Re-posted from Save The Queensbury website. LINK We are used to consultations taking place at inappropriate times so that they slip under the public's radar. Is this another example?
This week has seen a cynical (desperate) attempt by Redbourne to swamp the local council and residents with three plans, at what is the busiest week of the year.
Two planning applications have been thrown in this week, with variations on the same theme:– 48 flats with insufficient Affordable housing. This is AS WELL AS the scheme currently being appealed. The new plans are Scheme A and Scheme B. See below Let’s call the scheme being appealed Scheme C.
A,B and C downplay the existing building, all have a replacement pub doomed before it even opens because of its substandard design. The developer is trying to portray that there are few options for The Queensbury other than demolition.
We disagree. There is a plan D, which would make less profit but retain the existing building. This developer is clearly not interested in Plan D.
PEOPLE OF WILLESDEN STAY FOCUSSED: What is important is to comment on Plan C – the Refused scheme which is being appealed. The government’s planning inspector needs your comments by 3rd January.
There are sound planning reasons to object to all of these plans as being detrimental to Willesden and Mapesbury:
- The replacement building does not preserve or enhance the conservation area – especially looking from inside the conservation area
- The existing building makes a positive contribution to the historic interest of the area, which will be lost
- The existing building also makes a positive contribution to the setting of the listed station, which according to the previous Appeal inspector, would be desirable to preserve
- The mass of the base block (to the rear) is too bulky for the setting
- The design of the proposal is detrimental to the conservation area
- The proposal contains a pub but the design is poor – there is no soundproofing built into the design which means complaints from those above, and the pub becoming unviable. Those in the business refer to this as a “Trojan Horse”
- There is insufficient affordable housing proposed
- There are no safeguards for Busy Rascal, i.e. no legal agreements for them to continue whilst building works are underway. Nothing in the plans about how they would operate in the new premises. Both were promised by the previous developer as planning conditions.ONLY AFTER you have commented to the inspector, turn your attention to the new scheme via Brent’s website:
Planning apps 18/4675 https://bit.ly/2LrpCTY
And 18/4701 https://bit.ly/2rJpYfD
Only comment once, but mention the other when you do. Neither of these will be considered before the Appeal. If the Appeal is kicked out (again) then so will these two.
Merry Christmas to you all. Let’s hope it’s a good one, without scheme A,B,C.