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.

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/

UPDATED WITH VIDEO: Queensbury pub WON'T be demolished but Wembley green space WILL be built on

Save the Queensbury Campaign present their case against demolition of the pub

Mapesbury Residents' Association present their case against demolition of the pub

 The developer's planning advisor and the publican present their case

It was an evening of contrasts at Brent Planning Committee today. The latest round of the Willesden Green Queensbury pub saga ended in victory for the Save The Queensbury campaign when councillors rejected the Officers' recommendation and voted down the developer's latest plan B by 5 votes to 2.

No less than four local councillors from Willesden Green and Mapesbury spoke against the developer's proposal and there was a written submission by Cllr Tom Miller who could not attend. A powerful submission by Deputy Mayor, Cllr Lia Colacicco, was read out for her by Cllr Liz Dixon, with Cllr Colacicco following proceedings via the livestreaming. She argued that there had been no proper consultation by the developer, merely an exhibition with no discussion, it was an off-the-peg design that would not win any prizes and emphasised the Planning Inspector's comment that 'less than substantial harm' occasioned by a development, does not equate to a less than sub-substantial objection.

The most telling submissions were made by Ian Elliott of the Save The Queensbury campaign and a spokesperson for the Mapesbury Residents Association who clearly had hundreds of people behind them. They had done their research and mastered their brief which was not always the case with planning officers who were left leafing through their numerous documents in some desperation.

Perhaps the most pathetic moments were when the developer's planning agent tried to claim that there WAS a kitchen in the plans and officers tried to indicate a tiny space on the projected plan, unmarked, which they said was a kitchen space; and when officers tried to justify that a black 'tin roof' on the new building would somehow both be in keeping with, and enhance, the area.

The combination of strong community campaigning winning the support of councillors led to victory.

This morning the Save the Queensbury Campaign said:

We’ve asked Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt and Chief Executive Carolyn Downs to review officer conduct running up to & including the meeting last night. Misleading content in reports, biased extracts, incorrect verbal info given to councillors brought local government & planning into disrepute.

In contrast the arguably more far-reaching plans to build on green space in central Wembley went through unanimously with no representation from residents and ward councillors. There was a passionate intervention from the public gallery after the committee had unanimously agreed the proposal with little discussion. The resident lived opposite the proposed development and felt that she had not been properly informed or consulted.

Another London Road resident lamented that her neighbours were not interested enough to get themselves organised and that the area felt neglected by ward councillors and their MP Barry Gardiner. A new development at the end of London Road would add to congestion and crowding and she declared vehemently that after what had happened she wanted to move out of Wembley.

The architect for the development admitted that few people had turned up at the London Road consultation and that this was a continuing problem with people only getting involved when it is too late.

Officers did not mention that many of the trees that will be cut down to make way for the housing development have Tree Preservation Orders on them but it appears that when the development is on Council owned land little can be done to stop the felling.  Planning officers accepted the claim that planting saplings on the estate will make up for the loss of mature trees.

The loss of green space which is both a SINC (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation) and a wildlife corridor is a worrying precedent when we have a council desperate to build much needed housing but with a blind spot regarding the environment and heritage. Officers accepted that a few bird and bat boxes was sufficient mitigation for the loss.

The Save The Queensbury Campaign have now published their own account of the meeting HERE

Brent planners recommend Queensbury pub demolition scheme despite vociferous local opposition

This pub will be demolished unless Brent Planning Committee reject planning officers' recommendation

The fears of the Queensbury Pub campaigners that Brent Council will give in to the developer of the Willesden Green site and agree to the demolition of the well-loved pub appear to have been realised.

Two almost identical schemes have been put forward and the planners reject Scheme A and recommend acceptance of Scheme B.

The developer is currently at Appeal over the Council’s rejection of the earlier scheme, Campaigners claim that their FOI request revealed that the developer agreed with Brent Council that the appeal will be dropped if the Planning Committee grant the Scheme B application.  The Planning Committee papers do not note that agreement.

Officers note (claim?) that ‘less than substantial harm has been identified in the loss of the building’ housing the public house and that the identified harm is ‘outweighed by the significant public benefits’ of the scheme.

