Still more files! A case for scrutiny?


The constant uploading of ever more files continues. On Friday 25th September another eight files were added to the submission amounting to an additional 93 pages of materials. The main content concerns traffic and travel plans. The whole exercise is now a case of trying to make up for the inadequacy of the submission, itself a consequence of the total lack of meaningful consultation beforehand, by adding more and more files to try to fend of problems as they are pointed out. And even with this somewhat frenzied activity the major questions remained unanswered and even the traffic issues on which the EFA/Nishkam clearly feel that there are gaps to be plugged still leave a long list of unanswered questions and challenges.

The submission has become a shambles. No one can be expected to keep up with this process of ever more documents being added. That includes residents, councillors and even planners. The latter are hard pressed and each officer is handling a large number of different cases. We doubt that any officer can keep up with this rate of new material added after submission.

It really is time to call a halt on this application and, failing that, to bring it to the Planning Committee as soon as possible with a clear recommendation for refusal.

P.S. All the new files are available on this website from where they can be viewed and/or downloaded a lot more reliably than on the Council’s planning website.

More files added. Is this joke?

PlanningWebsiteSeptWe just took a look at the Council’s planning website and were lucky enough to find it in one of its functioning moments. That was the good news.

That bad news is that we found that the number of files in the Nishkam application had gone up from 130 to 136!

Trying to access the Council's planning website!
Trying to access the Council’s planning website!

No one told us. Are we expected to look at the website every day (taking a chance as to whether it is working or not)?

Six of the files are substantial documents (amounting to over 100 pages of text and detailed data tables).

Is this fair that the files for the application should continually increase in this way? They have risen from an initial 72 to the present 136. In other words the number of files has nearly doubled since the application was first validated and a consultation started.

This seems to us like continually moving goal posts. We can’t believe that this is an acceptable procedure. We will discuss this with our ward Councillors and with the planning officers at the first opportunity.

How do you Goo?

Today (11th September) the Hounslow Chronicle carried the article below.

Click on the image article to enlarge
Click on the image article to enlarge

This article presented arguments about the proposed Nishkam school as a clash between two residents’ groups 300 mg Seroquel Keep Osterley Green (KOG) on the one hand and Give Osterley Opportunity (GOO) on the other. In fact there is no such clash because GOO is not a genuine residents’ group but a concoction of Nishkam. Its very poor website was set up by a Nishkam employee (Balraj Singh Burmy). Continue reading How do you Goo?

A strange way to upload documents

Nishkam put up some 50+ additional files for its application some days ago on its own website. These have still not appeared on the Council’s planning website (which is still up and down like a yo-yo).

Well, that is not quite true. Two of the documents has appeared but in a really bizarre way.

Nishkam has announced a plan to cut 22 trenches for archaeological purposes. It has agreed this with Historic England. Nishkam has sent a letter to the planners to explain this and also submitted a document from CgMs Consultants explaining the purpose of the investigation and the methods that will be used. Continue reading A strange way to upload documents

Public meeting with Ruth Cadbury MP

We held a well-attended meeting of local residents (from Osterley and Isleworth) with Ruth Cadbury MP in the Wycombe House cricket pavilion on Wednesday 12th August.

A petition of over 1000 signatures from TW7 residents, opposed the proposal to build the Nishkam school on the white Lodge/ Conquest Club site was presented to Ruth Cadbury.  It was pointed out to Ruth that the Nishkam School Trust (NST) was claiming 80% support, but NST had resolutely declined to provide a post code analysis of their supporters.

Ruth Cadbury MP receiving our petition
Ruth Cadbury MP receiving our petition

Continue reading Public meeting with Ruth Cadbury MP