Hackney mayor Jules Pipe set to become Sadiq Khan’s deputy mayor for planning

6 Comments

1. damianrafferty on Wednesday 29 June 2016 at 22:59

   Why should Hackney’s tree huggers suffer alone when all of London can get a taste of this disgrace to the Labour Party? Goodbye parks and green spaces…

   
   
   
2. Muhammad Haque on Thursday 30 June 2016 at 06:08

   Jules Pipe is the second one from “Hackney” that Sadiq Khan is recruiting.
   And in neither case has there been any evidence that he, Khan, has asked the Communities’ views about anything.

   The internal bureaucratic routines are NOT the same as transparent Democratic Community-based
   testing of the suit unity or otherwise of a nominee to the post that automatically carry the
   tag “deputy mayor” and are treated as reflecting the “authority” of the “elected mayor of London”.

   That authority is a myth when tested against he requirements of Democracy and as evidenced in the behaviour of Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson whilst in office.

   Despite the hype – which the :”mainstream” “London Media” – appear to grant the incumbent, the
   realities of ordinary peoples’ experience under the two predecessors of Khan (2000-2016) have been seriously at odds with the hype.

   In addition to “Media” hype, academics, including a pair from the Goldsmith College in the University of London, rushed to issue stupidly ill-researched and politically ignorant an evidentially misleading praise for the “London mayor” post.

   There is no record of either the Media or the academies doing the audit of any of the post-holders.

   Which is why Khan is able to do as Livingstone and Johnson before him had done: behave as if he is beyond demoniac accountability to the London Communities.

   It is impossible that Pipe will be the last one to enjoy a personal career move whole being allowed de facto exemption from accountability for his disastrous career in the name of the Hackney part of East London.

   Communities deserve much better than anything that Kahn has exhibited so far.

   As for Tim Donovan’s use of “affordable”, why is he denying the evidence that he has been sent from across London where Councils are engaged iN Social Cleansing?

   Why is BBC London suppressing evidence of the fact that :”affordable” is a market term, a very opposite connect to Council and Social Housing?

   Why is BBC London denying the evidence that Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Lewisham, greenwich Councils are among the most active social cleansing operations that are driving London people out of London?

   And why, in this context, are the “Left” so quiet?

   Doesn’t the appointment of a “deputy mayor” which is a decoration
   and a career enhancer, warrant Democratic, campaigning Scrutiny from the
   “Left”?

   The evidence shows that the “Left” has left the arena of universal democratic audit.

   The “Left” – the varieties of the outfits “trading” as of “the Left” at the time time in the from all aspects of Ken Livingstone’s 8 years
   as “Mayor” or his years at the GLC following his coup
   against Andrew Macintosh in May 1981.

   0508 GMT
   London Thursday
   30 June 2016

   
   
   
3. Williever on Thursday 30 June 2016 at 19:51

   He’s in charge of planning for London? OMG, what a disaster he will be. I suggest you hold on to your local green spaces…he’ll probably advise that they all be re-classified as ‘potential sites for redevelopment’. He also always seems to be starry-eyed about attracting the bigger international businesses with little interest in standing up for smaller, often locally-grown, ones.

   
   
   
4. Steve Lane on Monday 24 April 2017 at 17:50

   In charge of planning? – he was involved in covering up this:-

   Dear Mr Glanville

   My apologies but I am putting this on the Hackney Citizen so that everyone can see just how your council treats those who try to expose corruption and I don’t believe you would bother reading it otherwise.

   I am sorry to see that you have taken the view that there was no corruption involved in the (mislaid) failing of planning permission and then the passing of an identical building that exceeded the height of the failed application AND the approved one.

   If you are being truly honest about it you will be able to answer or have your planning dept answer the following unanswered (since the case began) relevant questions:-

   Your planning department refused planning permission, stating among other detrimental things that “…would adversely affect light and outlook to the rear of these properties to an unacceptable degree, reducing the quality of life of these residents”

   The full detriment to the surrounding existing properties was detailed by the planning dept. In a 4 page report which your planning dept “mislaid” to the public AND to councillor Sylvia Anderson (who was asked to stand down by the then leader Max Caller) for revealing Hackneys corrupt planning depts methods to me and acquiring the councils “mislaid documents.

   The height of the failed application was to be 7.1 metres. Minuscule changes were made – the biggest being a whopping 8 inch reduction in the height. No explanation was given how this 8’” reduction would reduce or reverse the detriment that they had detailed in the first refusal.
   Suddenly all the udps that it was failed on were ignored.