The scheme does not meet the Council’s 50% affordable housing target but that is glossed over by a vague reference to a ‘post-implementation’ review.

There is no guarantee that the replacement pub space would have a kitchen despite the fact that the survival of public houses these days depend on their offering meals and the food offer is a strength of the current pub.

The development would yield a sum of  £890,000 in Council Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Officers’ Conclusions (FULL REPORT HERE)

The proposed development is considered to have addressed the issues identified with the scheme currently at Appeal. Whilst less than substantial harm has been identified in the loss of a building which is viewed as making a positive contribution to the character of the Mapesbury Conservation Area, the identified harm is outweighed by the significant public benefits which arise from the scheme. These include: the removal of visible negative public realm features such as signage and poorly designed extensions; direct street-level access; an increase in housing provision and affordable housing provision, the provision of a formal community space/ function room. 

Whilst design will always be a subjective matter, the removal of the bulky and intrusive front elevation results in a building which appears more coherent in the streetscene and in keeping. Internally, the standard of accommodation of individual units is improved with more regular shaped rooms proposed and units meeting with the Technical Standards; and outlook and amenity space provision is also considered acceptable. No issues are again raised in relation to neighbour impact. 

The overall design of the public house is now considered to be suitably distinctive from the residential elements. The applicant has reviewed other design options such as retaining the existing building, however as discussed above, a viable scheme would result in a scheme which would completely dominate the existing building, have unacceptable impacts on neighbouring occupiers or unacceptably alter the existing building. 

The affordable housing offer of 35 % does not meet the 50 % target set out in current Council’s adopted policy and there remains some disagreement in relation to the some of the variables and the associated potential surplus generated by the scheme. However, it is considered that this can be resolved through a post implementation review which would use actual sales values and build costs as opposed to hypothetical values. Any money received will contribute towards much needed affordable housing elsewhere in the Borough. It is also noted that the current offer by the applicant of 35% affordable by habitable room would comply with the draft London Plan and with emerging local policy. 

The Planning Committee will decide on the application on June 19^th, 6pm at Brent Civic Centre. If you wish to speak on the application email:
joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk

The Save The Queensbury Campaign  told Wembley Matters:

Once again we rely on members of the Planning Committee to take an objective view of the three schemes before them. Members are asked to back a scheme they’ve effectively Refused and now subject to Appeal. Members are not told that granting the scheme will take the Appeal off the table; that deal has been done.

None of the schemes meet Affordable housing targets and worryingly, there are no plans for the community groups using the pub six mornings a week. Much is promised in future reviews and legal paperwork but that will be done behind closed doors and without community involvement.

Neither the developer or officers have offered any evidence that the community welcomes this decision.

Members should not fear going against their officers. They did this before and Brent went on to win the Appeal and we are confident that the same can happen again.

Mapesbury Residents' Association oppose developer's plans for the Queensbury pub

Residents making representations to the Planning Committee on the first Queensbury applicationMarch 2014

There is still time to comment on the developer's two (hardly) different plans for the Queensbury post. These are the links: 18/4675 and 18/4701

There are 26 submisisons on 18/4675 and 37 on 18/4701. All object to the plans. Some comments accuse the developer of being 'underhand' or 'devious' while others give very detailed objections.

Mapesbury Residents' Association submitted the following objection:

This objection is on behalf of the Mapesbury Residents’ Association Planning and Conservation Sub-Committee. We regret that this is after the 21 days deadline but understand that Brent Planning are willing to consider comments before their report to Planning Committee is finalised.

We wish to object for the following reasons:

1. The proposed new building is too tall and too bulky and would detract from the appearance of the area and does not preserve or enhance existing conservation area. The existing building makes a positive contribution to the setting of the listed station, which according to the previous Appeal inspector, would be desirable to preserve. The Planning Authority ought to respect that view and act consistently with it. The existing building also makes a positive contribution to the historic interest of the area.

- The applications are described as 4 and in part 5 storeys; however, both schemes are 6 storeys visible height across the frontage with 5 storeys behind. This is a misrepresentation by the Developer. In addition, each floor is taller than those of no 112 next door and the roof level would therefore be 1.5 storeys higher than the 5 storeys on no 112.

