Showing posts with label CAMRA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CAMRA. Show all posts

Thursday, 8 October 2026

Demolition of historic Mason's Arms, Kensal Green: community consultation closes October 23rd 2026

 

Mason's Arms as it was (Picture: pubwiki.co.uk)

 


 As pictured by the applicant in 2025 after closure

 

 

Latest proposal by the applicant


Kensal Green has another development battle underway following that over the  Harriet Tubman community centre in Hazel Road. This time it is  over the nearby Victorian Mason's Arms that closed down in 2024. 

The application is for:

Demolition of existing public house and construction of new six-storey building comprising public house (Sui Generis) on ground floor and 26 residential units (Use Class C3) on upper floors, cycle parking, private amenity space, refuse and recycling stores and servicing as well as the relocation of the listed trough and repair of the listed boundary wall. 665 Harrow Road, London, NW10 5NU

The proposal that has no affordable housing after a viability assessment is still open for community consultation LINK:


 This proposal has the support of the Kensal Triangle Residents' Association:   

After careful consideration Kensal Triangle Resident's Association (KTRA) would like to conditionally support the LJ Developments scheme for the former Masons Arms public house Development, Harrow Road.


After extensive discussion with our members and having studied the proposed scheme, we would like to be included in the final plans, as the heritage aspect of this development is important to the wider community.


'Creating Heritage for the Future'


Not only will the new building make this part of the Harrow Road more desirable, but the developers' intention to improve the Hazel Road open space will enhance this community asset. 


Having met with the developers, we believe their intentions are well placed.Despite the inevitable disruption the demolition and rebuilding will cause, we believe this project to be sound.


It was with a heavy heart that we came to this conclusion, as a great many of our members used the the Masons Arms, but feel creating heritage for the future is the way forward. 


It also creates much-needed new housing, and the scheme looks very well thought out.
The old building is in such a poor state was also noted, as there was little point in renovating such a compromised older space.


The fact that the developer seeks to have a pub/restaurant/amenities space on the ground floor also adds to the appeal of the scheme.

 

The proposed demolition of the original Victorian building is opposed by CAMRA:

  

Objection from Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) North London branch


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 nighttime 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

 Because of its history of hosting drinks after Kensal Green Cemetery funerals, the comments come from further afield than usual:

 

Firstly I know I am not a local to The Masons Arms and this objection maybe sentimental but The Masons has been part of my family history since before WW2. My family grew up in Earlsmead Rd and we were a very big family. 28 members lived in five different houses and in Greyhound rd. My uncle would play the piano in the pub, my nan played the accordion and was the cleaner for the pub. In the 60's when I would visit my nan we would go to the Masons Arms and it was always a pub for the family to meet up. Fifty years later we still visit as a family and have get togethers even for my dad's 85th birthday. It is a special place where family can meet as well as visit passed family members in the cemetery.

I am a huge history buff and to find out that the horse trough was the first in London proves how important the area has been for many years. The cemetery is one of the finest Victorian Great 7 and people who visit for funerals often need somewhere to stop for refreshments after. I know many pubs are being closed but there is so much more that can be done to help the pub survive. Our local pub has different music nights, art classes, sip and paint, craft afternoons and so much more. It should be a community pub and not be turned into flats. The whole atmosphere will change in the area as there are no other pubs close by. It was said that it had encouraged anti social behaviour but whilst the pub is boarded up it will only get worse. I was there one day when the garden was open which was beautiful and there was a regular barbecue. Having the garden reopened will encourage family visits.

I can see along the Harrow Rd there are many apartments which take away the community feel to Kensal Green. I am absolutely sure that many people will object to the Mason's being demolished. Why in this country do we rush to remove our architectural heritage. The coffin carrier is also a piece of architectural heritage. Do not destroy the pub. Please!

 

However, some locals support the application:     

 

I strongly support this application. I have lived here for 26 years and often enjoyed the Masons Arms as a local pub. However, since the garden closed, the pub has struggled to be viable.


For the past few years, the Masons has been empty most days, apart from post-funeral gatherings, which became increasingly rare. It now stands derelict and is a fire hazard, attracting antisocial behaviour.


