Controversy over proposed demolition and redevelopment of the Mason's Arms pub in Kensal Green

 

The Mason's Arms in happier times

 The proposed new building of flats with pub on the ground floor

The proposed redevelopment of the Mason's Arms in Kensal Green with flats above a ground floor replacement pub is similar to the current redevelopments underway at the Queensbury in Willesden Green and the Showboat in Alperton.

The proposal follows the hard-fought battle in Kensal Green over Harriet Tubman House Community Centre.

CAMRA and Historic England,  a community run pub, as well as the Vicar of the nearby St John the Evangelist have all pitched in submissions alongs local residents and people from wider afield with family links to the pub.

 

 The redevelopment site is the pub itself and the adjacent vacant plot

 

Below are extracts from submissions to the Brent Planning Portal. If you would like to submit an objection or support you have until June 28th. LINK

 

HISTORIC ENGLAND

 

Historic England has concerns about the proposals on heritage grounds. Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in our advice. We encourage you to defer determining these applications until Historic England’s listing assessment for the Mason’s Arms public house has been completed. We also recommend that further structural information regarding the rebuilding of a section of the listed cemetery wall is requested prior to determining the listed building consent application so that the impact on the wall itself and the adjacent grade-II listed catacombs of the North Colonnade can be fully assessed  

 

   

CAMRA  

 

Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) North London branch strongly object to the planning application to demolish the Masons Arms public house, Kensal Green NW10. The Masons Arms is an historic public house that has served the Kensal Green community for well over a century. Its long-standing presence, architectural character, and relationship with nearby heritage assets, including the Grade II listed horse trough and the Grade I listed Kensal Green Cemetery wall, give it clear historic and townscape value. Although the building itself is not listed, national planning policy recognises that non-designated heritage assets can still hold local historic significance, and their loss must be taken into account in the planning balance.



The proposed pub area is much smaller, at 256.5 sq m, compared with 630 sq m in the current public house, resulting in a clear reduction in community floorspace, which is a material planning consideration. This is not an equivalent replacement and therefore conflicts with both the London Plan Policy HC7 and Brent Local Plan Policy DMP21, which requires that any redevelopment of a public house must provide a facility of comparable or improved size, layout. The proposed development would result in the unacceptable and unjustified loss of a public house that has community value and which contributes to the economy and in particular the night time economy of the borough.



The proposed six storey development is excessively bulky and out of scale with the surrounding streetscape, its height, massing, and overall visual dominance would create an overbearing presence that disrupts the established character of the area. This is a material planning consideration, as national policy, the London Plan, and Brent's Local Plan all require new development to respect local context, respond positively to existing townscape, and avoid harm to the character and appearance of the area.



The application removes the existing function room, a space that has historically supported community meetings, funeral wakes, weddings, birthdays, and local group activities. Its loss would permanently diminish the pub's role as a multi functional community venue, further undermining the policy requirement to retain or enhance community value.



No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the existing pub is unviable or that it has been properly marketed, as required by Brent's planning policies. Without such evidence, the demolition, or change of use of the Masons Arms cannot be justified. The proposal therefore fails to meet the tests set out in national policy, the London Plan, and Brent's Local Plan for the protection of public houses. The lost of pub's garden, which was sold off and permission granted for change of use, means having a function room will be important to aid the long term viability of the pub.



CAMRA also notes the frequent risk that promised replacement pubs are delayed or never delivered once residential units are occupied. To prevent this outcome, and to ensure compliance with policy, it is essential that if permission is granted, Brent Council imposes a condition requiring that the new public house is fully fitted out, let to an operator, and open for trading before any residential units are occupied. Without such a condition, the community asset is at risk of being lost in practice even if nominally replaced on paper.