- There is no attempt to harmonise the building with no 112. It does not carry across the basic simple flat front wall with rectangular balconies of 112. Instead there are prominent bays forming a modelled front, stepping in and out. This draws attention to the bulk of the new building. The proposed horizontal banding for the brickwork between the bays and balconies is whimsical and unnecessary. The proposed design is a hotchpotch of irregular shaped bays and balconies that also results in lost floor space in the bedrooms.

- The vertical line style of shading at the roof level implies a lot of metal or timber cladding. Metal cladding is for industrial sheds and timber cladding has no feel of permanence and quickly deteriorates in appearance.

- The bedrooms within each flat are too long and narrow and do not provide adequate accommodation. The bedrooms with bay windows are a poor shape with useless area.


2. There are fundamental faults with the layout of the current ground floor layout plan:

- There is no sound proofing between the community room and the pub and between the pub, community room and the flats above. Noisy exercise classes and music / dance / singing / drama etc. activities will interfere with the pub. The floor over the Function / Community room and the pub need to be sound proofed to avoid disturbance of the flats above.

- The bins are in two locations, one of which is on the front of the building and inconveniently accessible for all users.

- The main entrance to the flats is a constricted passage next to the bin store.

- The combination of bin store at the front and narrow entrance make the front aspect of the building very unattractive and out of kilter with the adjoining buildings.


3. The ground floor spaces for the public house and function / community room are not well proportioned for their intended uses:

- The area of the proposed Function / Community Room is too small. It is only 81 sq. metres (ignoring the entrance corridor). This represents only 1.6% of the total floor area. To be useful twice this would be necessary for the activities that are normally provided by a Function / Community room,

- The Function / Community room is a poor layout and badly located; tucked around the corner behind the retained shops past a narrow gap next to the shops. The entrance is in an insecure place, especially at night and is next to the bin store.

- The size of the Function / Community room is not of sufficient value in relation to the value of the planning permission being sought.

- The floor plan of the pub is too long and narrow,

- The replacement pub has neither a kitchen nor ventilation in the proposed plan which will severely limit its menu.

- The poor floor plan and absence of a kitchen must impact upon its popularity with residents. It would be a completely inadequate replacement for the existing pub and brings into question the viability of the proposal for this space as a replacement for a popular and important local amenity.


4. The ownership, maintenance and management of the Function / Community Room are not defined. The tenure should be in-perpetuity so that the benefit of the land and its associated frontage onto Walm Lane is carried forward if the associated / adjoining owners of the Pub get into financial difficulties. Points that need establishing in the contract include:

- What will be the legal status of the Function / Community room, who will own the ground on which the room sits?

- Who or what organisation will own the space, how will the public / local residents’ ownership and rights be defined?

- Who or what organisation will manage the room and its use?

- How will the structural envelope of the room be maintained?

- How will access to the toilet facilities and basement and kitchens shared with the Pub be defined, maintained and delivered in-perpetuity?

- How will access to the toilet facilities and basement and kitchens?


5. This third proposal is essentially the same as the second proposal which was refused permission last year and the fact that that application is now subject to appeal should not be considered as a relevant factor. Permission for this proposal should also be refused.

Should there be 3 options for Willesden Green's Queensbury pub?

Queensbury development Option 1

Queensbury development Option 2

Should this (retention of present building) and 'build around it') be Option 3

On his way out of the St Gabriel's Hall consultation on the Queensbury development a resident said, 'They call it a consultation but it's not really much of a choice. The two options are very similar.'

As you can see the main difference is the roof, dormer windows and the shape of the bays- the actual layout inside is the same for both options.

Others  I spoke to thought the designs 'weren't terrible' but were typical modern buildings that are in no way a match for the character of what they are replacing.

When it comes to the pub there was little more than a floor plan and an artists's impression.(above) The function room  would be next to the bar and managed by the pub. Apparently Brent Council thought they did not have the resources to manage such a small unit as a community room. The function room would have its own outside area, making it suitable for children's activities such as Busy Rascals, and its own external entrance.

The developers argued that taking into account the bar, the function room, the outside area and the basements to both rooms, the total area was more than the present pub.

