Portobello  and recent press coverageCllr Merrick Cockell

In early July, at a packed meeting in the Small Hall, our planning committee granted more time to a developer who has plans to develop the Good Fairy arcade in Portobello Road. 

It is safe to say that this decision did not meet with the approval of most of the people who had come along to object to this planning application.

A lot has been written about this Council’s relationship with Portobello Road and there is a Facebook group with over 30,000 members that regularly features accusations about the Council, Councillors and officers. 

Much of what I have read is either untrue, and I will come to this later, or based on the false premise that planning permission for unpopular developments and changes to the market could have been prevented. 

Let me deal with a couple of the old chestnuts that keep appearing.  Despite what some people would have you believe we have no planning powers to prevent an antiques arcade being turned into a clothes shop.  None whatsoever.  For us to refuse planning permission would be illegal and we would end up in the courts, losing your money and the development would still go ahead.

There is also nothing we can do, as planning law now stands, to prevent adjacent small shop units being bought up and knocked into one larger unit. 

I have mixed views on the two examples above.  I don’t believe “the State” should be able to dictate to a landlord or shop owner what they sell, provided it is legal.  This is a decision best made by customers. 

But I would want more power, through the planning process, to prevent smaller units being gobbled up and turned into shops that only the larger retailer can afford.  This means there are fewer smaller units available for the small, independent, or up and coming retailer, and yes this can change the face of a much loved market like Portobello.

Way before the Save Portobello Market campaign got underway I set up an independent retail commission for the borough.  Amongst many other things this recommended that central Government looked again at planning law, as they are the only ones who can change this, to give councils more power and discretion to prevent smaller units being amalgamated into larger ones.

The problem with lobbying central Government is that it doesn’t always listen.  But sometimes you have to persist and hang in for the long run or a change in Government.  And that’s what we have been doing.  But at least I know that we have taken our concerns to the right place. 

I’m afraid that the protestors that crowded the Small Hall to protest about the Good Fairy decision were making their valid points to the wrong people.  Their focus and energy would be better served if it were turned to lobbying Steve Quartermain, the Chief Planner at the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Finally, I believe that some of the things written about the Council on the Facebook page are plain untrue.  I have read very serious allegations about how the Council has dealt with planning applications relating to Portobello.  It seems to be easy to bandy round allegations of ‘backhanders’ and ‘brown envelopes’ from the anonymity of a Facebook site. 

There is a simple solution to this, if anyone has real evidence of such practices, then this must be reported to the proper authorities – the Police or the Council’s Chief Executive – immediately.

Sir Merrick Cockell - Leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council

What do you think?

 

Comments sent in

3. On 22 August Marion wrote:

RBKC sits on £200 million of other people's money. For decades the Council has given planning permission for large property owners' projects; while refusing it to small landlords - for more modest developments. The usual excuse was that the 'big boys' can afford to appeal; so must be allowed to do
as they please. This is clearly grossly unfair.

In the case of the Lipka/All Saints project; this practice resulted in a building that breaks just about every planning regulation & policy in the book. The officer in charge previously worked on the architect's own house. That officer's managers might have been expected to give the case to someone
else; but approvals & construction went ahead. Before completion, the officer left to join the architect's firm. Why didn't his successors raise the alarm? The result is a finished building that is technically illegal & a public relations disaster for the Council. The whole of Portobello is furious.
It is evident that various aspects of the building fail to comply with its already problematical planning permission. Local residents hope that RBKC ensures the developers apply for properly detailed retrospective planning permission to cover the buildings  many anomalies. Locals also hope the
planning committee will give due consideration to all planning breaches; without considering developers' wealth & hence its perceived ability to afford an appeal. This will create a welcome level playing field in RBKC Planning.

On 23 August the Leader responds:

"Unfortunately the commenter seems to have misunderstood many aspects of the situation.

The accusation that the planning process unfairly favours large or wealthy developers is serious and if anyone were genuinely to feel they had uncovered corruption in the planning process I would suggest they immediately speak to the police about their suspicions.

The Council received planning applications for the building formally used as Lipka's Antiques Arcade in 2004 and 2007. These applications covered various changes to the shop front. Some of the work carried out did not match the submitted designs, and a retrospective application was made in April for these aspects and was approved. The building now has all necessary planning permission in place.

I am very pleased that the council managed its finances well so that when the economy went into recession we could ensure that we had sufficient reserves to continue important projects such as building schools such as Chelsea Academy and making improvement to the borough such as those in Exhibition Road."

2. On 18 July Marion wrote:

Cllr Cockell misunderstands 'Save the Portobello Rd Market' campaign. RBKC had more than enough powers to prevent the old Lipka antiques centre being redeveloped so that the resulting building breaks planning regulations. Plans included groundless but repeated references to
antique dealing continuing on the site + a mansard roof extension visible 500 metres away - cutting across the skyline & through St Peter's Church tower + massive terraces dominating dozens of houses below!!! The responsible RBKC planning officer went to work for the architect! His successor officer
said nothing! Where were their managers? The mansard has been built even higher than its dubious planning permission! Meanwhile, small landlords like me had to go to appeal for a mansard roof that is invisible from both the street & behind!!! RBKC clearly intends to destroy our markets & turn
Portobello & Golbourne into another Chelsea!!!

On 21 July the Leader responds:

"Unfortunately there seem to be a few misunderstandings of the planning process. It is a shame that these are repeated as they get in the way of the council and local traders working together to ensure the market remains the vibrant, successful place it is today unlike the image created by some.

Officers of the council do not make planning decisions; these are the responsibility of councillors alone.  However officers are free to secure employment elsewhere, and we can't prevent them from leaving the Council and then working for architects.

Regarding Lipka's Antiques Arcade and the planning application process, at no time was there an application for a change of use for this site from an antiques arcade to a fashion outlet or to amalgamate the small arcade units into one large unit because neither of these changes requires planning permission."

 

1. On 16 July Giles wrote:

 I certainly think the Council is unfairly criticised, in fact, slanderously criticised in the media, and allegations of brown envelopes is the way the public lamentably reduces issues to matters of heroes and villains. Nonetheless the public are saying something which touches a nerve outside of the legalities of what the Council is or is not able to do in its planning obligations, and that is that people are sick and tired of the uniformity of the average street in Britain, so the Council would do well to widely talk up initiatives that promote independent retailers and local schemes. I note from other sources that there is a "taste of summer" event in Golborne and Portobello roads this weekend, but there is no mention on your home page, whilst your apologia for the Good Fairy brou-hah-ha is ..? I think more pro-active, high visibility initiatives are required to keep Kensington unique and not just like everywhere else (except more expensive). Less of the formal "we at the Council" ..etc and more street level stuff.

 

Incidentally I was very pleased to see Councillor Moylan robustly speaking up about the daft idea by Prince Charles to put a chintzy greenhouse entrance on Kensington Palace, that was most welcome and sensible.

 

Comments for this discussion are now closed: