Guest blog from the Save the QueensburyGroup. It really does seem to be The People against The Developers (Kensal Rise Library, Willesden Green Library, Queensbury Pub) with Brent Council unable or unwilling to stand up for local people - and seemingly subservient to the developers.
The Save The Queensbury group is very disappointed that the pub has not been added to Brent Council’s list of Assets of Community Value. Our nomination (via the NW2 Residents Association) was refused following a 15 page letter from the Fairview Homes law firm to Brent Council and we are now considering whether to try for a third time.
We are disappointed that Brent Council did not recognise and agree that the site of the pub has been an important resource in our community since 1925. The regulations on ACVs ask whether a property has community use currently or at any time in the recent past. We were confident that because the building has been a social club between 1925-2012 and a pub since 2000 it would reasonably meet that criteria. After all many pubs already listed elsewhere are actually closed, often by developers who want to build flats. This is precisely why these regulations were introduced.
We are also disappointed that Brent Council did not agree that the Busy Rascals activities for toddlers and the National Childbirth Trust meetings for parents both reflect the pub’s place in the community. Fairview argued that this is not a normal use of a pub, claiming it actually contravened the pub’s lease and sought to discount it for ACV purposes. Brent council seem to agree. Let’s remember that Fairview have strenuously and persistently sought to undermine Busy Rascals and the pub, at every turn.
Aside from current use, there is also a test as to the future use of a building over the next five years. We argued that the pub has a lease until 2017 so it’s a no-brainer? We also stated that there is no permission for anything other than community / social club / pub use. Plus there are no current plans before the council to change this. But, again, Brent listened to Fairview Homes who said that they have no intention of opening the building for community use and every intention of demolishing it. As far as we can tell there is nothing in regulations about a landowner’s intention and desire, otherwise surely no building would be listed if an owner could simply say they wanted to demolish it?
We put a lot into our nominations. We took advice and we looked at other successful nominations of pubs and other buildings. What we got in return was a convoluted process which heavily favoured Fairview Homes (they had two weeks to respond to our nomination and we were afforded two days). We are a small, voluntary group without the expertise and resource of a multinational law firm. Yet we did address Fairview’s points and were confident that our nomination met the criteria and Brent had a duty to list it.
It really is an uphill struggle, so we’re taking stock and considering our next moves, but we’re certainly not giving up in our fight to save The Queensbury.
The Save The Queensbury group is very disappointed that the pub has not been added to Brent Council’s list of Assets of Community Value. Our nomination (via the NW2 Residents Association) was refused following a 15 page letter from the Fairview Homes law firm to Brent Council and we are now considering whether to try for a third time.
We are disappointed that Brent Council did not recognise and agree that the site of the pub has been an important resource in our community since 1925. The regulations on ACVs ask whether a property has community use currently or at any time in the recent past. We were confident that because the building has been a social club between 1925-2012 and a pub since 2000 it would reasonably meet that criteria. After all many pubs already listed elsewhere are actually closed, often by developers who want to build flats. This is precisely why these regulations were introduced.
We are also disappointed that Brent Council did not agree that the Busy Rascals activities for toddlers and the National Childbirth Trust meetings for parents both reflect the pub’s place in the community. Fairview argued that this is not a normal use of a pub, claiming it actually contravened the pub’s lease and sought to discount it for ACV purposes. Brent council seem to agree. Let’s remember that Fairview have strenuously and persistently sought to undermine Busy Rascals and the pub, at every turn.
Aside from current use, there is also a test as to the future use of a building over the next five years. We argued that the pub has a lease until 2017 so it’s a no-brainer? We also stated that there is no permission for anything other than community / social club / pub use. Plus there are no current plans before the council to change this. But, again, Brent listened to Fairview Homes who said that they have no intention of opening the building for community use and every intention of demolishing it. As far as we can tell there is nothing in regulations about a landowner’s intention and desire, otherwise surely no building would be listed if an owner could simply say they wanted to demolish it?