The developers said that a lease agreement has been made with the publican of the Queensbury although it wasn't clear to me whether this meant the publican supported the particular designs being exhibited for the site.

I was concerned that the plans showed the existence of 'poor doors' - separate entrances for private and social/affordable flats.  The developers argued that there was a common entrance from the street (top left) but I pointed out there were separate entrances once inside the development (in the plan top left, next to the blue line of the pub and on the right,  below the two green rectangles which represent outdoor space. They said this was necessary for the convenience of what will be two separate management companies/agencies.  The outdoor space will be communal.

Of the 48 flats 10 will be social rent and 5 affordable rent. The developers said the actual rent level was a matter for Brent Council or the agency letting on their behalf. Of the total number of flats 70% will be rented and 30% shared ownership. The developer said that 35% of all habitable rooms were at social /affordable rent. This is because of the 3 bedroomed social rent flats included in the scheme.

The Feedback form asked attendees for personal details (name. phone, address, email) and there were just 2 questions: 'How did you hear about this exhibition?'  and  'Which design option do you prefer?' plus space to say why you prefer the design option. If you missed the consultation you can still write or email:

 Initial reaction on Twitter was not very impressed by the design:

Save the Queensbury Campaign gears up for another round of their battle for the pub as the developer applies for an inquiry into Brent's refusal of planning permission

Campaigners fighting to save the Queensbury pub in Willesden Green from the bulldozers are urging supporters to attend a consultation on the developer's plans at St Gabriels Church on Chichelle Road (off Walm Lane) on November 8th. 4pm-8pm.  At the same time the developers, Redbourne (Queensbury) Ltd have given notice of an appeal against Brent Council's refusal of planning permission and asked for an inquiry LINK.

A statement on the campaign's website

It’s been quiet since May, then shock and horror for Halloween week.

In a leaflet drop over the weekend the owner / developer of 110 Walm Lane gave notice of a public consultation at St Gabriel’s Church Hall next Thursday 8th November. This is an exhibition of a “new plan” and an opportunity to “have your questions answered” yet the leaflet bizarrely fails to mention the pub nor include any further detail on what is planned. Likewise the dedicated website (www.walmlane.co.uk) provides just a date and map, so we have no clue how much of nightmare the New Plan will be.

Save The Queensbury is easily confused. At the same time the developer has applied to the government’s planning Inspectorate (cynically just days before the legal deadline) for a six day public inquiry into Brent Council’s decision to save the pub from demolition – based on the plan kicked out in May by Brent Council.

Please tell your neighbours, Councillor, friends and others about this and encourage them to pop along and give their views.

Cllrs Tariq Dhar and Lia Coll have pledged their support:

 The Queensbury has always claimed it is more than just a pub - it is a community asset and this is just one of the activities that takes place there:

 These are the grounds on which Brent Council refused planning permission:

.        1  The proposed development, by reason of its massing, poorly designed front elevation and lack of articulation, would appear unduly prominent and out of character in the street scene and in the wider locality. The development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Mapesbury Conservation Area in which the site is located. As a result, the proposal fails to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Policies 3.4, 3.5 and 7.4 of the London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016); Core Strategy (2010) policy CP17, Development Management Policies (2016) DMP1 and DMP7; Supplementary Planning Guidance 17 “Design Guide for New Development”, October 2001; and the Mapesbury Conservation Area Design Guide. 

 


.        2  The proposed development would not provide an adequate overall standard of accommodation for future occupiers, by virtue of the lack of amenity space for all units, the undersized nature of units AF3, AF5, AF8, AF11 and AF15, the poor outlook of units 2.06, 3.06 and 4.05 and the poor layouts, narrow widths and usability of the units which would be contrary to Development Management Policy (2016) DMP1 and DMP19, Policy 3.5 of the London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016) and the Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standards (2015). 

 


.        3  The proposal would fail to provide the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing which would be contrary to Core Strategy (2010) policy CP2 and Development Management Policy (2016) DMP15, policy 3.12 of the London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016) and policies H5 and H6 of the draft London Plan. 