Just 500 metres down the road, the William IV pub has also closed, which also struggled with footfall over the past years, despite being refurbished into a pub/hotel and imaginative party nights, pub quizzes and excellent food. All of which suggests to me that the footfall along this part of the Harrow Road is not sufficient to support one, let alone two, large local pubs.


The need for affordable housing in this area far outweighs the protection of a derelict, unusable pub building, which cannot be financially viable. What's the point of having a beautifully refurbished Victorian pub if there are no young people who can afford to live in the local area to populate it?


I think the proposed design, which mirrors the Holland & Holland factory almost opposite, is a very clever method of linking the new building with the existing environment. The size and composition of the frontage is in keeping with the H&H building, also a well-respected landmark of Kensal Green.


The local environment will also benefit from the redevelopment of the park and playground opposite the Mason's Arms, which will again reduce antisocial behaviour and result in a leisure space that the local community can enjoy.


I strongly support this proposal and urge Brent Planning to approve this application to benefit the local area and its citizens.

 

Other locals are opposed: 

      

As a resident of the Kensal area for 7 years I strongly object to the plans to demolish the Masons Arms. So many of the historic buildings in this area - such as many pubs, the Manor House and Lodge, Tavistock House, the stonemasons workshops, etc - have now gone to be replaced with ugly blocks of flats and very little of the original 'Kensal Green' remains.

Of course, I recognise that new homes are needed in London but why does it always come with the destruction of our history? Ideally, it would remain a pub but if that is really not viable, then why not retain and convert the existing building into flats? I am sure not everyone wants to live in a boring new-build and would jump at the chance to live somewhere with a bit of history and character.

Also as a member of the Friends of Kensal Green Cemetery, I know that the pub has many connections to the cemetery, and that unique history would be lost if the pub was demolished. I also fear the impact of the 6 storey block looming over the cemetery - currently with another threat of a development to the south of the cemetery.

The Masons Arms is a beautiful, historic building which still retains many of its Victorian interiors and fittings - and the destruction of it would be a terrible loss to the local community. I also sincerely request that whatever happens, if the developers are not going to keep/use the unique wooden coffin display case, that they donate it to either the Friends of Kensal Green Cemetery or the General Cemetery Company.

I ask you to reconsider this development and the wanton destruction of yet another piece of the last remnants of our local history.

 

 

  

I strongly object to application 26/0807 for the demolition of the Masons Arms public house and construction of the proposed six-storey development at 665 Harrow Road.

With Harriet Tubman House in Hazel Road also under threat, it would be a profound loss for Kensal Green to lose two significant Victorian landmark buildings simultaneously. The Masons Arms is an important historic public house dating from before 1865, making it one of the oldest surviving buildings in Kensal Green, with strong historical connections to the world-famous Grade I listed Kensal Green Cemetery immediately behind it.

Historically, the pub provided accommodation for stone masons and craftsmen from across Europe employed at the cemetery during the nineteenth century. The grade II listed horse trough was used by dray-horses until the 1930s and perhaps even later. The building therefore forms part of the social and architectural history of Kensal Green and the Harrow Road corridor.

Its distinctive Dutch-style gable is one of the most recognisable architectural features along the seven-mile stretch of Harrow Road between Paddington and Harrow-on-the-Hill, giving the building considerable local landmark value and contributing positively to the character of the streetscape. It is an oversight that it was never listed along with the Grade I cemetery behind it.

The pub also retains rare and unusual historic interior features, including a unique coffin stand associated with funeral wakes connected to the cemetery, where coffins were historically passed through a hatch into the bar area. These features form part of the cultural and historic significance of the building and should not be lost.

The current situation presents residents with a false binary choice between a neglected, boarded-up building and total demolition. The present condition of the property should not be used to justify the destruction of a historic local landmark, particularly when the deterioration appears to have been allowed, and the developers have made no attempt to remove the graffiti despite requests from residents.

