Monday, 25 November 2013

Queensbury revised application pros and cons

Fairview's new planning application contains space for a pub or wine bar as well as for community use. The latter details are set out in this statement LINK and Busy Rascals (and any sub groups) are named. A minimum of 15 hours weekly is given and rents will be comparable to similar local facilities. The table below shows the amount of non-residential floor space.

The level of affordable housing in the development is tiny (14% of the total housing) and appears to be little more than a gesture. It is set out in the application LINK

Here is the table indicating the floor space:

Campaigners will need to consider whether this revised planning application meets the aims of their campaign. On the one hand there will be a public house or wine bar on the site, although its precise size will need to be looked at, and some community use is retained. On the other hand the original building will be lost and there will be ten storey block/s and very little social housing.


Dan Filson said...

The developer is out to make money. A wine bar is not a pub. 14% social housing is no more than a sop to Cerberus., and in any event it is too easy to get blind to the pub aspect of the development when the issue is whether the development meets any wider needs of the community. On the face of it, the development primarily supplies housing for the better off who want to live somewhere immensely handy for the tube station and will have little to offer the local community. I suspect the bulk of their local spending will be in a national chain shop like Sainsbury.with minimal local economic benefit.

Anonymous said...

A wine bar! How wonderfully appropriate! An 80s style development reflecting 80s style values deserves an 80s style 'A4 drinking establishment'. Suggested names, please. I'll offer the 'Dame Shirley Porter' or, for that French vibe, 'La Nettoyage Sociale'.

Anonymous said...

' L' Asbestosis' ?

Trevor said...

I Have a Strong feeling that your assumption is valid Dan simply cause all I have to do is Look around and The proof is right before My eyes, and I must say it Hurt's me deeply.
Because This meant to be our Home Dan and look What they have done to it.
I Have no faith @ all in developers who plan to build so called affordable or social housing.
They should be called Haven's of Torment rather than social housing because I know from bitter experience that Living in these places is far from a happy experience.
in fact I say these places are the perfect means for people to fall out with each other on an almost daily basis simply cause the sound proofing material Tend to be so insufficient that whenever people move around it can be clearly heard by their neighbors, and for many people
The sound of chairs being dragged across uncarpeted floors is irritating to say the least.
When chalk hill estate was knocked down, we were Told that what was to replace it was described as a redevelopment.
But Chalk Hill estate was also a haven of extreme torment and it also lacked sufficient sound proofing material so much that It was worser Than what replaced it.
What replaced it is much smaller but many of the flaws of Chalk hill Estate remain.
Such as insufficient sound proofing material.
And to describe this estate as a redevelopment Can be considered as a Lie.
because one definition of redevelopment is "To restore (buildings or neighborhoods, for example) to a better condition:
Now How can this estate be described as Better When it was built more or Less the Same as The old Estate but on a Smaller Scale?
it also shows that the council Despite their many meetings etc Do not Take into consideration the feelings and needs of the people that will Move into the Estates.
The council are well aware of the Sound Proofing Material Issue But as to be expected they just go on to do whatever they Like.
and then when they want to be re elected That's when they put on the act of Being sensitive to the needs of the people.
but its just a Act Dan nothing but a tired old Act.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Dan. The London Plan, which is supposed to apply to developments of this scale, says that 50% of London's new housing should be affordable, and that 70% of this affordable housing should be social housing.
Brent's own core policy CP21 is the key policy aimed at delivering a balanced housing stock in the Borough. It says that this means: ‘an appropriate range and mix of self contained accommodation types and sizes, including family sized accommodation (capable of providing three or more bedrooms) on suitable sites providing ten or more homes’. It goes on to say that Brent needs at least 43% of affordable housing to be three or four bedroom units.
This is the message that needs to be put before Planning Committee on the "housing" side of this planning application.