78 29th May 2010
letters to the editor
Why ATG are wrong over Portobello argument
SIR – Ivan Macquisten’s angry response (Comment, page 54, ATGNo 1940) to my letter reveals just how feeble the allegations of council inaction on Portobello Road actually are. What do they amount to? His first claim is that in a planning application for alterations to upper floor windows and to the rear of the building, the drawings failed to reflect layout changes on the ground floor. But, Ivan, those ground floor changes didn’t actually require planning permission. If some people really did draw comfort about the future of the ground floor from an application not relating to the ground floor, then with regret I have to say they were unwise to do so.
His second claim is that I am wrong to suggest that the council was quick to spot the unauthorised shop front and to initiate action. In support, he adduces criticism made of our building control department by no less a figure than the former leader of the Labour group. But, of course, shop fronts not built according to permission have nothing to do with building control, which is all about construction standards and health and safety. I repeat: the unauthorised deviation of the shop front from the plans agreed was quickly picked up, by our planning department in actual fact, and was being quietly and effectively resolved long before any campaign got underway. His third claim is a sort of semi-denial that the council has been lobbying for more power to prevent the loss of small retail units. Our lobbying efforts which were indeed “vigorous” are, of course, a matter of public record and are, as I said before, easily checkable.
Ivan concludes his case with his trump
card: that 30,000 people on the Lib-Dem- inspired Save Portobello Facebook page can’t be wrong. But I’m afraid they can Ivan. Nearly two million people belong to a group protesting at the demotion of Pluto from full planetary status. That doesn’t make Pluto a planet. The truth, the objective truth, is that whether made on Facebook or in the ATG, claims we don’t care about Portobello Road simply cannot withstand scrutiny.
Councillor Daniel Moylan
Deputy Leader Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
ivan macquisten
email:
editorial@antiquestradegazette.com
How the council really could help Portobello
SIR – It is regrettable that Councillor Daniel Moylan (Letters, ATGNo 1939) feels aggrieved that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council (RBK&C) is being unfairly treated over the multiple fashion chain All Saints’ planning debate in the Portobello antiques section. Here are the facts: while it is true that the council is pouring more money into improving the north section of the Golborne/Portobello Road (bric-a-brac and new goods), it has consistently refused to acknowledge the importance of the antiques market which has brought enormous prestige to this borough. The antiques trade is not affected by a change in consumer taste. In fact, in a recession, collectors are keener than ever to buy rare antiques as an investment. The Portobello Road is still visited by some 50,000 people every Saturday who are attracted to it because of the antiques and the rest of the market benefits. Here is how the council can help us: thousands of objectors
responded first and foremost to the change of character of an area, e.g. from established antiques to modern goods. This is the most valid point which the council must not lose sight of in considering planning applications.
Councillor Moylan, who is not only deputy leader of the RBK&C but also in charge of the council’s planning strategy, has done an excellent job in transforming the South Kensington area in a £25m project, providing easier access to the Natural History, Science and Victoria and Albert Museums. Create a link between the museums and the Portobello antiques section, so that visitors can say: “I saw this antique at the V&A and was thrilled that I managed to buy a similar piece in the Portobello Road. “All this, in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea."
Anne Swift (PADA)
Antique Lace Dealer Portobello Antiques Market
SIR – Councillor Moylan, Deputy Leader of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea and Deputy Chairman of Transport for London, berates the Portobello antiques community (Letters, ATG No 1939) for complaining at RBKC’s dereliction of its duty to the public over the Lipka/All Saints development, which resulted in the loss of 150 dealers.
The council itself was “hoodwinked” over the plans. Far from being a party-political plot, thousands of people from all over the world have expressed their anger. Outraged dealers created the "Save the Portobello Road Market" Facebook campaign, which now has 32,000 fans. Councillor Moylan’s claim that the market is “thriving” under RBKC control, is without foundation. RBKC mismanagement of market funds is currently under formal investigation. At a recent council meeting, Councillor Moylan’s colleagues publicly criticised those who object to its neglect of Portobello & Golborne Markets. Portobello is only 2km from the vast Westfield shopping centre and Kensington High Street. In defiance of all public opinion, RBKC councillors intend Portobello to become yet another ‘clone’ retail destination – like the ‘graveyard’ Westbourne Grove and utterly boring King’s Road... now without Antiquarius. We continue to demand that RBKC protects the public interest.
Marion H. Gettleson (Mrs)
Portobello Antique Dealer
Planning consent should be revoked
SIR – I shall not permit Deputy Leader Daniel Moylan’s (Letters, ATGNo 1939) championing the cause of the council in the matter of Portobello Market to be accepted.
The first planning application here was submitted in 2004 or so. This incorporated a huge, approx 16,000 sq ft megastore on the ground and basement floors across six properties at 282-292 Westbourne Grove. The council reported to the developer a large volume of objection; so the developer advised the council he would revise his application and include individual shops and market stalls. This he did. And a plan of the
ground floor was submitted to the council.
This plan clearly showed: PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN. MICHAELIS BOYD (Developer’s Architects). APPROVED GROUND FLOOR PLAN. RBK&C APPROVED 16 APR ‘09 + SIGNED. The approved plan showed 6 Retail
Units A-F and Market Stalls. This plan
remains in the council file and no indication of the megastore whatsoever was known or visible until the builders’ shuttering came down.
In my view the totally misleading documentation here vitiates the planning consent outright. The council failed in its
duty properly to disclose what was going on.
The effect is like a bomb in the heart of this world-famous market. It is inconceivable that higher authority will not see this as a fundamental deception and wrongful. It masked a gross over- development of the site and most serious damage to the character of this special area.
John Scott
Scott Enterprise Property Development and Consultancy Westbourne Grove London W11
Shippers need to look at prices again
SIR – In reply to Shipping costs are killing us(Letters, ATG No 1939), I would like to put the plight of English internet buyers into the mix. We buy items from auctions on-line. No problem until it comes to shipping. Some auction houses have their own packing and shipping. The charge varies enormously. I have been charged from £11.75 to £56.00 for postage and packing for similar weighted and sized items (the £56.00 was for an item worth £50.00 and the £11.75 for a £1200 item). Do the auction houses realise that I will not bid again on their sales?
Some shippers are excellent; others very, very slow and
some very expensive. We are in a Catch 22 situation with relying on packing and postage, so come on, let’s be fair. If the auction houses and other packers rely on us, let them give us a good deal. After all, with buyer’s premium and seller’s commission they are gaining from internet bids. I know there is a cost to everything but they need to be reasonable and maybe they will keep custom. I would rather have regular customers than just one-off unsatisfied clients.
Name and email address supplied
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80