Massive blow to Mapesbury conservation as developer wins appeal to demolish the Queensbury Pub

The scheme refused by Brent Council now approved by Planning Inspector

What we will lose

Sad news from the Save the Queensbury Campaign who have shown such determination in their fight to save a much loved pub. Commiserations and solidarity.

From their website LINK

The developer (Redbourne) has won its appeal to demolish The Queensbury pub and erect 48 flats at 110 Walm Lane NW2. The Queensbury, as we know it, is to be demolished and replaced with a six storey box-shaped building with a metal roof which should include a new, glass-fronted public house.

This is the result of the appeal of late August 2019, following Brent Council refusing permission in May 2018. We defended the building in a five day public inquiry, when both Redbourne and the pub operator set out a case to demolish the pub. The inspector has concluded that the building can be demolished and (importantly) the replacement should incorporate a new public house.

The community has fought hard to retain the historic building at 110 Walm Lane which has been used continually by the people of Mapesbury and Willesden since 1896. We successfully fought off three other planning applications and one previous appeal since the building was purchased by a developer in 2012 but without proper protection by Brent Council (and a poorly handled defence at appeal) the battle has been lost.

A little bit of heritage will be lost when The Queensbury is demolished and conservation in Mapesbury is no longer.

We have “won” a new pub, to be on the ground floor of the development, so have we Saved The Queensbury? Only time will tell.

At best, the character of The Queensbury will be lost and the current outdoor drinks terrace will be turned to paving, surrounded by cycle racks and blending onto the pavement with café style tables and chairs rather than pub beer garden. The replacement does have a larger floor area, but with shorter licenced hours to sit outside. The kitchen is tiny and inside is a more sterile, glass building which locals have described as a hotel lobby or railway station waiting room. There is a dedicated community space, with a small outdoor area attached and the current operator has committed to keep that relationship going.

Our worry is that the track record of developers actually including a pub in a mixed development (even though the plans approve this now) is dire. It is not always their fault, but developers tend not to like pubs in new builds. This is because the value of the “market” flats (which are at the front) will decrease by having a pub below.

Too often during construction the “viability” of including a pub is thrown into doubt and developers return to the council for a change of use. Even if it opens, complaints about noise follow, rates are increased, pub viability is questioned and the developer seeks permission to change use to a café or retail in the future.

We are not paranoid nor distrustful; this is happening all over London and when we asked Brent Council and the developer for examples where they have done this successfully neither could offer a response. Given this, a pub at 110 Walm Lane is still some years from being a permanent fixture.

On the bright side, we won two major commitments during the appeal.

1. The developer will have to return to Brent Council if they want to change from a pub to another use. This enables the public and local residents to scrutinise any plan to change use.

2. The developer has to work with Busy Rascals (the baby and toddler community group) to find them an alternative space if and when building work begins. This is so they can carry on their brilliant work in the community, returning to the replacement pub if and when one emerges. Again, the plans look promising.

But what’s promised today does not always appear tomorrow.

All in all we started this process in 2012 with a 10 storey tower and no  pub. We end 2019 with a smaller block and commitment of a pub, if best intentions are delivered.

Asphalt wars break out again as Mapesbury residents challenge Brent Council

Residents in Dartmouth Road have taken on Brent Council over the proposed asphalting of their footway LINK. They claim that while there are strict rules involving the protection of their Conservation Area regarding changes to their properties, Brent Council is ignoring the spirit of such legislation in its plans to replace paving with asphalt.

The policy was challenged three years ago over the asphalting of Chandos Road with a petition launched on 38 degrees. LINK

There are, I understand, now getting on for 150 signatories on the Dartmouth Road petition to the council opposing the action and the operation which was due to start today has been suspended for a week.

Meanwhile the image above shows Grendon Gardens in the Barn Hill Conservation Area which was re-paved with brick blocks and paving stones after the asphalting policy was introduced.  When I tweeted a photograph of the work at the time someone suggested a Brent councillor must live in the street - I am sure that is not true but residents are looking for consistency in Council policy.

Queensbury Public Inquiry Day 3: 'Trojan Horse' still alive and kicking

Cllr Tom Miller in his statement to the Queensbury Public Inquiry made it clear that he was speaking as a ward councillor and not a member of the Brent Council Executive.  He said that his ward, Willesden Green, went right up to the railway border with Mapesbury. He described how Walm Lane was seen as an extension of the High Road and said that this was also the view of the Boundary Commission. The Queensbury pub was the most likely place for his ward residents to drink, eat and socialise.

