Read on Twitter
Tuning into Chester Road homeless hostel planning committee. Development manager opening with a presentation about the history of the site, which I find enormously irrelevant given it has already been refused listing by Historic England.
Shows a photo of a view of a hill, just peeking out at the end of the road, that is protected in some way and adds that this is the "most pertinent consideration". What a world we live in that a sliver of hill in the distance is so important, in the middle of a housing crisis.
Just bizarre that we have to go through this just to build one hostel. What a bureaucratic, nitpicky, pointless process.
First councillor Lob-Levyt speaks in objection. Raises local neighbourhood forum, whinges about "inappropriate design", somehow implies that the design is inappropriate for women who have been abused, and says it& #39;s too many homes...
Next, in his capacity as a public health specialist, says that high density housing is an infection risk, and this housing is too dense. Totally incorrect and repeatedly debunked. It is overcrowding stemming from insufficient supply that creates infection risk, NOT density.
He jumps around between his nonsensical public health argument and bizarre comments about design, without rhyme or reason. Claiming concern about homeless people even as he tries to deprive them of homes. Disgusting.
Cllrs bending over backwards to say that none of the local residents who objected object to homes for homeless people, only to "massing" and design. Very nice but of course if you are asking for the size to be reduced, you ARE, in practice, objecting to homes for homeless people
We are not talking about an eighty storey tower in a suburb. We are talking about a max 4-storey building where the elevation barely rises above existing housing. In central fucking London. If anything it& #39;s far too SMALL
Also note that in response to "community concerns" the proposal was already reduced from 64 to 50 units. 14 homes for the people in the greatest housing need. I hope they sleep easy knowing these people will remain homeless because of their concerns about "massing"!
Some poor conservation officer now having to explain why they chose green tiles, in response to a question from a councillor raising ~the community& #39;s~ deep concern about the design -______-
Next, Cllr Rea says she finds it "quite extraordinary" that they chose ceramic tiles, which remind her of a "public toilet". She accepts the conservation officer& #39;s point that ceramic tiles are used on many local buildings, but "not residential ones!" What the fuck?
To her credit, she says that she is in favour of the application nonetheless, but just really doesn& #39;t like green ceramic tiles. "Why green???" She reckons the community would support the application if it were not green. LOL.
Cllr Cooper, a self-proclaimed lover of free markets, steps in to complain it doesn& #39;t go *beyond* statutory obligations for conservation areas, and queries why it doesn& #39;t put greater weight on the neighbourhood plan. Says design does "harm" to other residents. Wow so free market
Bit of debate about whether the proposed building is too "shouty". I& #39;ll give you lot shouty in a minute
Brief interval to shout-out to @YouTube for allowing me to watch this at 1.4x speed (I& #39;m a bit behind real time). If I have to listen to a lot of pointless drivel, at least I can do so at pace.
Cllr Mulholland points out that the people whose views on the design matter most are the future residents - and that sadly none of those people are in the room. Indeed - biggest failure of our planning system is that it privileges the views of incumbents over future residents!
Yes! Councillor Boyland says we& #39;ve "been round the houses with the tiles", expresses his full support for the scheme, says if anything it& #39;s a pity we& #39;re not debating the loss of 14 units that could& #39;ve housed homeless people. Wharra babe.
Ohhh we& #39;re going back to the shouty tiles again 
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="đ€š" title="Gesicht mit hochgezogener Augenbraue" aria-label="Emoji: Gesicht mit hochgezogener Augenbraue">
Heeere we gooooo it& #39;s time to vote!!
In favour: Beales (L), Boyland (L), Johnson (L), Mulholland (L), Pietragnoli (L), Rea (LD), Vincent (L)
Opposed: Cooper (C), Parkinson (C)
Abstain: Wright (L)
PASSES!https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="đ„ł" title="Partying face" aria-label="Emoji: Partying face">
Opposed: Cooper (C), Parkinson (C)
Abstain: Wright (L)
PASSES!
Congratulations to everyone involved and can& #39;t wait to see these new homes built! 50 families are going to be so happy with their new homes https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="đ„°" title="Smiling face with 3 hearts" aria-label="Emoji: Smiling face with 3 hearts">
That was fun. All the dramatic tension of the opening objection, followed by the plot twisting and turning about the greenness of tiles, the occasional glimmers of hope as councillors actually referenced housing need... and then the final storm to victory.
It was then followed by two other applications, both of which attracted no questions and were passed unanimously. Don& #39;t know what they were!
