Did Brent Council do enough to save the Queensbury?

Although it was the Planning Inspector who gave the go ahead for the demolition of the Queensbury Pub there is also an issue of Brent Council's role.  Brent Council never got round to listing the building which would have been a first line of defence but the Planning Inspector himself seemed doubtful that they had properly prepared for the case.

The Save the Queensbury campaign on social media accused the Council of dithering:

Because this was Brent's own doing. Inept officers dithering about new plans in front of them, dancing to the developer tune, rather than preparing for an upcoming Inquiry. Car crash of an Planning Committee in June, officers desperate to approve led to zero prep for the Appeal.

The campaign  are asking Cllr Butt, leader of Brent Council and Carolyn Downs for an explanation of the Inspector's comment on the Council's preparation for the Inquiry (Para 46)

The evolution of the design of the proposed building was clearly set out in the appellant’s evidence, and was carefully analysed by the appellant’s architectural and conservation witnesses. In comparison the Council’s evidence was far less detailed and was given by an architect with apparently very limited experience of comparable developments, and who was doubtless hindered by being instructed only a week before evidence was submitted.

In contrast after considering objections to the Save the Queensbury's website inclusion of an image of a previous application which he said could have been misleading, he writes (Para 70):

That said, the STQ evidence was clear and relevant, and there could be no suggestion that their clear evidence was in any way misdirected

This is the Inspector's conclusion:

Planning balance and conclusion

I have already identified the policies which are most important for determining the appeal above. There is no persuasive evidence that any of the policies are out of date. Considering the policies as a whole, the policies are not out of date and I conclude that the ‘tilted balance’ under paragraph 11 of the Framework is not triggered.  

I am conscious of the considerable importance and weight to be given to the desirability of preserving the character and appearance of conservation areas. However, in this case I have found that the proposal would overall have a neutral effect on the designated area, which is to say that its character and appearance would be preserved. 

The proposal would generate the following main benefits, to which I attach significant weight: 

a.     It would deliver 48 new homes, including 35% affordable housing at the Council’s tenure split. This is accepted as the maximum reasonable amount and is subject to a late review mechanism. The percentage of family sized units is unusually high for a development of this sort.

b.    The re-provision of a larger public house in purpose built accommodation.

c.     The provision of a larger and dedicated community space, along with secure arrangements for the existing and future occupiers.

d.    The development is in a highly sustainable location opposite a tube station and on bus routes, and with a PTAL score of 6.

            For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

-

 The full report is below. Click on the bottom right hand corner for full size version: 

Why Busy Rascals need space in any new development on the Queensbury site

Sharmine Choudhary-Tse of the community group Busy Rascals gave evidence on the last day of the Queensbury Public Inquiry at Brent Civic Centre yesterday.

In a powerful statement Sharmine told the planning inspector how the group had begun in response to a need to provide activities for the children of parents who were often socially isolated.  It not only provided children's activities but addressed  mental health problems associated with isolation by putting in place a supportive network where the problems as well as the joys of parenting can be discussed.

Busy Rascals provides dance and music classes for children as well as classes and information for adults. Ian Elliott, who has been speaking for Save the Queensbury at the public inquiry was himself a user of the service and Sharmine praised his support - without it Busy Rascals would not exist.

The group has won numerous awards for its work and any profit from money paid for classes is invested back into the provision.

Although Busy Rascals had spoken to the developer they had received nothing in writing assuring them that space in the new development would definitely be allocated to them. Such an assurance was needed for peace of mind. The developer had undertaken to undertake 'best endeavours' to provide an alternative space ,should the appeal succeed, while the redevelopment took place.

The QC for the appellant was at pains to point out that the new development would provide a bigger indoor space and an outdoor space superior to present provision. He also said the developer would pay any rent etc payable on the interim space.

I asked  a question from the floor on whether rent would be payable on the community space in the new development, particularly as it had been suggested that other community groups could use it as well as Busy Rascals. The inquiry adjourned so the QC could consult with his client on the issue.