   The final height of the building came to 7.2 metres. and I forced your regulatory service to admit that was in breach of planning, however they said that they could not prove whether the ground had been sunk. I offered them a before and after photo of the existing rear wall whereby all they had to do was count the courses of bricks (which remained the same as the ground was not lowered). but your regulatory services declined my offer as they had no intention of digging up your councils underhanded corrupt practices.

   The planning officers Cindy Badoe, Femi Nwanzi and Kelvin Williams are deeply involved in this abuse of office and they

   Wrote to potential objectors on the 23rd Dec knowing full well that most people would be busy doing other things over christmas and that they were closed so no one could ask them anything. They also stated that they would be informing residents when the neighbourhood committee would be held (which they had no intention of doing) and sure enough they didn’t.

   The second application which they approved committed ALL the detriment that they had clearly laid out in the first and they fabricated measurements to the extent that my 5 meter garden stretched to 8meters which also falls short of the councils UDP policies.

   The approved the second application 3-4 days before the deadline they gave to objectors showing that they had no concerns whatsoever about the damage they knew it would cause.

   One of the reasons that they approved it 4 days before the objectors deadline was because they had to get it through the `NC before the secretary of state for the environment stepped in who also failed the first application, criticising the planning officers for using outdated merits from the 70s.

   Once the SoSftE had made its decree (failing it because the site was too small) it would have been impossible for your bent officers to change and so they greased The second application through the NC before he even visited

   Your planning dept also “mislaid” the SoSftE’s report which also showed the true detriment this development would cause.

   Your planning officers ensured (by telling us that they would inform us of the dates and then not doing so) that there would be no objectors at the NC (as we were still waiting for them to inform us).

   In the report submitted to the NC there were at least 20 discrepancies such as falsified measurements, L shaped pictures design to cut out peoples kitchens or gardens, misleading statements e.g.

   “…would adversely affect light and outlook to the rear of these properties to an unacceptable degree, reducing the quality of life of these residents” got changed to “…Mr Lane will lose his light in the morning only” – even this new statement was designed to mislead as the morning light was the only light my previous home received – so Mr Lane will lose 100% of his light and have to keep his lights on all day would have been a little more truthful.

   In fact in the 2nd report there was just one sentence in 4 pages of text that referred to the failed application. What was a terrible idea that would cause too much damage to the environment of the existing properties, had now become a wonderful idea and caused no detriment at all and all because the building (on paper as it was never carried out) was to be lowered by 8”

   The application was passed by all councillors present (including laughably Chit Chong from the Green party) except for Sylvia Anderson who pointed out to all present that this was too close and likely to cause a lot of damage. She was ignored.

   I was informed by Councillor John Hudson that if there were any anomalies (in this case there were many) that I could contact the head of the council and ask him to revoke the decision. But unfortunately he joined in with the scurrilous smear campaign your planning officers launched against me.

   He asked the officers to arrange a meeting with me but they already knew i would be asking them questions which they could not answer without incriminating themselves. So the bent officers orchestrated a smear campaign against me libellously saying that they couldn’t entertain a meeting because I had threatened Ms Badoe in the one telephone conversation I was able to get with her. She had agreed to come to my home (in our telephone conversation) to see what all the fuss was about (although it was plain to see she knew full well).

   A simple question would be explain how you felt the 8” reduction would alleviate the damage you yourselves have detailed in your “mislaid report. Or why did you pass the application 4 days before the deadline you gave to objectors. Or why did you lie about measurements (my garden went from 5 to 8 metres) Shortly after this conversation on the day of our meeting whereby I had a planning lawyer arranged, They cancelled the meeting stating that I had threatened Ms Badoe in “words and tone”. What they didn’t know at the time is that I had recorded my conversation with Badoe and so could prove without doubt, that she and her colleagues were lying. They merely changed their statement each time they were proven to lie (oddly the subsequent Ombudsmans whitewashed investigation allowed them to change this one to my “tone” was threatening – omitting the “words” were threatening as they knew by now that I had recorded the conversation.

   There are many more things you could ask your bent officers and each question would see them floundering, but I believe that you know this already and you simply want to carry on (like your predecessors Max Caller and Jules Pipe who made Jessica Crowe deputy mayor in charge of Hackneys environment knowing full well that she was involved in this (she was one of the councillors that approved it).