We put a lot into our nominations. We took advice and we looked at other successful nominations of pubs and other buildings. What we got in return was a convoluted process which heavily favoured Fairview Homes (they had two weeks to respond to our nomination and we were afforded two days). We are a small, voluntary group without the expertise and resource of a multinational law firm. Yet we did address Fairview’s points and were confident that our nomination met the criteria and Brent had a duty to list it.
So what next?
This is a small chapter in a battle to save both The Queensbury pub and the activities of Busy Rascals by preserving a landmark building in a conservation area. But we have little expertise, limited resource, not much local Councillor support and a developer with a lot of money at stake and a huge legal resource to lobby and bully the council.It really is an uphill struggle, so we’re taking stock and considering our next moves, but we’re certainly not giving up in our fight to save The Queensbury.
14 comments:
This is just appalling news. Over 100 pubs have been listed across the country as Assets of Community Value, I'm pretty sure The Queensbury is just as worthy as any of these others. It sounds very much like Brent Council are letting themselves be bullied by developers and their hot shot lawyers. Yet again, Brent Council fails to stand up for residents against developers - quelle surprise.
Did the Council offer any grounds for their decision?
"Brent Council unable or unwilling to stand up for local people - and seemingly subservient to the developers" - what a load of rubbish - what about community listing of KR library and planners recommending against developer?
Margaret Bailey, who chairs FKRL, said:
“I am very glad the officers decided to take the asset of community value into account.
“It’s not just good for us, but for groups all over England.
“They (Brent Council) are to be applauded for it.”
Brent should be applauded for taking the ACV status of the library into account in the planning report but rest assured, the library went through the same painful process to get its ACV listing ! Seems that planners have learnt that communities are serious about the systematic dismantling of community assets but those taking decisions on whether to list community assets are clearly out of touch with their residents.
Reasons for The Queensbury ACV refusal included that the children's activities and NCT meetings of mothers / dads and babies are not normal uses of a pub, so the regulations do not apply (Fairview's legal reps once again undermining the Busy Rascals group and want them out of the pub).
The car park is a private concern (even though it serves the pub).
Most of the building is not CURRENTLY used by the community. Fairview bought in 2012; prior to that it was a social club since 1925, but Brent dismiss this as not RECENT use. Bizarre.
Fairview stated their intentions for the building (demolition), yet there is nothing in Regulations which enables Brent to consider a freeholder's future intentions for a site, just its potential use to the community. If there was such scope for this in regulations, then no building would ever be listed!
We've summarised their grounds, above and below as another comment. We think the grounds are dubious and intend to strenuously challenge them. We cannot help think that a "Global Law" firm (as they call themselves) have greater influence over a small voluntary group in the community.
Er, would that be the same council who closed the library in the first place? They stole our dinner then threw us a crumb now you expect us to jump up and down for joy? You're clearly a Labour goon with an eye on the local elections if you're spinning this rubbish. We won't be taken in so easily.
The letter says only nominate the bit of the Queensbury being used as a pub, but that the council are not taking a position on whether this will be successful.
By email only northwesttwo@gmail.com
Dear Ms Grayson,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S OFFICE
Re: Application to List Asset of Community Value – 110 Walm Lane, NW2 4RS
1. We write in respect of your revised application submitted on 16 July 2013 to list the land at 110 Walm Lane, London, NW1 4RS as an asset of community value.
2. Your earlier previous application, dated 17 April 2013, was not accepted as a valid community nomination, due to the uncertainty over the extent of the nominated land. It was rejected by the Council on 5 June 2013 as it did not amount to a community nomination as required by the statutory provisions. By that decision letter, the Council noted that it was open to you to make a fresh community nomination and invited you to address the following matters in the event that a fresh nomination was made:-
(1) First, whether the nomination is in respect of the entirety of the property at 110 Walk Lane, or whether it is limited to that part of the building currently used as the Queensbury Pub;
(2) Secondly, what approach the Council should take to the use of the Queensbury Pub by the Busy Rascals group and the local National Childbirth Trust. The Council set out its preliminary view that such use was “an ancilliary use” to the main use, and so should not be taken into account in assessing whether the test for listing is met, and invited you to address this point.