He had been an early supporter of the Save the Queensbury Campaign. Planning is a quasi-judicial process and had ensured that that proponents of the scheme were part of the process.  He said that the new scheme was a step forward and didn’t wish to belittle the proposers. However at the consultation residents were keen on their local pub and wanted to preserve it.

The main reason for preserving the Queensbury building was that it is an important piece of local architecture and in its position particularly welcoming  - it was a soft boundary between Mapesbury and Willesden Green and incorporated a soft area for social drinking between the street and the pub building.

He was concerned about the failure to provide the maximum amount of social housing and the under-sized nature of some of the housing units.  This was an important decision in terms of the public need for housing.

He did not agree with some objectors that the scheme was ‘all bad’. He recognised that the developer had been ‘on a journey’ and had been willing to adapt their plans.  If the objectors win there is no reason why the developer could not return with a revised scheme. He thought there was a possibility of a viable compromise.

He was concerned about the lack of distinction between pub and flats above in the scheme and suggested that there could have been a positive conversation about how adaptions could have been made to give it a bit less of a ‘bar feel.’

Addressing the issue of how representative the Save The Queensbury Campaign is he said that councillors engaged many people in face-to-face conversations in the ward, and although not formally recorded, he would say the Campaign reflected widely held public opinion.

The QC for the Appellants responding, claimed that the issue of distinction between the ground floor space and accommodation had been addressed in Plan B. He then went on to call the developer’s last expert witness who testified to the benefits of the scheme: a larger pub space and formalisation of the community space. Under questioning by Brent Council’s QC the witness agreed that it was no part of government policy that affordable housing should be provided at the expense of design and that there were other possible designs that could have provided affordable housing.

Ian Elliott for the Queensbury campaign asked why there were no plans for a kitchen  – provision of food was essential to make the pub viable. He was told that there were no details but the kitchen would be part of the ‘back office’ detail in the basement. Elliott went on to the press the witness on how he had come to his conclusion regarding the positive social value of the plans - it turned out he had made the judgement via 'guidance' and not through actually speaking to anyone in the area. He conceded that local people at the consultation were against the proposal.

A detailed discussion followed on what Conditions should be applied if the Inspector were to find for the Appellant.  Among issues were discussed was the provision of disabled parking when 5 units had been designed as wheelchair accessible but the development designated as ‘car free’, the opening hours of the pub starting at 11.30am when Busy Rascals would want access from 9.30/10am, and the closure of the pub garden at 9pm when currently it closed later. The latter point arose from provision of flats above the pub in the new scheme but Ian Elliott pointed out that this was another aspect of the scheme that affected the viability of the pub. Elliott put forward a list of Conditions that the Campaign wished to be applied in the event of the Appeal succeeding. These were essential to avoid a ‘trojan horse’ where the introduction of a pub to conform to Pub Protection policy is agreed but set up for failure so that other uses can be made of the space.

These issues will be discussed on Tuesday when Busy Rascals will give evidence and the owner of the pub contacted for his views.

The Public Inquiry will be reconvened in a different room* at the Civic Centre at 10am on Tuesday September 3^rd. Busy Rascals will give evidence first and community aspects of Obligations in the event of the Appeal succeeding. There will also be discussion of the 5-year Housing Land Supply target and its relevance to the scheme.

In between the Inspector and representive of the Appellant and Brent Council (and possibly Save the Queensbury Campaign) will make a site visit to the Queensbury (no discussion allowed) and later the Inspector will visit the area on his own.

*This is likely to be a Committee Room on the third floor of the Civic Centre and should be indicated on the notice board at reception and at the ground floor entrance to the red lifts.

Do please follow @QueensburySOS on Twitter for updates and see the website http://savethequeensbury.info/

Lib Dems mash up the stats in Mapesbury & launch 'red scare' attack

Bar charts on election literature are notorious for beiing 'a but dodgy' to say the least and are usually accompanied by 'Only XParty can win here!' or 'XParty can't win here'. The above from the Liberal Democrats is a good example with the added spice of a bit of 'red scare' propagands citing a potential Momentum 'control of Brent'.  On my reckoning there are only at the most two true Momentum supporters in the 63 strong Labout list. Furthermore, in my personal opinion, they would add a coorrective to the managerialist approach of the majority of Labour candidates.

So anyway how did the Lib Dems arrive at their bar chart?

They have added up the total votes of each party in the 2014 council election in the ward. As Greens fielded only one candidate and the others three each this puts Greens at the bottom below the Tories.

If, however, you list the candidates' individual results it gives a different picture  (from Brent Council website election results page):

The Green candidate vote was well above that of each of the three Conservative candidates and only 3% behind the lowest Liberal Democrat candidate.