With imagination and sensitive design, the building could be successfully repurposed to accommodate residential units while retaining the elegant and historically important Victorian façade and core structure, as has already been achieved with other historic public houses along Harrow Road, including the former College Park Hotel at 873 Harrow Road and the former Flora public house at 525 Harrow Road.

It is particularly disappointing that the scheme proposes demolishing the existing historic public house only to incorporate a replacement bar within the new development. A more sensitive and sustainable approach would be to retain and incorporate the original Victorian ground-floor public house itself, preserving an increasingly rare type of traditional London pub interior that future generations are likely to value even more highly, and one that Sir Paul McCartney chose to use when seeking a traditional London pub of character.
The proposed six-storey building would also be excessively tall and wide, and overbearing in this location. At approximately one-and-a-half storeys higher than the adjoining hostel building, the development would appear architecturally dominant and visually jarring within a predominantly low-rise section of Harrow Road, and overshadow Hazel Road Open Space and the gardens on the South side of Hazel Road.

The scale and massing of the proposal would harm the character of Kensal Green and Kensal Rise, creating an over-developed and overly urban appearance inconsistent with the existing townscape. The development would additionally reduce sunlight and outlook to Hazel Road Open Space and to the rear gardens of properties on the south side of Hazel Road, adversely affecting residential amenity.

For these reasons, including the substantial heritage loss, inappropriate scale and massing, and harmful impact on local character and amenity, I respectfully urge Brent Council to refuse this application and instead encourage a scheme that retains and sensitively repurposes this important historic building.

 

For balance I include a submission in favour by a young local but do follow the LINK and review all the comments.

  

I strongly support this development.

This development brings the potential for a new, functioning pub/bar and deli, which the local community would appreciate. The desire for the existing (and now derelict) Masons Arms pub to reopen underscores the demand and therefore, I believe, the future commercial success of the new Masons Arms. As a young person living locally, I am very keen for a local pub to not just operate but to thrive too.

The current state of the Masons Arms has led to squatters, fly tipped rubbish and fires being lit. This is not conducive to Kensal Green being a save and liveable area. The inside of the building, I have been told, has several severe structural defects which would render the renovation of the existing building unviable.

There is not enough housing stock at a national level, and this area is no exception. The flats the development will bring will mean more people can make Kensal Green their home and subsequently stimulate the local economy with additional disposable income. Local businesses are suffering from a lack of footfall on Harrow Road and I believe this would go a long way to rectifying that.

I believe that the developers have listened to local concerns and the amended planning application (regarding the historic trough, height of the building, etc) reflects this.

The regeneration of the Hazel Road green space is sorely needed, and will allow, in particular, women and families in the area to feel safer at night and enjoy the space more during the day.

I encourage the council to approve the application and allow the project to proceed.

 

The Victorian interior of the pub was valued by many customers but  I have not been able to take any photographs inside the boarded up building but go to this London CAMRA website for an appreciation and pictures. LINK

 

Wednesday, 28 June 2017

Loss of the Corrib will cause material and cultural harm to the community


The planning application for the site of the Corrib Rest, Salusbury Road, Queens Park, will be heard this evening at Brent Civic Centre.

Save The Corrib campaigners have written the following to the Planning Committee.


We are campaigning for a better solution for the Corrib Rest pub and community rooms as we do not feel that the planning officers have grasped fully the community value of the Corrib planning scheme and its value to the wider community. 

We would draw your attention to details which we consider are important and yet not considered in any detail.  we appreciate the workload of councillors is high and so have kept this simple without great detail and hope you can give this some of your attention.

The report fails to mention that The Corrib started as the Irish Culture Centre in the 1980's, and was a publicly owned building covering an area 4 times the current Corrib. In 2000 much of the Corrib was converted to social housing with the remaining portion being sold on the clear legal understanding that the public function rooms on the first floor were to be protected by the 106 agreement, ensuring that they served as a community facility.  They are, in effect a publicly owned asset, held in trust by Brent for the community.  Ashcross bought the building with the 106 conditions attached, it is these conditions, set in place to protect this asset that he now is asking Brent to ignore. Brent should resist this request and follow the example of Camden and reject the loss of community space.T

The report does not reflected the wider use of the Corrib, which extends well beyond the QPARA area. The report gives, we consider, undue due weight to the QPARA involvement to the exclusion of other parties.  The views of Kilburn, Kensal and Cricklewood residents associations are not recorded, nor are other stakeholders views included, for example, Tulip Siddiq's  letter of objection, is not mentioned. The planning history not addressed and the previous rejections are not outlined in sufficient detail.

