Queensbury Public Inquiry Day 2: 'If the conservation area can't protect residents from a cheap and nasty block, then what is it for?'

The 'one man' Save the Queensbury Campaign

Cllr Lia Colacicco, a Mapesbury resident for 27 years, Mapesbury councillor since  2014 and now Deputy Mayor, opened today's proceedings with her statement of opposition to the proposed Queensbury development.  The Mapesbury Estate was a unique neighbourly  estate, particularly for London. She described the Mapesbury Residents' Association with its multiple activities and its key Planning Sub-Committee trusted by their peers to preserve and enhance the conservation area.

Living in a conservation area brought its own rules and responsibilities and a design guide that residents had to follow making maintenance more expensive than elsewhere. Since the proposal resident have threatened non-compliance with the guide asking, 'If they allow that big block why can't I do just as I wish.'

Cllr Colacicco asked, 'If designation as a conservation area cannot protect residents from a cheap and nasty block, then what is it for?'



The Appellant's  QC often with a lofty disdain tried to undermine Ian Elliott  of the Save the Queensbury Campaign asking him if he was a professional planner, lawyer or architect and later if he was qualified in Environmental Health.  Clearly frustrated the QC asked Ian what his role was in the Campaign. Ian thought for a minute and then said with a grin, 'ring leader I suppose' and went on to vehemently deny the suggestion that he was  a politician.

The QC asked about Save the Queensbury's constitution, officers etc as if it was an organisation such as the National Trust. Elliott deadpanned saying that not many oub campaigns had such a structure.  The QC clearly implying that Save The Queensbury was a one-man operation then went through a rigmarole about  the number of Queensury Campaign's Twitter followers, whether Twitter followers were tracked to see where they live (he suggested they might just be people defending a real ale pub they felt was under threat, rather than local residents) and then attacked the Save the Queensbury website as misleading.  It was clear that the Campaign had the appellants rattled with the QC resenting the intrusion of a mere local resident into the professional club. Ian later proved his mettle in his presentation and cross-examination of the scheme's architect.



The architect claimed that there were 'not many' similarities between the 2015 Fairview proposal and the current application. The architect said that he had a different approach and 'contextualised' the scheme to reflect the local area. Brent Council had not been interested in a vernacular design. Regarding the roof he claimed that 'if you stand opposite a building with a set back roof you can hardly see it.' He had tried to 'do something different' with the roof but with a similar tone and colour but  different texture to slate roods on Walm Lane buildings, It could be changed to grey slate under Conditions.

There was considerable debate over whether the proposed building would 'urbanise' suburban Mapesbury amidst fear that one 'urban' building  over the railway line would set a precedent for others to be built in the area.

It took about 5 minutes for the Appellant's QC to read out the qualifications of their next expert witness, Mr Stewart, who said the Queensbury was a pleasant building that benefited more from its site than any particular architectural merit. He suggested it did not have a strong relationship with the conservation area while the proposed building had been designed with the conservation area in mind. He commented that the buildings in the conservation had a greater variety than usually found in such areas. Under cross examination by Brent Council's QC he said that the proposed building was at the 'possible end' of potential harm rather than 'substantial.'  Brent's QC highlighted the fact that Stewart disagreed with aspects of both the previous Inspector's report and the Heritage Impact Assessment.

The Public Inquiry will convene earlier tomorrow, at 9.30am, and will hear a contribution from Cllr Tom Miller followed by a technical discussion on 'Conditions' what will be required of the developer if the Appeal is successful.

Deadline May 20th for appeal to save Metropolitan Open Land from Harrow School development

From Harrow Hill Trust

Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) will be lost if the Harrow School replacement Sports Hall is relocated and enlarged to include a conference suite, as proposed.

We believe that there is a better location and design that the school should consider.

Please give your support by 20 May by signing our petition on change.org. Also, help us by rejecting application P/1940/16 on the Harrow Council planning portal http://www.harrow.gov.uk.

Access to appreciate the current wonderful views is already restricted to footpaths and London's Capital Ring walking route, and they will be blocked or blighted by the proposed positioning. This includes the views of our only Grade II Listed Park which was set out by Capability Brown in 1768.

