dog owners against each other, and covered the borough in a new crop of signs advertising fines for any infringements of the new "dog control orders", which must be really intimidating and hostile to dog owners, most of whom have done nothing wrong.
Not only have the Lib Dems cocked up the consultation, they have set residents against each other, and covered the borough in prohibition notices. They have been in power for 8 years now, and should have learned how to deal with issues like this with sensitivity. Obviously they haven't.
The 'consultation' was entitled "How to deal with irresponsible dog owners" - which sounds fine, and something everyone would want. Yet hidden in the small print and the colour-coded diagrams that went with the consultation was the proposal to allow dogs into a number of previously dog-free areas, which included Arlington Square in St Peters ward. The completely barmy idea being that as long as dog-owners 'pick up' after their dogs, and accept to put their dogs on a lead if asked by an 'authorised person', it is OK to allow dogs anywhere in public parks.
Now I am not against dogs, or people owning dogs, but there is a very practical problem with mixing dogs and toddlers in the same bit of grass. Dog-owners cannot be counted on to 'pick up' 100% of the time, and the chances of one of Islington's 2 dog wardens being in every park in the Borough at the moment when a dog needs to be put on a lead are laughable. And if there is any chance at all of a crawling toddler encountering doggy poop, or being frightened by a boisterous bonzo, parents will not take the risk, and the children will be driven out of the park.
There were other cock-ups, like when the Council tried to email everone who had objected to the misleading wording of the consultation, they managed to 'cc' the list of objectors to everyone. And the final insult was that lead member Lib Dem Ruth Polling, who should have taken responsibility for the decision on the consultation, instead decided to 'delegate' the decision to a senior officer, presumably in an attempt to duck criticism for the shambles.
Quite apart from the unnecessary and unworkable rules that this sham consultation has introduced, it has also succeed in setting dog-owners and non-dog owners against each other, and covered the borough in a new crop of signs advertising fines for any infringements of the new "dog control orders", which must be really intimidating and hostile to dog owners, most of whom have done nothing wrong.
Not only have the Lib Dems cocked up the consultation, they have set residents against each other, and covered the borough in prohibition notices. They have been in power for 8 years now, and should have learned how to deal with issues like this with sensitivity. Obviously they haven't.
Camden Passage Market and 'The Mall'
Camden Passage is a World-famous, highly popular, and very unique Antiques Market. Local Council policies recognise this, yet the market has been under constant threat for several years. Since I was elected I have been campaigning hard to save the market, publicising and challenging every attempt to kick out antiques traders to make way for bland high-street retailers.
In 2005 the Council allowed a national fashion retailer to close the building known as the 'Georgian Village' next to Tesco, kick out all 38 businesses, and gut the building to make a single clothing store. The Council also allowed the new owner to demolish the canopy that used to cover the pavement in front of the building, and where there was once a thriving antiques market on Wednedays and Saturdays, and a farmers market on Sundays, there is now a sterile open space where the only interest is Tesco trolleys full of waste packing waiting to be loaded onto lorries. This was all allowed to go through without the Council even demanding a planning application for the changes to the building. I challenged this, but was told there was "nothing could be done". This was feeble, and there is plenty under Council Policy that could have been done if the determination was there, which obviously it wasn't.
Next to go was the 'Angel Arcade'. This time the Council did look into the loss of the small units, taking legal advice on whether they could be defended. Advice was that the units could be defended, although not with certainty. I attempted to get the Council to pursue this, but instead, chair of South Area Planning Committee, Lib Dem George Alan, used a confidential meeting to change the wording of the report to state that the Council would not defend the small units, and the arcade has gone. It is now a single shop selling furniture.
Most recently, a very aggressive developer called London and Associated Properties (LAP) has bought 'The Mall', which is the listed tramshed building housing two floors of tiny shops near the Duke of York pub, at the South end of Camden Passage. The market in this building is much loved by everyone from local residents buying jewelry, to international designers buying props for window displays in New York and Tokyo. LAP applied for permission to gut the building, presumably to lease it to a single National retailer, and was refused. The Committee meeting attracted over 300 people, all against losing 'The Mall'.
LAP have appealed against the refusal, with the appeal to be heard at the Town Hall on 9th and 10th December, and I hope as many people as possible will attend. LAP have no interest in the local character or community, and are simply interested in making money at any price. This is not in the local interest.
I have spent much time pondering why this Lib Dem Council is so weak in the face of developers, and in particular, so reluctant to stop the bland commercialisation of our once very distinctive and unique shopping streets round the Angel. Maybe they think it is "cleaner and safer". If you ask them, they say there is "nothing they can do". This is not true. There are local policies which defend small units, and defend the character of the area. And I am left with the feeling that had the Council been more robust when the Georgian Village was under threat, developers like LAP would never have thought they could get away with it. The message needs to go out to developers that we will not allow the character and uniqueness of our area to be destroyed in the name of commercialisation.
Maybe its time to elect a Council that will put local interests first.
In 2005 the Council allowed a national fashion retailer to close the building known as the 'Georgian Village' next to Tesco, kick out all 38 businesses, and gut the building to make a single clothing store. The Council also allowed the new owner to demolish the canopy that used to cover the pavement in front of the building, and where there was once a thriving antiques market on Wednedays and Saturdays, and a farmers market on Sundays, there is now a sterile open space where the only interest is Tesco trolleys full of waste packing waiting to be loaded onto lorries. This was all allowed to go through without the Council even demanding a planning application for the changes to the building. I challenged this, but was told there was "nothing could be done". This was feeble, and there is plenty under Council Policy that could have been done if the determination was there, which obviously it wasn't.