The report does not address the local need for community space. The Corrib is the largest community centre in South Brent centre out side the Granville. There is no impact assessment on the loss of this facility and that existing resources are booked up for over 3 months. Brent will look extremely foolish if they give away their interest in this community asset at the same time as advertising in the Brent Magazine for community facilities they can fund, especially in Kilburn

The proposed 106 agreement is not compared with the existing and the report seeks to underplay the loss in space, facilities and access. The so called community room is 70% smaller than the current ones and the usage time is reduced by 50%. The new Corrib can only cater for a max of 225 persons whilst the existing Corrib can take up to 1000 persons

The main first floor function room, with its high ceilings, sky lights, spring floor, kitchen and bar is our "village hall". Its unique ambiance and airiness provide an ideal location for weddings, and musical events etc, as well as the usual leisure activities. The second function room also has a bar and kitchen. Plus the rooms can be combined to form a single room of over 350sqm. The rooms are accessed directly from the street via a magnificence stair case. The facilities also benefit from 2 sets of WC's and showers / changing room, topped of with disabled lift, access via rear.

In contrast the proposed room is 153sqm, has one shared WC opening directly onto it, the ceiling will be low, light and ventilation limited. Access is via 3 sets of doors, difficult for the elderly, impossible for those carrying drinks, also access is right through the bar area, not ideal for children or those who's religious beliefs require them to avoid alcohol. Lack of changing facilities will further reduce its amenity value. As does the lack of street access to Hopefield, as requested by 2 Hopefield residents

No weight is given to the fact that since it closed there have still been noise complaints. Noise is a management issue not a planning one. No mention is made of the fact that Brent officers did not consider the historic noise complaints sufficient to take action against the Corrib

Report conclusion says ‘would make efficient use of site and reopen the pub. The Pub was closed by developer solely to enhance planning application and was viable and in use when sold.  It was sold just to fund one partners retirement fund.

The report missed out the fact that the loss of 530 sqm of space on first floor gives a gain to developer of £5M in property value. With a further £3M from the conversion of the 3rd floor.

The report dismisses the threat to the viability to the pub of the community room, which will reduce the bar area by 50% and will put the pub at risk conflicting with Brent’s policy to protect pubs and not convert them. CAMRA define this type of application as a "Trojan Horse", where the reduction of pub size deliberately aims to render it unviable leading to its eventual conversion to residential. The report fails to mention that looking at the layout of the pub it is clear that the massive hall way to the flats separating the community room from the pub will render this room unusable in the long term, thus finally killing the Corrib.

No mention is made of the fact that Ashcross are considered by QPARA as unsuitable as guardians of any community asset, backed up by Ashcross's treatment of Kensal to Kilburn Transition Town. No mention is made of Ashcross's and Iceni's  involvement with previous "asset stripping" of pubs. 

We consider there will be immense material and cultural harm to the community from the loss of this facility . We believe the rooms should be retained as set out in the existing 106 agreement and this application rejected.  We hope, for the benefit of the communities of Kilburn, you will agree also.

Regards
Kevin Barrett and Lloyd Fothergill
for the Save the Corrib Campaign
representing the near 2000 petitioners and 148 objectors
 

Monday, 26 June 2017

Pull out the stops on Wednesday to Save the Corrib for the community

Outside the Corrib Rest in Salusbury Road, Queens Park

From Save the Corrib Campaign
There has been a fantastic response to Save the Corrib Campaign. Many thanks for the support - 1471 people believe in the community rooms - which is high for a local pub. Pity the Brent planners don’t see it that way.    The planing officers feel that luxury flats will be more important than community need
Now the Planning hearing is set. We urge you ALL to do one more thing to help Save the Corrib.
Attend the planning meeting on Wednesday 28th June at 7pm. At Brent Civic Centre. The more attendees we have will help to sway the planning committee who may have a more sensible attitude to community needs than the council planning officers.  