The proposed development would harm the setting of the Grade I listed Kensal Green Cemetery boundary wall, which runs directly behind the site. As a Grade I listed structure, it is of exceptional national importance, and national planning policy requires that great weight be given to its conservation. The existing Masons Arms forms part of the traditional low rise townscape that frames and supports the historic character of the cemetery wall. Replacing it with a six storey building would introduce an intrusive and disproportionate mass that would dominate views, disrupt the historic scale of the street, and erode the legibility of the cemetery wall as a heritage asset. The development would harm the setting of the Grade II listed horse trough located immediately outside the Masons Arms. This heritage asset derives its significance not only from its physical form but from its historic relationship with the surrounding streetscape and long established public house. Demolishing the existing building and replacing it with a six storey structure would fundamentally alter the scale, character, and visual context of the trough, diminishing its historic setting and eroding its legibility as part of the area's traditional streetscene. This impact is a material planning consideration and is contrary to national policy on heritage protection, which requires great weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and their settings. If permission is granted, the developer should submit a plan for storage of the Grade II listed horse trough, so it does not get damaged during redevelopment of the site, the Brent Conservation Officer should oversee the plans for the trough, to endure it is not harmed by the new development. Original bricks should be used where possible in the repair of the listed boundary way, overseen by the Brent Conservation Officer.



A further material planning consideration is the significantly higher carbon footprint of demolition compared with retrofitting. National planning policy requires decision makers to support development that moves towards a low carbon future and to give substantial weight to reducing embodied carbon. Demolishing the existing Masons Arms and constructing a new six storey building would generate a far greater volume of embodied carbon than refurbishing and upgrading the existing structure. Brent Council's own climate emergency commitments, all of which expect applicants to demonstrate that demolition is the least carbon option. No such justification has been provided, and the application fails to show that demolition is necessary or environmentally responsible.



The proposal is contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which recognises public houses as essential community facilities and expects local authorities to guard against their unnecessary loss. It is also contrary to London Plan 2021 Policy HC7, which requires boroughs to protect public houses and resist proposals that would lead to the loss of their community, cultural, or economic value.



For these reasons, CAMRA North London Branch objects to the application and urges Brent Council to refuse planning permission.

 

SUPPORT

 

I am writing in support of the proposed redevelopment of the Mason's Arms on Harrow Road.

The building is a locally significant former public house with clear architectural and historic value, and I fully recognise and respect its heritage importance. In its earlier years, it was a well-loved and attractive feature of the area. However, in recent years it has suffered from a prolonged period of vacancy and deterioration, despite repeated attempts by various owners to restore it to viable use.

At present, the building is in a poor state of repair and has remained empty for extended periods. Its current condition has contributed to significant issues around the site, including ongoing anti-social behaviour. There have been instances of unauthorised occupation associated with the building, and the immediate surroundings have suffered from visible neglect, including graffiti and general deterioration. There have also been concerns about unsafe activity taking place in and around the site, including fires being lit nearby. Taken together, these issues have had a negative impact on the immediate environment and have contributed to a feeling that the area is unsafe.

The condition of both the Mason's Arms and the adjacent Hazel Road open space is a significant concern in terms of public safety and community use. The area can feel unsafe after dark, and this is a concern shared by many local residents, particularly women, when walking through or near the space in the evening. Anti-social behaviour in and around the site contributes to this and limits the ability of the open space to be fully enjoyed by the community.

I understand that concerns regarding heritage and local character are important considerations in relation to any redevelopment of the site. However, it is also clear that the existing situation is not sustainable, and that the building is no longer serving the community in a positive or functional way.

The proposed redevelopment offers a credible opportunity to bring the site back into productive use. I understand that the developers have engaged with the local community over a sustained period, including holding meetings and responding to feedback. This has resulted in revisions to the scheme, including a reduction in height by one storey, which demonstrates a willingness to respond constructively to local concerns.

In addition, the proposal includes commitments to improvements to the nearby Hazel Road open space and playground, including investment in new play equipment, improved lines of sight to increase natural surveillance, and, of particular importance, significantly enhanced lighting. These improvements would make a meaningful difference to safety, visibility, and overall usability of the space.

The scheme would also provide much-needed new housing in the area, including a significant proportion of family-sized homes, which is particularly welcome given the ongoing local shortage of suitable housing. I also understand that efforts are being made to retain and incorporate important historic features of the original building, such as the trough, which is appreciated.

Overall, I believe this proposal represents a balanced approach that respects the heritage of the site while addressing its current dereliction and unlocking wider benefits for the local community.

 

ANTWERP ARMS (OBJECTS)

 

I represent a successful community pub in north east London.



Thirteen years ago our pub was purchased by a developer who planned to close it and turn the site into a block of flats. The Antwerp Arms Association was formed as a community benefit society and the pub building listed as an asset of community value. We purchased the building from the developer using a community share issue and social funding. We have been in business for 11 years trading as a cooperative venture.