   The story continues with once everyone involved in your establishment knew full well about the real damage – they awarded the developers £4k of council tax payers money for there environmentally friendly eco design – of course no mention was made of the loss of light, privacy and overbearing loos of amenity it had stripped from the surrounding homes.

   Your officers abused their office, destroying many peoples homes – mine was the worst hit directly behind and facing east. They then covered up what they had done by mislaying all documents that they themselves had issued detailing the damage, ignored the fire officers report (on the first application the fire officer said operations could be put in “jeopardy” so your bent officers didn’t bother getting a fire officers report for the second application as they knew he would say – what difference does 8” make?

   You don’t have to do much to find out they are corrupt – you could just ask them to answer how they went from failure to passing by reducing the building by 8 inches? Or what procedure did they use to ignore the deadline for objectors, Or how do they justify ignoring the fire officers report, Or why they can’t expand on their false accusations of threatening words (although this ones obvious). Or why they felt it necessary to “mislay” or hide from public and councillors view the true picture of the damage that they knew it would cause. Or Why your council has continued to defend their actions whilst providing no answers to the above, Or how does what they did comply with any of the udp policies designed to stop this sort of corruption from happening.

   You have advised me to go through council complaints and the ombudsman (which I did at the time) between both of them I was unable to get any of my questions answered and thats why I am asking you (I will ask each new mayor until I get one honest enough to investigate).
   When I contacted your complaints dept. One Debbie Davey (I believe she was head of complaints) felt that she needed to “concoct” a story about me in order to side tract or obfuscate. When I contacted the ombudsman she said she was not allowed to comment on the merits of the councils decision making, as most of their lies are in the merits (or non merits of the case she was not allowed to ask any relevant questions. Although she did allow Cindy Badoe to remind her false statement of falsely accusing me of threatening her in “words and tone” to “tone” – she did The ombusdsmans inspector allowed your officers to repeatedly change their story (which is atypical thing that liars do).

   Subsequent FOI reports show that the ombudsman was biased towards the council from the start in correspondence between Kelvin Williams and your complaints dept (Ms Debbie Davey) she said that “she understands the council’s point of view but she says that she still requires the documents in order that she can demonstrate (to me) that she has looked into the case properly” This is not the sort of statement one would expect from an ombudsman who normally should be unbiased.

   You say “I am always happy to investigate resident’s complaints and enquiries” then you should be happy to get your staff to answer the serious unanswered concerns some of which I have detailed above.

   The reason that I am unable to “move on” is because I was libelously accused of something I am innocent of, forced to uproot myself and my family and move because I could not wake up every morning to see this 7 metre high shed like monstrosity blottting out all light and amenity and knowing that my home was destroyed some very deceitful unworthy characters employed by your council.

   Re – “I have made enquiries with the Council’s Planning service and have advised that the property known as 108a Palatine Road, granted planning permission in 2000, has been built in accordance with the approved plans.”

   Here you are either misled or you are doing what all involved have done and closing ranks to cover up this scandal. It has not been “built in accordance with the approved plans” as they clearly stated 6.9metres high the final development went to 7.2 (there is documented evidence of this) I can provide it to you so you will be in no doubt that you are being misled.

   Finally if a reduction of 8 inches was supposed to alleviate the detriment the planning office clearly detailed (then mislaid) then allowing it to go passed its illegally approved height by a further 12 inches would (according to your planning officers rational) cause at least a third more damage than they had originally detailed.

   The damage your council and its bent officers have done to my mental health and any trust I had for those in authority is immense. I am a Shirley Oaks Childrens home survivor (its taken 50 years for us to uncover the criminals that called themselves Lambeth council and now they are finally exposed) my first home which your council destroyed was more of an achievement for me than most people buying their first home (I had no help just working day and night) and your council wrecked it. I should also point out that in the midst of your council destroying my property in 2000, I had a child, my father died and unexpectedly my partners father died – all these things pale in comparison to the anguish and torment your council and its operatives put me through – thats why I shall continue exposing this issue regardless of your fabricated denials

   Best regards

   Steve Lane

   
   
   
5. Steve Lane on Monday 24 April 2017 at 17:59

   Words in quotes are from your council some have been obtained through the FOI which provides a damaging incite into how your council operates like a criminal gang

   
   
   
6. Laura on Monday 24 April 2017 at 18:26

   John Hudson ceased to be a Hackney councillor in 2002.