Tower Hamlets Council is openly attacking the local community's very physical existence now. Thus also exposing as a wanton lie the line which had been contrived and uttered by the strategic planners [25-30 years or so ago] behind the recruitment of “ethnicity-linked” ‘candidates as councillors” that having "councillors from your own community" [whatever is THAT now?] would help the community's future! the entire batch of Tower Hamlets Councillors that has got in there by claiming "community commitment" has become recruited to the project for the destruction if the community, making way for Big Business, big buildings and big takeover of the East End....

Tower Hamlets Council is openly attacking the local community's very physical existence now. Thus also exposing as a wanton lie the line which had been contrived and uttered by the strategic planners [25-30 years or so ago] behind the recruitment of “ethnicity-linked” ‘candidates as councillors” that having "councillors from your own community" [whatever is THAT now?] would help the community's future! the entire batch of Tower Hamlets Councillors that has got in there by claiming "community commitment" has become recruited to the project for the destruction if the community, making way for Big Business, big buildings and big takeover of the East End.... Tower Hamlets Council goes OTT to give 3rd highest building in the country planning permission! This image [above, left] which has the Gherkin at the centre, has been used in another misleading piece by the "East London Advertiser". The figures seen on the foreground in the picture are supposed to be in Devonshire Square, which is closer to Bishopsgate, Bevis Marks and Liverpool Street than it is to "Aldgate". But the use of the word "Aldgate" by the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER web site is a part of the calculation to falsely show that the East End is already a part of the "City of London" culture and its "celebrations". [To be continued] The following item has been retrieved by AADHIKARonline from the website www.wharf.co.uk at 0415 GMT Sunday 2013 Solely for use by AADHIKAROnline visitors as a reference item We have included the comments as well, which are displayed by the www.wharf.co.uk editors i n a way that shows open brazen attack on the ordinary East End people and their rights AADHIKAR Media and KHOODEELAAR! are publishing these here as parts of the evidence of just how Tower Hamlets “ our local Council” is now part of the war on the community on behalf of Big building developers and big business and the City of London Agenda-pushers as against the local people in the East End [To be continued] Fears for community cohesion as City Pride scheme approved By Beth Allcock on July 25, 2013 3:13 PM | Tagged with: chalegrove properties, city pride, development, isle of dogs, peter golds, tower hamlets borough council, westferry road A controversial application to build a 75-storey skyscraper on the site of the former City Pride pub has been given the green light - despite being rejected by Tower Hamlets councillors last month. The scheme, by developers Chalegrove Properties Limited, will see private housing focussed on the north of the island, with the social housing shunted to a separate scheme. This notion of separating out social housing directly contradicts the council's own policies. At the City Pride site, 752 homes will be private while just 70 will be allocated for shared ownership. Councillors turned down the plans in June voicing citing a failure to represent "a mixed and balanced community". The developer's separate affordable housing development, Island Point, will offer 173 homes in a six-storey tower on the south of the Isle of Dogs. At Thursday's strategic development committee meeting, chairman Cllr Helal Abbas used his casting vote to push through the City Pride plans while Island Point was passed by four votes to two. The developer said it was "delighted" to be granted the opportunity to regenerate the sites and create an "iconic landmark" for the Isle of Dogs. But concern about the separation of social housing remains, with Conservative councillor Peter Golds, representing Blackwall and Cubitt Town, branding the approval a "terrible decision". He said: "It's sending out the wrong message. It does nothing for community cohesion. The [City Pride] site is going to be ghastly serviced apartments. "It's not people who will live there, it's people who are passing through. It should be mixed. Every survey there is shows you build a stable community with a mixed development. Tower Hamlets has regressed 40 years." A council spokesman said the approval of the application did not commit the body to give the nod to similar developments. He said: "In relation to City Pride, it is not considered that the development would detrimentally affect the balance of the community in the locality as there are a number of mixed tenure schemes including the adjacent development at the Landmark. "It was considered that the Island Point site afforded a better opportunity to provide good quality family housing with access to private gardens and better open space for children's play." The plans will now be referred to the Mayor of London for approval. To see The Wharf's view on the decision, click here Share: Comments (5) | Permalink | Older/Newer « Granada flights launched at London City | Comment: City Pride? City shame » 5 Comments steve arnold said: Excellent. Great decision. Why on earth does London have this nonsensical policy to dump people on benefits in the middle of affluent areas in the fantasy that the wealth will somehow rub off on the poor? It beggars belief. The precise reason that canary wharf does not have a sense of community (as councillor Peter Golds alludes to) is because of the ridiculous idea to mix these residential developments. It is why middle class families do not see canary wharf as a realistic place to live. The simple fact is they do not want to be rubbing shoulders with unemployed people on benefits. I live in the canary central development which in itself is full of pleasant hard working people. However, TH council forced the developers to build social housing right next door in a bizarre effort to mix the community. What we now have is some people working incredibly hard to buy a 2 bed flat for £400k, whilst next door someone on benefits gets it for free. We also have a terrible problem with dog mess from dog owners within the social housing site next door and rowdy anti-social teenagers. The idea of social inclusion is bonkers!! The two parts of the development NEVER interact. Furthermore, any young middle class families are forced to leave the isle of dogs when their kids reach schooling age because the schools are full of children from parents on benefits. It really is a tragic state of affairs and unless it is changed, CW will never become a stable, safe and pleasant residential area. Sticking the social housing developments right next to the private developments offers no benefit to either cohort. July 26, 2013 1:37 PM Mike Anonymous said: Completely agree with Steve Arnold. Why on Earth these people are able to be on benefits and given houses or flats to live in within exclusive areas is hard to fathom. People work all their lives to afford these properties and if people choose not to work then the choice should be made for them by making the houses available to them in areas outside of London. July 26, 2013 2:51 PM Concerned Resident said: Both of you appear to be of the misinformed opinion that everyone in Social Housing is on benefits. Little do you realise that any number of the future owners of these properties could let them out to private renters who... then claim Housing Benefit. You appear to live in a black and white world where you can either afford a £400k flat, or alternatively, you are on benefits. Where are young people supposed to live, the old, the hard working low paid? Your arguments are ill thought through, terribly prejudiced and although I am not saying there is not some merit in the discussion, your base assumptions and ignorance is quite disgraceful. July 26, 2013 4:18 PM Local Resident said: Mike and Steve - your comments are hilariously outrageous and unbelievably ignorant. I would challenge you as to whether you genuinely believe what you're writing, but shamefully I've heard other similar narrow minded comments from others living in the so-called more "exclusive" areas of the Isle of Dogs. I also doubt you could qualify them with anything even remotely sound, besides annecdotes of yobs outside your house. You do realise that the Isle of Dogs and the wider area surrounding it already had residents before all the glossy towers started popping up. Presumably you are suggesting those that have lived here all their lives are fair game when it comes to developers pricing them and their children out of the area - both in terms buying and rental. Granted we live in a largely capitalist market, but we are also supposed to be a civilised and developed country where decisions on development need not solely be focused on money, greed and ignorance - which seems to be the principles you value your existence by, which is fine, because to be honest, you're probably in the minority. July 26, 2013 4:44 PM christopher littley said: i agree w the first comment, why do the councillors think that people on benifits and low incomes can afford to live in that area anyway? its crazy to think people will get their benifits on a monday morning and then stroll into cabot circus to buy their groceries?