So the Mason's Arms doesn't have to be a block of flats with a basement bar that will struggle to be viable.



Wait for problems from operating a commercial bar under a housing development as the licensing complaints for noise, smells and nuisance rack up from those living above.



Where will all the storage and kitchen facilities go in a single storey new pub ?



Where will the manager and staff (on London living wages) live when there is no accommodation for them above their bar ?



This pub could have a new life. It could provide a really nice bar and food outlet, a safe community space, along with housing on its upper floor. It would provide much needed jobs by directly employing a range of people. It could deliver skills and training in the hospitality and bar sector and it could benefit small companies in the local area by stocking their beers and produce.



The benefits to the community from saving this pub as a community enterprise would, in my view, outweigh the advantages of providing a few extra housing units. It would also save a locally important building.



Our association would be happy to help those in the local community who want to save the Masons Arms as a pub and community hub.

 

OBJECTS

 

I object against the demolition of another Victorian building in Kensal Green. For that reason the Mason's Arms should keep its Victorian features and charm. After the Council allowed the demolition of Harriet Tubman House we don't need another Victorian landmark to disappear from Kensal Green. It was a betrayal from the Council to allow the demolition of Harriet Tubman House after the vast majority of people consulted objected. What is the point of a consultation if you do not listen to the results? Victorian buildings are in line with the Victorian terraces, save your modern buildings for empty spaces. Respect the views of those who love historical heritage and want to protect them. The existing building looks more charming that the proposed tall block of flat. I'm afraid the council is only interested in the council tax they'll receive by the new tenants which is greater than from a pub. Greed is a deadly sin don't you forget.

 

SUPPORTS

 

I would like to express my support for this proposal.

I have a personal emotional connection to this pub, as it is actually where I first met my partner many years ago. Because of that, it has always held a special place in my memory, and it has been genuinely sad to watch it struggle over recent years despite multiple attempts to keep it going successfully.

Having worked in hospitality myself, I understand how incredibly difficult it has become to make pubs and restaurants financially viable, especially independent venues. While it is always unfortunate to see change happen to places with history and memories attached to them, I honestly believe this proposal represents the best and most realistic long-term use for the site.

I particularly appreciate that the scheme still re-provides a pub space in a more modern, energy-efficient and practical format that has a much stronger chance of succeeding. It feels like a balanced and sensible approach rather than simply removing the use altogether.

I am also very happy to see a fresh supply of modern, energy-efficient apartments being delivered in what is genuinely my favourite area of London. The area badly needs new homes, especially homes designed to modern environmental standards, and I believe this proposal will make a positive contribution to the neighbourhood.

Architecturally, I think the scheme has been handled thoughtfully and with sensitivity to the surrounding character.

Overall, while there is naturally some nostalgia attached to the existing pub, I believe this proposal strikes a fair balance between preserving community use, delivering much-needed homes, and improving the long-term future of the site. I strongly support the application.

 

OBJECTS

 

I am Vicar of the Parish of St John the Evangelist, Kensal Green, the boundary of the parish extending to close to where the Masons Arms is situated. The parish sits in both the City of Westminster and the Borough of Brent. I say this, as although I write in a personal capacity, I have seen many developments in the 13 years I have held my post and the loss of two buildings of note. I believe this application should be seen in the context of the loss of historic buildings for flats and any impact documents should relate to the broader area of Kensal Green and not simply a closely defined locality. I note the present closure of another pub closer to the church on the Harrow Road, the area behind it being (at one point) the last remnant of Kensal Green itself.



I object to this proposal on two grounds. First the Masons Arms )in its current building) could be a viable and successful venue as a pub. It is situated next to the All Souls Cemetery and West London Crematorium. I have attended receptions at the Masons Arms and as I meet many families in relation to funerals I believe the Masons Arms could serve, if properly managed, a place for post service refreshments (amongst other things). I know that demand locally is not being met. I should add that it is of regret that the council gave planning permission for the building in the pub garden, thus adding to the sense of inevitable closure and demolition. In an area with such little green space I simply cannot comprehend this decision.



Secondly the building itself is worthy of retention even if my point above is ignored. It could be converted to other use and an attractive building retained. I note that the interior of the Masons Arms is listed as a "One Star pub" on CAMRA's National inventory as having "special historic interest".