I had to leave but closing statements followed from both sides and in the afternoon the Planning Inspector visited the site with the parties.

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/

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.

When is a decision not a decision? Smoke and mirrors at Brent Council

Early days of the campaign to Save the Queensbury

 Guest blog by Ian Elliott

A property developer bought The Queensbury pub in Willesden Green almost four years ago and lodged a plan to build a 10 storey tower block in its place. Save The Queensbury was formed and we convinced Brent Council's planning department to reject the plans. We then represented ourselves at a five day public inquiry when the developer appealed, unsuccessfully and the Inspector spoke highly of the merits of the existing building.

From the start we believed that the building, in a conservation area, should have been protected by being added to Brent's "local list" of buildings. The problem is, we have been left completely confused as to who takes a decision as to what buildings are on the list and have now been stonewalled by decision-makers at Brent Council.

Back in 2012 we were told that there were no plans to review Brent's list, which contains buildings as diverse as the State Ballroom in Kilburn to the bandstand in Queens Park.

In June 2014 a mysterious report appear on Brent's website, rightly adding Kensal Rise library to the list but claiming that The Queensbury had been reviewed but would not be added. Naturally this was a blow so we asked for the assessment to be made public. Brent refused to publish the assessment so we complained to Brent's Chief Executive and asked for this to be looked at by a senior officer, away from those close to the decision. 

Instead we had a reply giving Brent a clean bill of health - from a manager in the same department who we wanted to be investigated as failing to consult with residents. (Bear in mind also that officers in planning have twice recommended that the pub be demolished, in spite of local opposition). Weird, eh?

Fast forward to summer 2015 and Brent consulted on a review of the local list and we, along with dozens of residents, asked for The Queensbury to be listed. Cllr Margaret McLennan, Brent Council’s lead member for housing and development, said: “This consultation is a chance for residents to have their say on the pieces of Brent’s fantastic heritage that are most important to them. I would encourage people to go online and nominate their favourite site of historical interest to be considered for inclusion on the Local List.” So we did.

We thought we were making progress when a report emerged, adding The Queensbury to the local list, later 2015. A decision was promised, in December 2015, but an email from Brent Council reveals that a decision not to proceed was apparently taken by Brent's Cabinet.

We asked for the minutes of that decision, given that it was on a Cabinet agenda for December. No response. No agenda. No minutes. Hang on.... this is getting weirder. Where's the transparency?

The Chair of planning then tells us that a "Policy Coordination Group" would a review the Cabinet decision but that's left us mystified. Of all the 30+ groups and committees listed on Brent's Democracy site, the PCG is not one. So we asked again, only to hear that the Lead Councillor (i.e. the one inviting us to participate in this democracy) will no longer comment or email us on this matter.

At the turn of 2015 we put in a Freedom of Information request to try and clear the smoke around Brent's mysterious PCG and hopefully find out precisely who took a decision not to add The Queensbury (again) and on what basis. 

In law, Brent have to respond to an FoI request, by the first week of February.

We will wait and see if we get transparency and minutes from the mystery PCG. Or at least an explanation as to why The Queensbury was not added, again. Without this, the popular and viable pub in a beautiful conservation area remains vulnerable to demolition.

Brent Council refuse to recognise the community value of the Queensbury Pub

Guest blog from the Save the QueensburyGroup. It really does seem to be The People against The Developers (Kensal Rise Library, Willesden Green Library, Queensbury Pub) with Brent Council unable or unwilling to stand up for local people - and seemingly subservient to the developers.

The Save The Queensbury group is very disappointed that the pub has not been added to Brent Council’s list of Assets of Community Value. Our nomination (via the NW2 Residents Association) was refused following a 15 page letter from the Fairview Homes law firm to Brent Council and we are now considering whether to try for a third time.