The solution is to redevelop the existing brown field site, use more subterranean construction and a green roof/ walls. Also to use a temporary sports 'Bubble' and the nearby John Lyon swimming pool, during construction.

The conditions for developing on MOL have not been met and the public have not been consulted on the MOL aspects. If we can’t protect a site which is MOL, in a Conservation Area, an Area of Special Character and alongside a Grade II listed Park then what can we protect? 

Show your support: sign our petition by 20 May

Resident Association's concern over state of Brent Council's Planning Service

Queen's Park Area Resident's Association (QPARA) has written to the Chief Executive of Brent Council to express concern over the recent loss of key personnel in the Council's Planning Department:

Members of the Queen’s Park Area Residents’ Association (QPARA) are concerned about significant changes in the management and administration of the Planning Dept and how these are impacting upon the standard of service. At a time when planning applications seem to be at an all time high and residents find it difficult to keep up with even the most significant developments, we learn that the Planning Dept has lost key personnel.

Following the departure of the Area Planning Manager, Andy Bates, last year and the recent departure of the Head of Planning, Stephen Weeks, residents have voiced alarm that there does not appear to be anybody managing the department. At our recent monthly meeting (April 12) the following comments were made: Telephone and emails remain unanswered; enquiries about the status of developments and proposals are not consistently available; objections lodged are not appearing on the website and decisions not circulated. Examples in this immediate area are the Corrib Rest development which is a complex case with lawyers involved; Queens Studios where the question of the amount of affordable housing in the approved development is not clear; basement developments throughout the QP Conservation Area; and some more minor proposals such as for the Sunday Market signage and various breaches of the design guide relating to front gardens, walls and satellite dishes.

In short, this is a period where we know that there are always a lot of applications and the pressure on the Planners is intensive but without leadership, even on an interim basis, the situation is in danger of getting worse. More importantly there seems to be no one with an overall view on proposed developments and their impact not just on this area but on the ward as a whole. We worked closely with both Andy and Stephen over many years; they had a feeling for the character of this Conservation Area and were available through the planners to advise and consult. We are keen to establish such a relationship with a new team as soon as possible.

Please can you advise on who is managing the department and if a new Head of Planning has been recruited?

Lucozade's spoonful(s) of sugar fails to sweeten residents' opposition Kingsbury Powerleague proposals

Since the battle over the building of the Ark Academy on playing fields in Wembley Park. which united Brent Teachers Association, Barry Gardiner MP and Bob Blackman, then leader of the Tory Group on Brent Council, there have been several other conflicts between schools and residents, including the long running saga over the expansion of Preston Manor LINK

The Kilburn Times LINK  has revealed that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, George Clark MP, is to consider intervention in the case of the expansion of Byron Court Primary School following the referral by Brent North MP, Barry Gardiner.

In many of the cases there have been complaints about the lack of consultation with residents in the neighbourhood of the school and in at least one case the Council has been forced to send out additional letters.

This appears to be the case with the latest proposal for Kingsbury High School where it appears NO letters have been sent out to neighbours and the consultation list is mainly internal to Brent Council and leaves out external bodies such as Historic England:

This proposal is for a commercial multi-sports facility in the grounds of Kingsbury High school comprising:

• One large 11-a-side hybrid football/hockey pitch
• One multi-sport pitch (MUGA)
• Four standard 5 aside pitches
• Two cricket nets
• A Club House
• Floodlighting for the pitches

The facility will be run by Lucozade Powerleague (for some reason on its website notice about the proposal Kingsbury High left off the 'Lucozade'). It is a business rather than a charity LINK  and of course has all the usual contradictions of companies selling unhealthy products promoting sports. Lucuzade has the equivalent of 12-1/2 spoonfuls of sugar in a small bottle LINK

The present grassland playing fields would be hard surface or  astroturf if the proposals go ahead. This is a view of the fields from the back garden of a house in Goldsmiths Lane, Roe Green Village:

The planned development of the playing fields in the context of the locality of Roe Green Village and neighbouring areas:

In exchange for making the facilities available to the school during school hours and a contribution to the refurbishment of existing sports hall and grassed area, Lucozade Powerleague get to rent out the facility with some concessions to community groups.  Readers can gauge the extent of this for themselves:

Kingsbury High and Lucuzade claim that the premises will not be licensed to sell alcohol but independent research shows that only 3 of 48 facilities do not serve alcohol and there appears to be nothing to stop them applying for licensing at a later date - especially if they can argue an economic case regarding the viability of the scheme.