Brent Civic Centre is in Engineers Way a short walk from Wembley Park Tube towards and near the Stadium or a train to Wembley Central then bus 83, 92 or 182 to Wembley Arena 5 stops (stop G) and short walk down Engineers Way.
The more support we can get at the meeting the more it helps the case for keeping the Community Rooms.  Please if can at all attend the meeting to support the objection.  Don't let them kill the community rooms.
Summary of the Developer's plan.
To turn the community rooms on the first floor, into 9 luxury flats and make around £4M profit. CAMRA say these are Trojan Horse applications where the pub and small community room will be unviable and are then converted to offices or flats
As a sop they offer a function room in the pub, which will allow some community use for a few evenings a week, making for a massive reduced and commerciallydead pub. Of course if the pub fails, more flats. Planning Officers feel they have secured a great deal by increasing this by 13 hours under a regime that's deeply flawed in favour of the developer.  Yet we lose over 70% of the space in one hit and restricted to half the time.
This scheme means the loss of 530m2 of community space, space that was originally brought with public money and protected by both an ACV order and by a Section 106 covenant. The 106 is a council owned legal restriction that prevents the owner building flats on the first floor. We urge Brent NOT to break this 106 covenant but to honour and cherish it for the people of the locality.
The sad thing is Brent are advertising what to do with the money they collect from the developments and the priority in Kilburn is to use this to create community facilities.
To read the planning application in full, go to LINK
The documents you should read are: 
1) 9 March Planning statement
2) 10 Feb 170109 Draft s106 agreement 56767850001.pdf

NB: The Sir Richard Steele in Chalk Farm is a similar pub with function room and Camden and the Planning Inspector both turned down this conversion to flats so we say that Brent should do the same here. LINK
Thank you again for signing the petition Save the Corrib Pubs Community Rooms, can you help spread the word by forwarding the link below to your friends?  And do try to attend the planning meting Wednesday 28th June 7pm Brent Civic Centre
Thanks
Kevin Barrett and Lloyd Fothergill - Save the Corrib Campaign

Tuesday, 22 September 2015

Brent Council: Mystery of the missing minutes

From Brent Council website this morning
The missing minutes of the Planning Committee came up at Brent Cabinet last night in relation to the Council's proposed Pub Protection Policy.  The July 23rd Planning Committee was unusual in that it did not discuss individual planning applications but the principles behind council policies including the Development Management Plan and issues such as the amount of affordable housing and how to manage the process by which developers try to reduce the amount of affordable housing through viability assessments.

The Committee's views (which are statutorily independent of the Council itself) are clearly vital in informing the fraemwork within which planning decisions are made. An accurate record of the Planning Committee's discussions are absolutely essential.

However two months later the minutes have not been published and my questions about non-publication have not been answered. I suspect that they may have been lost - although there is probably a form of newspeak that would be used instead of that simple word.

The consequence was that when the Cabinet discussed the Development Management Plan yesterday even the documentation did not reflect what the Planning Committee had said. This was evident when the Pub Protection policy was discussed. The Council had been forwarded the model polict prdiced by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) and the Council was supposed to discuss amendments to the Brent policy in the light of CAMRA's recommendations.

A member of the Queensbury campaign pointed out the the Cabinet that the policy brought to the Cabinet remained unchanged. I found out later that by noon yesterday CAMRA had received no communication from Brent Council. The dialogue with CAMRA seemed not to have taken place in the two months between the Planning Committee and the Cabinet.

However, Andy Donald, Director of  Rgeneration and Major Projects told the Cabinet that there were 'ongoing discussions' with CAMRA, which must have taken place between noon yesterday and 7pm! He said that there was space to add further to the policy in the future. Michael Pavey, deputy leader, commented that CAMRA was a reputable organisation  and that there would need to be good reasons given for any departure from their recoemmndations.