(3) Thirdly, if the nomination was made in respect of the Queensbury Pub only, and based on its use solely as a pub, what aspects of this use made it a community asset “furthering the social well-being or social interests of the local community” as opposed to any other pub.
3. In the current application, you have confirmed that the nomination is in respect of the entirety of the property at 110 Walm Lane, i.e. the entire freehold plot registered under number MX369109 (“the Property”).
4. Fairview New Homes Limited is the freehold owner of the Property. We understand that the freehold of the Property consists of some 8,650 square feet, together with an area of land of approximately 0.1ha to the rear of the Property, which is used on a short-term basis as a private fee paying car park. Following a site visit, it is apparent that the car park is run as a
commercial concern. There is an attendance service, with a car washing service and daily or hourly rates.
5. Part of the basement and part of the ground floor of the Property is leased to the London Gastropub Company Limited, who operate the Queensbury Pub. We understand that the leased land available for such use comprises approximately 1,750 square foot (“the Queensbury Land”). The Lease permits the use of the Queensbury Land was a “high class gastropub restaurant and/or wine bar”. The Lease expires on 23 June 2017.
6. The remainder of the Property was previously used as a Conservative social club, and minor uses which were previously ancillary to the club. They now comprise short term use as an office, a storage area and a small residential area. The use as a Conservative Club ceased in 2011/12.
7. In considering your application, the Council has sought further information from yourselves and from the freehold owners of the Property. We note your criticism of this approach in your letter of 4 September 2013. The Council considered that it was necessary to obtain further information from yourselves and the freehold owners in order to determine whether the statutory test for listing the Property is met. Both parties have been provided with copies of the other’s submissions, and both have been given the opportunity to comment on any points raised. You have not indicated that there is any further information you wish to provide to the Council but have not had the opportunity to do so, and have stated that you consider that the Council has all the information it requires to take a decision.
(1) The Statutory Test
8. Section 88 of the Localism Act 2011 (“the 2011 Act”) identifies land of community value. Section 88(1) provides that a building or other land in a local authority’s area is land of community value if in the opinion of the authority (a) an actual current use of the building or other land that is not an ancillary use furthers the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community, and (b) it is realistic to think that there can continue to be non- ancillary use of the building or other land which will further (whether or not in the same way) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community.
9. Section 88(2) provides that a building or other land in a local authority’s area that is not land of community value as a result of subsection (1) is land of community value if in the opinion of the local authority (a) there is a time in the recent past when an actual use of the building or other land that was not an ancillary use furthered the social wellbeing or interests of the local community; and, (b) it is realistic to think that there is a time in the next five years when there could be non-ancillary use of the building or other land that would further (whether or not in the same way as before) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community.
10.Section 88(6) of the 2011 Act defines “social interests” as including (a) cultural interests; (b) recreational interests; and (c) sporting interests. The Act gives no definition of “social wellbeing”.
(2) Section 88(1)(a) - Current Use that furthers social wellbeing or social interests
11. You have applied to list the entirety of the Property. However, the only part of the Property that is currently used is (i) the approximately 1,750 square foot area defined as the Queensbury Land above; (ii) the car park; and (iii) the ancillary office/residential space. The vast majority of the Property that was the site of the former Conservative club is vacant.
12. It follows therefore that as only a small portion of the Property is being currently used, the Property as a whole cannot meet the test set out in section 88(1)(a). Even if such uses could be said to be non-ancillary uses, the Council does not consider that the use as a commercial car park furthers social wellbeing or social interests, nor does use as a small residential flat or office space.
13. Even if the use of the Queensbury Land could be said to “further the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community” (as to which, the Council makes no decision at the present time) it cannot be said that the “actual or current use” that is not an ancillary use of the entire building / land you have nominated meets that test. The use of that part of the Property used by the former Conservative club or the other uses in the previous paragraph cannot be described in any way as ancillary to the Queensbury Land. The Queensbury Land is only a small part of the Property.
14. You note that any part of a building can be nominated to be listed as an asset of community value. The Council agrees. However, you have applied to nominate the entirety of the Property. The Council does not have the power to list only part of the nominated land or in any way to amend your application.