This time round there are three Green candidates so a more representative bar chart could be made from May 3rd's results.

Meanwhile, as I said to a woman outside Willesden Green Sainsbury's yesterday, 'Yes, the Greens can win in Mapesbury.'

I should have added that the former Lib Dem councillor, turned Independent, for Mapesbury has said that she wants to see Greens on Brent Council.

Let the battle contine - on even ground...

Helen Carr: Thank you and Goodnight Mapesbury

Cllr Helen Carr has requested that Wembley Matters publishes this farewell statement. Publication does not indicate agreement with the views expressed but given the lack of other public platforms in Brent I have agreed to publication.
 

As you know, I was elected in 2014 under exceptional circumstances and in an extraordinary situation and am now standing down. Thank you everyone – residents, the staff at Brent and political veterans on all sides of the spectrum for their unfailing advice, support and good humour. The indefatigable Martin Frances’ ‘Wembley Matters’ is the go to place for matters of Brent, even for someone like me who avoids social media. I look forward to seeing the Green’s Scott Bartle, who stood against me in 2014, at his first Council meeting in May. Every Council needs a Green.    

What you may not be aware of is my work on the Council of Europe Congress – I was appointed a UK Delegate and last year elected by my European peers Vice President of the Independent, Liberal and Democrat Group. I was asked recently what I was most proud of achieving and I would say without doubt, being elected Councillor of Mapesbury allowed me to defend human rights at a time when certainties such as freedom of speech and association, freedom of the press, the right to freedom from torture – all rights bitterly fought for but taken for granted – are being insidiously eroded in the name of safety, security and stability. History is now being reconstructed to support the arguments and agendas of today’s fascists, idealists, ideologists, politicians et al. Motives and conspiracy theories vary – Germany and Austria have introduced ‘Holocaust Denial’ laws. France’s Sarkozy was accused of trying to attract the Christian Armenian vote when attempting to criminalise denial of the Armenian genocide. Turkey too – with wars within and on its borders - stifles debate not just about its role in the elimination of one and a half Armenians in the period at the end of World War 1, but its treatment and continued suppression of its Kurdish populations, as well as the recent imprisonment of elected politicians, journalists and educators. Russia criminalizes those who discredit the name of the Red Army and Poland has introduced measures imposing a fine or up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of blaming the ‘Polish nation’ for the Holocaust. The murder of journalists in Malta and Slovakia. In the UK, Max Mosley - youngest son of wartime leader of the British Union of Fascists Oswold Mosley – is accused of trying to use data protection laws to gag the press. And so on.

Churchill said it is not for those of us who have not been occupied to condemn and judge those who have. But facts do exist and do matter. It is better to methodically and painstakingly disprove with fact and reason, than fines, force or imprisonment. Ostentatious gestures and actions might seem to make a difference, but quiet conviction in the rule of law have greater pervasive, persuasive and profound influence.  January 27 is Holocaust Memorial Day – the day in 1945 the Soviets liberated Auschwitz. ‘Genocide’ was first used in 1933 in a paper presented to the League of Nations by Polish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, in response to the murder of the Armenian population by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1918. The term was then adopted by the UN convention in 1948, but continues to be controversial – what constitutes a Genocide and who are victims has become a numbers game and a semantic quagmire. Congesting various issues to an existing memorial day undermines the initial intent. Political interests sully the dignity of the event. In 1946, the term ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ was introduced by Lauterpacht, at the time, resident of 104 Walm Lane, Mapesbury. What would he make of us now that Holocaust Memorial Day also includes other ‘Genocides?’ Will Jews stand alongside survivors of the Israeli campaign in Gaza if claims of the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that Israel has committed Genocide are upheld at the International Criminal Court? What of the Poles or the Kurds? The Irish Famine? Or indeed the Nazis and German minority speakers murdered or transported to Siberia by the vengeful Soviets? January 27 is also the day in 1944 identified as the end of the siege of Leningrad where it is estimated more than one million died. What of those victims? And of course, the most recent Genocides in Europe that took place in the Former Yugoslavia. The twentieth century seems to have ended as it began. What have we practically done to prevent atrocity and protect human rights and the rule of law? Concentration camps were not liberated with daisies. 

I am sure we are all familiar with journalist, author and intellectual, George Orwell. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but his was an informed opinion – he fought against Franco’s Fascists in the Spanish Civil War. His statue stands in the BBC’s New Broadcasting House accompanied by one of his many famous quotes ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear’

But are we listening? In 1986, the Romanian born Holocaust survivor and campaigner, Elie Weisel, asked the Gypsies for forgiveness for “not listening to your story.” Are we too focused on the minutiae and the quotidian? Founded in the aftermath of the Second World War, the Council of Europe aims to prevent a return to totalitarian regimes and defend fundamental freedoms: human rights, democracy and the rule of law. But have we? Can we? Will we?  