The issue of affordable housing and viability assessments is clearly extremely important during the current housing crisis and was discussed in some depth at the Planning Committee on July 23rd. Donald commented last night that there was no reason why developers' viability assessments should not be made publicly available, although they were technically complex, but warends that publication was likely to be opposed by developers. The aim of the Council was that their view on what constituted a legitimate viability assessment would be clear and consistent.

Some of the main issues that were discussed at the July 23rd Planning Committee were covered on Wembley Matters at the time. The report can be found HERE.

Friday, 24 July 2015

Council agrees to consider campaigners' suggested improvements to Pub Protection Policy

Queensbury Pub campaigners

Queensbury Pub campaigners Ian Elliott and Sujata Aurora spoke at yesterday's Planning Committee on the proposed Pub Protection Policy written into the Brent Development Management Local plan.

While welcoming the Council's decision to have such a policy after their long campaign they also called for improvements based on CAMRA's suggestions and the policy adopted by Waltham Forest. The campaigners had circulated the CAMRA letter to members of the Committee and Sarah Marquis, the chair commented that it had raised some important points.  The Committee were asked if the accepted CAMRA's points and they murmured assent.

Waltham Forest policy included an audit of what would be lost to the community if a pub was to close. It was important to be aware of developer strategies to undermine the viability of a pub by for example raising prices or letting the building run down.

Campaigners argued that if the Council made the suggested policy changes it would have a excellent policy whereby viable pubs would be protected.

Paul Lewin, Brent Planning and Projects Manager, said that there was 'merit' in CAMRA's comments but that officers would need time to explore them and any legal or planning issues they raised. It was agreed that the Plan could be revised to accommodate changes but it appeared unlikely that this would be in time for the August Cabinet.  The comments and changes  could be made as part of the 6 week publication process.

The Waltham Forest policy can be found HERE and CAMRA's letter below:


Thursday, 16 April 2015

Enraged locals campaign against Carlton Tavern vandalism

Carlton Tavern after demolition
and before...
Anger is building on the borders of Brent and Westminster over the demolition of the Carlton Tavern on the eve of the building being granted Grade II status by Historic England.

There were rumours today that the company concerned  had gone into liquidation to avoid legal  action.

A demonstration is planned for the evening of Sunday April 26th, more details when it is finalised.

Meanwhile a 38 Degrees petition has been set up LINK with this preamble:

A historic pub in Kilburn which survived being bombed in the Second World War has been demolished by developers behind the backs of the local community.

Developers ripped through the Carlton Tavern on Friday 10th April, despite being considered for statutory listing.

Local Cllr Jan Prendergast from Westminster City Council said:

“I'm horrified for the local residents that this has occurred. It came as such a shock to everyone. There was no prior warning to the council, no approvals and no proper health and safety procedures in place.

“This was a lovely pub and I'm sorry to see it go, but I'm more concerned for the residents in Maida Vale for whom they showed no consideration whatsoever. It was the last building standing in Carlton vale after the WW2 bombings.

“I've lived in the area for 35 years and have never seen anything like this before. We need to take very careful legal advice as to what steps we can take.”

The demolition of the Carlton Tavern demonstrates how vulnerable communities are to speculative and aggressive development tactics. It also demonstrates a complete disregard towards the historic social infrastructure of Kilburn and the wider UK pub heritage stock.

Local pubs are at the heart of our communities and allowing valued pubs such as the Carlton Tavern to be demolished in this way is ludicrous and is denying local residents a say in the future of their neighbourhoods.

James Watson, Regional Pub Protection Advisor for the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) said:

"Although we welcome the recent changes to planning law which came into effect on 6th April 2015, which afford some protection to ACV-registered pubs, the tragic case of the Carlton Tavern demonstrates just how vulnerable pubs are to rapacious development. We now urge the Government to take this case into consideration and amend planning law to ensure that such demolitions are prohibited unless planning permission is first obtained. This would ensure communities like Kilburn have a say in the future of their local pubs."
The Save the Queensbury, fighting for the pub in Willesden Green, has expressed solidaroty and meanwhile have issued a revolutionary manifesto that challenges all the political parties to match the vision which they percieve through the bottom of a glass LINK