Prince Charles: I defend ordinary people against property developers

Tony Gosling tony at cultureshop.org.uk
Wed Jun 30 01:17:56 BST 2010 

As Queen accepts pay freeze Charles's spending is soaring
By Vanessa Allen - 28th June 2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290171/As-Queen-accepts-pay-freeze-Charless-spending-soaring.html

Our new revelations include the ambiguous nature 
of the wording on Dr Kelly’s death certificate; 
the existence of an anonymous letter which says 
his colleagues were warned to stay away from his 
funeral; and an extraordinary claim that the 
wallpaper at Dr Kelly’s home was stripped by 
police in the hours after he was reported missing 
- but before his body was found.
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1289692/Dr-David-Kelly-The-damning-new-evidence-points-cover-Tony-Blairs-government.html>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1289692/Dr-David-Kelly-The-dam 
ning-new-evidence-points-cover-Tony-Blairs-government.html


AND NOW THAT ARTICLE ABOUT THE PRINCE.....................

"It is frustrating to hear he thinks he is on the 
side of ordinary people against developers, 
because villagers and the parish council here 
have sent him dozens of letters over the last few 
years," said Jane Giddins, parish council 
chairwoman at Newton St Loe, a duchy-owned 
village near Bath, where the duchy has been 
planning 2,000 new homes on neighbouring fields.


Prince Charles: I defend ordinary people against property developers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/29/prince-charles-planning-property-developers

Prince's private secretary claims he opposed 
modernist design out of duty to make ordinary people's views heard

It is an unlikely claim for a prince who enjoys a 
£17m private annual income and employs 16 
gardeners but Clarence House today said that 
Prince Charles believes it is his duty to defend 
"ordinary people" against profiteering property developers.

The claim was made as part of a fightback 
following a high court ruling that appeared to 
check the prince's ability to intervene in major planning decisions.

A judge ruled last week that the prince's 
campaign against the design of a redevelopment of 
the Chelsea barracks in London was "unwelcome". 
The judgment sparked criticism that Charles had 
overstepped his constitutional role by secretly 
lobbying at the highest levels against planning applications he disliked.

Today Sir Michael Peat, the prince's private 
secretary, claimed Charles opposed Lord Rogers' 
£3bn modernist designs because "it is part of the 
Prince of Wales' role and duty to make sure the 
views of ordinary people that might not otherwise 
be heard receive some exposure".

The prince wrote privately to Qatar's prime 
minister voicing his opposition to the plans for 
apartments on the Qatari-owned land. But far from 
acting in his own interests against designs, "he 
was only writing to the Qataris because he was 
asked to do so [by local residents]", Peat 
claimed. The emirate's state-owned developer 
scrapped the scheme after Charles had proposed an 
alternative design by Quinlan Terry, a classical architect he admires.

"For many developers, hearing the views of local 
residents is very unexpected and unwelcome," said 
Peat. "They are there just wanting to make money."

The claim that Charles is duty-bound to stand up 
for ordinary people's interests in disputes with 
major property developers came as it was 
announced that the prince earned a record £17.2m 
last year from the Duchy of Cornwall, a 
professionally managed £664m property empire run 
solely to fund his lifestyle which has been 
criticised for failing to listen to the views of 
its tenants on new developments.

"It is frustrating to hear he thinks he is on the 
side of ordinary people against developers, 
because villagers and the parish council here 
have sent him dozens of letters over the last few 
years," said Jane Giddins, parish council 
chairwoman at Newton St Loe, a duchy-owned 
village near Bath, where the duchy has been 
planning 2,000 new homes on neighbouring fields.

"We have only ever received replies from the 
Duchy of Cornwall, fobbing us off. People in this 
village are at best bemused and at worst feel let 
down by His Royal Highness. No one can understand 
why he has not been listening."

Opponents of his interventions believe the prince 
cannot claim to represent ordinary people because 
he cannot be held accountable by them.

"Any individual who feels strongly about 
representing the people should stand for 
election," Lord Rogers said last night. "There is 
a carefully organised democratic system of 
electing councillors who appoint planning 
officers and there is a process which allows the 
public to hold open meetings where they can air 
their feelings. All of that happened over the 
four years' planning process for Chelsea barracks."

Peat said Charles only intervened on Chelsea 
barracks after local residents approached him about their concerns.

"They had commissioned Quinlan Terry to propose 
an alternative design which they sent to the 
Prince of Wales," said Peat. "They asked him to 
do what he could to ensure their views received 
exposure. Their views represented the views of 
the majority. They asked whether he might be able 
to raise the issue with the Qataris and so he did."

But Charles' letter to the Qatari prime minister 
on 1 March 2009 contains no reference to any 
local opposition to the scheme or anyone asking 
him to write on their behalf. Charles told Sheikh 
Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani he was 
writing because "quite frankly, my heart sank 
when I saw the plans". He indicated he was 
motivated by personal concerns, saying: "For the 
entire duration of my life we have had to witness 
the destruction of so many parts of London, with 
one more 'brutalist' development after another."

Even though the existence of the prince's letter 
decrying the scheme only emerged in full in a 
high court dispute between the developers after 
the designs were scrapped, Peat denied the prince 
was trying to secretly undermine the project.

"He wasn't writing and expressing views that were 
private and weren't in the public domain," he 
said. "He was representing what the local 
residents were saying all along, so it was well-aired."

Campaigners for a democratically elected head of 
state said the royal household's claim that the 
prince has a duty to get involved in planning 
breaches constitutional principles.

"The role he is making for himself contradicts a 
well-established constitutional principle that 
the monarch and the heir to the throne keep out 
of politics, and that includes planning, for the 
very good reason that they are not accountable," 
said Graham Smith, campaigns director of Republic.

"It also appears he is only the people's 
representative when it coincides with his own 
views. Someone genuinely representing ordinary 
people would do so regardless of his personal views."











+44 (0)7786 952037
http://tonygosling.blip.tv/
http://www.thisweek.org.uk/
http://www.911forum.org.uk/
"Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."
_________________
www.abolishwar.org.uk
<http://www.elementary.org.uk>www.elementary.org.uk
www.public-interest.co.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/series/Bristol+Broadband+Co-operative
<http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf>http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf 

"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic 
poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
<https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/>https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20100630/41071784/attachment.html>

More information about the Diggers350 mailing list