Thank you and Goodnight Mapesbury

Dr Helen Carr is Vice President of the Independent Liberal and Democrat Group of the Council of Europe’s Congress of Local and Regional Authorities. She is Leader of the Independent Group of the London Borough of Brent and Councillor for Mapesbury. Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute, she is a Freeman of the City of a London.  

How the Greens performed in the Brent local elections

The Green Party stood one candidate in every Brent ward except for Willesden Green, which was where we put in most of our campaigning, where we stood two candidates. We left the third slot free so as to make space for Alex Colas the independent Make Willesden Green candidate.  In the event many voters voted two Green plus MWG . MWG were the single choice of some voters and shared with parties other than the Green Party  in other cases.

The combined percentage vote of the three candidates in Willesden Green was 21%: Make Willesden Green 9%, Sharara Ali 6% and Martin Francis 6%.

The Greens beat both Tory and Lib Dem candidates in Harlesden, Kensal Green and Kilburn. We beat all the Lib Dems in Dudden Hill, Fryent, Kenton, Northwick Park, Preston, Queen's Park, Queensbury and Welsh Harp. We beat all the Tories in Mapesbury and Willesden Green.

Greens were ahead of two out of the three Lib Dem candidates in Barnhill, Brondesbury  Park and Willesden Green and two out of three Tories in Queen's Park.

Our highest percentage votes were in Brondesbury Park, Kensal Green, Mapesbury, Queen's Park and Willesden Green.

Brent Green Party has limited financial and human resources compared with the other parties and therefore had to concentrate on a few wards. However, it is clear that there are many potential Green voters in the borough if only we can reach them through leafleting and personal contact. Our aim must be to substantially increase our active membership and network of supporters while at the same time maintaining and improving our campaigning record.

The Euro election results later today should give us further indications of our potential support.

Looking forward to the General Election in 2015 the 'Vote for Policies' website  LINK shows Greens ahead of the other parties in Brent Central. People vote purely on policies without knowing which party they emanate from until completion:

Green Party 25.95%
Labour 23.07%
Liberal Democrats: 17.47%
Conservative 14.77%
UKIP 10.51%
BNP 8.23%

The figures for Brent North also put the Greens ahead LINK

Green Party 24.01%
Labour 22.74%
Liberal Democrats 16.13%
Conservative 15.12%
UKIP 12.48%
BNP 9.52%

Meanwhile, for any individual their political party  affiliation is a matter of 'best fit'  rather than 'I agree with every item in the manifesto'. I hope that some Wembley Matters readers will take note of this election result and come and join us.

More than ever, we are the alternative.

'Parking, Potholes & Poo' or politics?

At a hustings in Mapesbury earlier this week a Liberal Democrat candidate said that the local election was about efficient emptying of bins and clean streets and not about 'political grand themes'. This was a swipe at my fellow Green Shahrar Ali, whose speech had identified the democratic deficit on Brent Council and the iniquity of privatisation and the bedroom tax.

The Lib Dem candidate was right in a way:  no one is going to say they are FOR fly-tipping, overflowing bins, litter strewn streets or pavements smeared with dog excrement. However the allocation of resources to deal with those issues is a political issue - both within the Council and in terms of government resources allocated to local authorities. The extent to which services are out-sourced and the wages and working conditions of sub-contractors are a political issues. The Council's stand on the privatisation of schools and whether it makes a principled stand on the undemocratic process of forced academisation is a political issue.

It is also important to consider how these decisions are made by councillors and that brings into consideration whether decisions are arrived at through debate and rigorous scrutiny or are mere rubber stamping of officer reports. Opposition and Labour backbenchers find they are excluded from this decision making and instead have to focus on the 'parking, potholes and poo' casework. How good they are at that is not a matter of political affiliation but of personal efficiency. An added, but reduced concession, is their role in allocating ward working money.

Lastly the controversy over the Davani affair brings into sharp focus the relationship between the political administration and officers. If the administration sees itself as a management organisation - managing the cuts, managing the school places crisis, managing procurement - it puts political principle aside and the Executive and Corporate Management Team become a single management entity.

In my view this is not a matter for personal attacks, although the current issue has become highly personal because of the huge impact it has made on people's lives and livelihoods, but of questioning why some of the most senior officer positions in the council are in effect out-sourced to people who have set themselves up as self-employed consultants.