Next to go was the 'Angel Arcade'. This time the Council did look into the loss of the small units, taking legal advice on whether they could be defended. Advice was that the units could be defended, although not with certainty. I attempted to get the Council to pursue this, but instead, chair of South Area Planning Committee, Lib Dem George Alan, used a confidential meeting to change the wording of the report to state that the Council would not defend the small units, and the arcade has gone. It is now a single shop selling furniture.
Most recently, a very aggressive developer called London and Associated Properties (LAP) has bought 'The Mall', which is the listed tramshed building housing two floors of tiny shops near the Duke of York pub, at the South end of Camden Passage. The market in this building is much loved by everyone from local residents buying jewelry, to international designers buying props for window displays in New York and Tokyo. LAP applied for permission to gut the building, presumably to lease it to a single National retailer, and was refused. The Committee meeting attracted over 300 people, all against losing 'The Mall'.
LAP have appealed against the refusal, with the appeal to be heard at the Town Hall on 9th and 10th December, and I hope as many people as possible will attend. LAP have no interest in the local character or community, and are simply interested in making money at any price. This is not in the local interest.
I have spent much time pondering why this Lib Dem Council is so weak in the face of developers, and in particular, so reluctant to stop the bland commercialisation of our once very distinctive and unique shopping streets round the Angel. Maybe they think it is "cleaner and safer". If you ask them, they say there is "nothing they can do". This is not true. There are local policies which defend small units, and defend the character of the area. And I am left with the feeling that had the Council been more robust when the Georgian Village was under threat, developers like LAP would never have thought they could get away with it. The message needs to go out to developers that we will not allow the character and uniqueness of our area to be destroyed in the name of commercialisation.
Maybe its time to elect a Council that will put local interests first.
Baring Street junction with New North Road
The junction of Baring Street and New North Road is a source of great concern for local residents. Baring Street is a very busy road, with buses and heavy traffic, and there is at present no pedestrian crossings or traffic lights at the junction with New North Road. It is a very dangerous junction for pedestrians to cross, and also dangerous for motorists, who become agitated and irritated at the length of time it takes to get out of the junction. The situation is also complicated by the street being on the border between Hackney and Islington.
St Peters Councillors have met with local residents to discuss the issue, and now have agreement from Islington Council Highways department to carry out a full traffic survey of the area, and to consult on improvements to the junction.
St Peters Councillors have met with local residents to discuss the issue, and now have agreement from Islington Council Highways department to carry out a full traffic survey of the area, and to consult on improvements to the junction.
Sex Shop on Islington Green
The sex shop on Islington Green is a typical case of the Council failing to stand up to a commercial operator deliberately bending the rules.
Many residents were unhappy when a store called 'Clone Zone' first applied for a sex shop licence for this shop. They felt that Islington green is a family area, with Tesco next door attracting families and children to the immediate area throughout the day. The result of objections was that the shop was only allowed to trade as a sex shop in the basement. If you looked at the shop from outside and didn't understand the coded meaning of the name of the shop you wouldn't know it was there, which was fine. Obviously the licensing committee felt that a sex shop was only acceptable if it's presence was very discreet.
Clone zone then closed, and the current operator applied to renew the license. I enquired many times during the application period to find out what the operator intended to do with the ground floor, which is not licensed as a sex shop, and couldn't get an answer. Then, surpise surprise, now the shop has opened it is now obviously a sex shop on the ground floor and the basement, all the signs outside make it obvious what it is, and the door is left open all the time so anyone can see in.
I have objected to the sex shop being on the ground floor and have been told by the Council that the shop is "only selling underwear" on the ground floor. This is nonsense. The shop is obviously and overtly a sex shop, where previously it was hidden away, and none of the reasons for wanting it hidden away have changed.
The Council should be standing up to traders of this sort who flout the rules.
And now the shop has applied to extend their opening hours to 10pm every night, and to open on Sundays as well. I have once again sent my objections, restating all the points I have made above. Lets see if the Council has the courage to say 'no' this time.
Many residents were unhappy when a store called 'Clone Zone' first applied for a sex shop licence for this shop. They felt that Islington green is a family area, with Tesco next door attracting families and children to the immediate area throughout the day. The result of objections was that the shop was only allowed to trade as a sex shop in the basement. If you looked at the shop from outside and didn't understand the coded meaning of the name of the shop you wouldn't know it was there, which was fine. Obviously the licensing committee felt that a sex shop was only acceptable if it's presence was very discreet.
Clone zone then closed, and the current operator applied to renew the license. I enquired many times during the application period to find out what the operator intended to do with the ground floor, which is not licensed as a sex shop, and couldn't get an answer. Then, surpise surprise, now the shop has opened it is now obviously a sex shop on the ground floor and the basement, all the signs outside make it obvious what it is, and the door is left open all the time so anyone can see in.
I have objected to the sex shop being on the ground floor and have been told by the Council that the shop is "only selling underwear" on the ground floor. This is nonsense. The shop is obviously and overtly a sex shop, where previously it was hidden away, and none of the reasons for wanting it hidden away have changed.
The Council should be standing up to traders of this sort who flout the rules.
And now the shop has applied to extend their opening hours to 10pm every night, and to open on Sundays as well. I have once again sent my objections, restating all the points I have made above. Lets see if the Council has the courage to say 'no' this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