 


.        4  In the absence of a legal agreement to control the matter the proposal would result in additional carbon dioxide emissions within the borough in an Air Quality Management Area, without any contribution to carbon reduction measures in the area. The proposal would also fail to demonstrate that a BREEAM rating of at least ‘Very Good’ could be achieved. As a result the proposal would be contrary to London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016) policy 5.2, 5.3 and 7.14, Core Strategy (2010) policy CP19, Development Management Policy (2016) DMP1 and the Mayors Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (2014). 

 


.        5  In the absence of a legal agreement to control the matter, the development would result in additional pressure on servicing, parking demand and transport infrastructure to the detriment of the free and safe flow of traffic and pedestrians which would be contrary to Development Management Policies (2016) DMP1 and DMP12. 


Follow Save the Queensbury on Twitter @QueensburySOS

Website LINK

Brent Council turns down Queensbury Pub plans

In a damning decision notice Brent Council has thrown out the developer's plans for the Queensbury pub in Willesden Green. They cite massing, poor design, inadequate standard of accommodation, failure to provide maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing,  lack of control of carbon dioxide emissions and impact on parking and transport infrastructure.

The decision notice states:


The scheme does not comply with guidance and the pre-application advice received has not been adhered to:
 

The proposed development, by reason of its massing, poorly designed front elevation and lack of articulation, would appear unduly prominent and out of character in the street scene and in the wider locality. The development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Mapesbury Conservation Area in which the site is located. As a result, the proposal fails to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Policies 3.4, 3.5 and 7.4 of the London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016); Core Strategy (2010) policy CP17, Development Management Policies (2016) DMP1 and DMP7; Supplementary Planning Guidance 17 “Design Guide for New Development”, October 2001; and the Mapesbury Conservation Area Design Guide.

The proposed development would not provide an adequate overall standard of accommodation for future occupiers, by virtue of the lack of amenity space for all units, the undersized nature of units AF3, AF5, AF8, AF11 and AF15, the poor outlook of units 2.06, 3.06 and 4.05 and the poor layouts, narrow widths and usability of the units which would be contrary to Developmen Management Policy (2016) DMP1 and DMP19, Policy 3.5 of the London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016) and the Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standards (2015). 

The proposal would fail to provide the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing which would be contrary to Core Strategy (2010) policy CP2 and Development Management Policy (2016) DMP15, policy 3.12 of the London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March  2016) and policies H5 and H6 of the draft London Plan. 

 In the absence of a legal agreement to control the matter the proposal would result in additional carbon dioxide emissions within the borough in an Air Quality Management Area, without any contribution to carbon reduction measures in the area. The proposal would also fail to demonstrate that a BREEAM rating of at least ‘Very Good’ could be achieved. As a result the proposal would be contrary to London Plan  consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016) policy 5.2, 5.3 and 7.14, Core Strategy (2010) policy CP19, Development Management Policy (2016) DMP1 and the Mayors Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (2014).

In the absence of a legal agreement to control the matter, the development would result in additional pressure on servicing, parking demand and transport infrastructure to the detriment of the free and safe flow of traffic and pedestrians which would be contrary to Development Management Policies (2016) DMP1 and DMP12.

-->

Community prepare for another Queensbury pub battle as new plans published

Proposed development

Rejected development

Existing

The  long-running controversy over the Queensbury pub in Willesden Green started a new chapter yesterday when a new redevelopment was submitted by developers.  First reactions on Twitter and Facebook were not complimentary despite the developer claiming 77% of consultees  supported reproviding a pub on the site and 55% provision of new housing. They made great play of increasing the proportion of the 48 flats that are 'affordable' (presumably using up to 80% of market rent definition) from 30% to 35%. Another of their selling points is the provision of a community space on the site.

There seems to be a prospect of 'poor doors' in the developer's statement that 'the affordable housing will be served via a separate core to maximise the prospect of interesting a registered provider...'

However most initial reaction was over the appearance of the development, despite the developer claiming that they had addressed heritage concerns. One person commented:

Is that what they are planning in its stead!! What’s happening to Brent planners they are allowing the demolition of lots of beautiful old buildings and houses across the borough.
Brent is becoming ugly!

Neighbourhood comments on the application (Reference 18/0210) close on March 1st. The full planning application can be viewed HERE

Plan of the proposed development:

Click on image to enlarge