This means that at its very core the Council has acquiesced in the Coalition's privatisation agenda - handing public money over to private companies.

A further dimension is the issue, discussed on this blog many times, of the relationship between the Council and developers, or more specifically the relationshing between the Major Projects, Regeneration and Planning Department and developers. With the Council seeing its role as smoothing the way for developers, local residents find themselves locked out of the discussion and the decisions. They become mere irritants in the joint projects of the council and its favoured property developers. Behind this is the political issue of reduced funding for local government and therefore the need for the Council to find other sources of revenue through increasing its council tax base through high density, often unaffordable, housing developments; Community Infrastructure Levy and the New Homes Bonus LINK

Of course it suits the Lib Dems to focus on street level issues and to be photographed pointing at fly-tips, because it takes attention away from their role as Coalition partners in undermining the financial stability and the viability of local authorities.

Powney misses out on Mapesbury.

Labour's Mapesbury candidates with Dawn Butler

Cllr Colum Moloney has been selected to complete the list of  Labour  candidates for the Mapesbury ward in the forthcoming local elections. He currently represents the Stonebridge ward. Three male councillors, Moloney, James Powney and Abdi Aden  were amongst the four candidates fighting for the position

EDL threaten demo in Cricklewood on Saturday

The Mapesbury Safer Neighbourhood Team have circulated the following information:

*  EDL Demo Cricklewood Broadway on Saturday

Update from Mapesbury SNT

The media has published details on the 14/01/2014 regarding the Muslim Brotherhood setting up an office above an old Kebab shop in CRICKLEWOOD BROADWAY. A photo of the venue shows a disused premise with the number 113 visible on the front.

Further enquiries have identified the building as 113 CRICKLEWOOD BROADWAY NW2 3JG which is covered by BRENT borough.

The right wing response has been for a national call out for persons to attend the venue on Saturday 18/01/2014 in opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood setting up office in LONDON 

The Britain First right wing group has organised the event and have asked people to meet at 1400 hrs on 18/01/2014 at CRICKLEWOOD STATION and bring flags.

This has also appeared on the main ENGLISH DEFENCE LEAGUE facebook page It this stage there is no indication of people who will attend but it is guaranteed that people will attend on Saturday

I will keep you up to date with developments; we will develop an appropriate Policing response.

Mapesbury SNT contact details:  

mapesbury.snt@met.police.uk

NOTE FROM WEMBLEY MATTERS The latest intelligence suggest that the EDL will be mobilising in Slough on Saturday and I have been told there is nothing on their Twitter feed about Cricklewood. It looks likely that it will be a small demonstration (perhaps no more than 20) by Britain First. This information is not definitive so please check Wembley Matters, Brent Fightback Facebook for updates.

Save Hopscotch Nursery - sign this petition

The Hopscotch Nursery Campaign are asking Brent residents and people who work in Brent to sign their e-petition, lodged with Brent Council.  The petition is self-explanatory and signing is easy. Follow this LINK

The petition:

We the undersigned petition the council to allow Hopscotch Nursery to continue providing its much needed nursery and drop-in services. We demand that Brent council gives Hopscotch a secure future in Winkworth Hall or helps to locate alternative premises in same vicinity and undertakes not to evict Hopscotch until such premises are found.

Hopscotch is a much loved nursery that has been serving the local community for nearly 30 years, providing nursery education for the under 5’s, and a low cost drop-in for carers and children. Hopscotch was rated ‘outstanding’ in its last two Ofsted reports and is the only outstanding full time nursery in NW6.

Brent Council, which owns Winkworth Hall in which Hopscotch is based, has said that the building is “surplus to requirements” and expressed the intention to evict Hopscotch in 2013 in order to sell off the site.
This is despite its statutory duty, under the 2006 Children’s Act, to ensure sufficient childcare for working parents. The area that Hopscotch serves (Kilburn, Brondesbury Park, Mapesbury, Queen’s Park) is the least well provided for in the whole borough. The council’s recent assessment of childcare provision (February 2011) stated that:

“The availability of childcare may be more of an acute problem faced by families in Kilburn than it is for families in the rest of Brent.”

Hopscotch, which is run by a charity for the benefit of the community, addresses these needs. Its nursery and drop-in serve have served 100s of families in the local area. Without it these families simply have no childcare provision available. At a time of cuts a charity like Hopscotch is all the more precious; providing a valuable local service available to all parents without council funding.

 The campaign has a blog HERE. At the time of writing the petition has 355 signatures. It closes on August 1st.