Ark, Preston Manor, Byron Court and now Kingsbury High have all pitched what is seen as the interests of children (school places, additional facilities) against what is labelled (often behind closed doors) as the Nimbyism of local residents.  Increased traffic, noise, light pollution and the loss of open space is cited by residents.

This is pronounced at Kingsbury High where a unique conservation area, Roe Green Village, seems to be standing in the way of immense benefit to pupils at the school in an era of concern about young people's obesity (ignoring, for now,  the contribution of Lucuzade to that obesity).

Roe Green Residents in fighting an earlier application by a commercial company (see video below), offered to work with the school to improve the sports facilties through a fundraising drive, but this offer was not taken up.  The current headteacher of Kingsbury High, Mr Waxman, has reduced his working week and will be retiring in 2017, so this project, if it goes ahead, will be overseen by his successor.

Roe Green Residents have leafleted parents about their reservations on the scheme saying that they felt parents deserved full information about what appeared at first to be a great opportunity for the children. Local councillors' silence on this issue is said to be deafening but Barry Gardiner MP, has been responsive.

In fact of course, although Kingsbury High's academy status means that Council has no direct intervention rights, there is no reason why local ward councillors should not organise some meetings to bring the school, parents and residents together.

The proposal is yet another sign of the growing commercialisation and potential privatisation of schools through the academy programme.  The school will be paid an annual fee by Lucozade Powerleague in addition to the daily provision of sports facilities.

Residents will be taking on Lucozade Powerleague's  powerful public relations company GKA LINK which I am told has been actively lobbying councillors.

The ultimate decision on the planning application will be taken by the statutorily independent Planning Committee which should not be influenced by the council leadership.

Full details of the planning application can be found HERE
  
The video below was filmed some 25m from the Lucozade Powerleague facility at Mill Hill and gives some indication of the light and sound to be expected at Roe Green.

Residents and developers will battle over Willesden Green at planning committee tonight

The  controversial Willesden Green unaffordable housing and developer's land grab in exchange for a smaller library  battle will come to a head tonight when the planning committee considers the application from Galliford Try/Linden Homes.

Only the main planning application will be decided on. The application regarding the conservation area will go straight to the Secretary of State.

The Keep Willesden Green campaigners will be among the speakers at the committee meeting which begins at 7pm sharp at Brent Town Hall.  It is expected that many KWG supporters will be in the audience.

Will this fight follow the Queensbury rules?

A new fight is developing in Willesden over the redevelopment of the Queensbury Pub and the adjoining Conservative Club in Walm Lane. The building was owned by the Conservatives who have sold it to Fairview Homes for a development of flats.  The rather handsome building is in the Mapesbury Conservation area. This is the development proposal:

Demolition of existing Public House and Conservative Club and erection of a residential development of 2 to 10 storeys comprising 56 flats (19 x 1 bed, 26 x 2 bed and 11 x 3 bed). Formation of revised vehicular access from Walm Lane to basement car park comprising 23 parking spaces and associated amenity space, landscaping works and pedestrian access from Walm Lane accompanied by a Design & Access Statement and subject to a Deed of Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended (revised description to more accurately reflect proposal).

Locals have started a petition and are gathering a lot of  support, including from Ken Livingstone, former Mayor of London, Apart from the pub the venue is also used by Busy Rascals, a parent and baby group, and National Childbirth Trust's Bumps and Babies group.

On Monday 15th October at 2pm, the local press will be coming to The Queensbury to hear what the manager of the pub,  Busy Rascals, the pub staff and the local community have to say about the planning application.

A Busy Rascals mother said:

This isn't just an application for a few flats too, it's a whopping great 11 storey redevelopment which is designed to go right up to the street with no community space and will require about 50% occupancy parking spaces and during building work trucks will be accessing via Walm Lane. Apart from the disruption, removal of our beloved local community space and favourite pub and the nature in which Fairview Homes have decided what is best for our community, it is the most ugly proposal you've ever seen in an area that's supposed to be a conservation area. We must do something now!!

The petition against the development is HERE 

 Lodge your objection to the planning application HERE