(3) Section 88(2)(a) and (b) - Use in the Recent Past and Realistic to think continue to be such use
15. As set out above, large parts of the Property are not in use, and are currently vacant.
16. You have stated that from 1905 until 2012, the Property was a Conservative social club, where members have collectively joined together for political purposes. You say that the function room in the Conservative club was used by the Regent Brass Band for practice sessions, and it was also used for snooker, billiards, dominos, table bowls competitions and events. You assert that meetings of the Willesden and Brondesbury Conservative Association should be regarded as ancillary to the use of the Property; whereas its use by members of the community who were not members of the Conservative Club should be regarded as a non ancillary use.
17. In light of the usage described above, you contend that there is a time in the recent past when an actual use of the building that was not an ancillary use furthered the social wellbeing or interests of the local community. The freeholder does not agree with this proposition, and suggests that the former Conservative club was a members club and was not freely available to the local community.
18. The Council considers that it is not necessary to resolve this dispute. This is because even if the use of the Conservative club land met the test in section 88(2)(a), it would not meet the test in section 88(2)(b) – namely, that it is realistic to think that there can continue to be non-ancillary use of the building or other land which will further the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community.
19. The key question under section 88(2)(b) is whether it is realistic to think that there is a time in the next five years when there could be non-ancillary use of the building that would further, whether or not in the same way as before, the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community. You contend in your nomination that because the lease for the Queensbury Land is in place until 2017, it is “entirely realistic” to think that there is a time in the next five years when such use could be made of the Property including those parts that are currently vacant.
20. The freeholder has stated that the section 88(2)(b) test would not be met. The freeholder states it has absolute control over the use of the Property, and that there is no prospect of such a use of this part of the Property in the next five years.
21.You also state that although the freeholder has previously applied for planning permission to demolish the Property and to change its use to residential, no such permission has been granted, and until such time as it is granted, there is no existing use permitted other than as outlined in your nomination. You say that should planning permission to change the building’s use be refused, it is “feasible and possible” that the freeholder would choose to dispose of the Property, allowing any future owner to make the Property available for community use. The freeholder contends that current, proposed and potential planning uses of parts of the Property are not relevant considerations in the assessment of the nomination.
22. The Council is not in a position to prejudice or pre-judge the outcome of any planning application that the current freeholder may make. As matters currently stand, the freeholder of the Property has categorically stated that there is no prospect of a community use of the vacant former Conservative club site and ancillary land in the next five years. The freeholder has given no indication that it intends to sell the Property in that time. Accordingly, the Local Authority considers that it is not realistic that in the next five years there would be non-ancillary use of the former Conservative club land that would further the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community.
23. It follows that the section 88(2) criteria are not met.
(4) Outcome of the Nomination
24. You have applied to list the entirety of the Property. However, in light of the conclusions set out above, the Local Authority considers that at most, it is possible that only a very small part of the Property could currently satisfy the criteria in section 88 of the 2011 Act – i.e. the Queensbury Land. The Council has not reached any positive conclusion that the Queensbury Land would meet the statutory criteria, merely that it cannot rule it out at this stage.
25. The Council agrees with your observations that a part of a building can be nominated. However, your nomination was made in respect of the entirety of the Property.
26. It is of course open to you to re-apply to nominate the Queensbury Land only as an asset of community value. Any such nomination should clearly address the following points:-
(1) The extent of any nomination, identifying the limits of the parts of the building/land you wish to nominate.
(2) How it is said that use of those parts of the building/land meet the statutory test, i.e. the use “furthers the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community”
(3) In particular, considering and addressing the Council’s preliminary view that use of the Queensbury Land by the Busy Rascals group and the local National Childbirth Trust is likely to be “an ancillary use” to the main use as a public house, and so should not be taken into account in assessing whether the test for listing is met.
Yours sincerely
Cathy Tyson Assistant Director of Policy
Full letter / reasons set out below so you can make up your own mind
If I'm a Labour goon does that make you a Lib Dem idiot?
Typical Labour arrogance to assume that anyone opposing them is a Lib Dem - far from it.
Post a Comment