We are disappointed that Brent Council did not recognise and agree that the site of the pub has been an important resource in our community since 1925. The regulations on ACVs ask whether a property has community use currently or at any time in the recent past. We were confident that because the building has been a social club between 1925-2012 and a pub since 2000 it would reasonably meet that criteria. After all many pubs already listed elsewhere are actually closed, often by developers who want to build flats. This is precisely why these regulations were introduced.

We are also disappointed that Brent Council did not agree that the Busy Rascals activities for toddlers and the National Childbirth Trust meetings for parents both reflect the pub’s place in the community. Fairview argued that this is not a normal use of a pub, claiming it actually contravened the pub’s lease and sought to discount it for ACV purposes. Brent council seem to agree. Let’s remember that Fairview have strenuously and persistently sought to undermine Busy Rascals and the pub, at every turn.

Aside from current use, there is also a test as to the future use of a building over the next five years. We argued that the pub has a lease until 2017 so it’s a no-brainer? We also stated that there is no permission for anything other than community / social club / pub use. Plus there are no current plans before the council to change this. But, again, Brent listened to Fairview Homes who said that they have no intention of opening the building for community use and every intention of demolishing it. As far as we can tell there is nothing in regulations about a landowner’s intention and desire, otherwise surely no building would be listed if an owner could simply say they wanted to demolish it?

We put a lot into our nominations. We took advice  and we looked at other successful nominations of pubs and other buildings. What we got in return was a convoluted process which heavily favoured Fairview Homes (they had two weeks to respond to our nomination and we were afforded two days). We are a small, voluntary group without the expertise and resource of a multinational law firm. Yet we did address Fairview’s points and were confident that our nomination met the criteria and Brent had a duty to list it.

So what next?

This is a small chapter in a battle to save both The Queensbury pub and the activities of Busy Rascals by preserving a landmark building in a conservation area. But we have little expertise, limited resource, not much local Councillor support and a developer with a lot of money at stake and a huge legal resource to lobby and bully the council.

It really is an uphill struggle, so we’re taking stock and considering our next moves, but we’re certainly not giving up in our fight to save The Queensbury.

'Mums hold the trump card' on Queensbury development

Guest blog on the redevelopment of the Queensbury pub in Willesden Green by a local parent.

As well as being a concerned mum who took great confidence and sometimes solace from attending the National Childbirth Trust sessions,Tuesdays in particular, at the Qeensbury, I am also professionally, involved in Planning and Development so I have an idea of how the process works and what the developers are trying to do.



The exhibition run by Fairview is intended to consult locals on their revised proposals. They did this last year (9 months ago for their previous scheme) but the invitees to the exhibitions were a very short list and didn't include Busy Rascals or the NCT. Fairview recorded at that time only 22 comments from locals - I suspect that none of these 22 comments came from local parents who use the pub regularly for NCT/Busy Rascals.



If you can make it down to the exhibition it is most important that you leave a comment inside with the Fairview team so that this time they will have a more representative selection of comments to submit to Brent. These comments have to be formally presented to the council, they will not be ommitted or ignored. If you can't make it down they are opening some web pages on the 17th July where you can view the proposals online and I presume leave a comment (see below).The exhibition is online HERE



Just a few pointers so that you cannot be fooled: the new proposals as I understand it, include a space for community uses and a cafe on the ground floor. You may think this will be adequate for Busy Rascals but I think not...here's why:

1. The management team and staff at the Queensbury that are so welcoming and accommodating won't be there. This space will be leased to someone else who may not want children and babies running round their space. There is absolutely no way that Fairview can guarantee that the operators of this new space will take on the groups in the same way as the Queensbury people do.
   

2. There will be a period - if this happens - during demolition and rebuilding when there will be no venue at all for the groups. So how do Fairview guarantee a temporary venue for the groups? The Council are I think very concerned about the survival of the the children's groups into the future and Fairview will HAVE to address this point. How do they do this?
   

I would also like to say that the Queensbury is only under threat if there is no support for its retention. So far the team at the Save The Queensbury, along with support form local residents groups, CAMRA and hundreds of local individuals have delayed the application decision by at least 9 months, have forced Fairview to revise their plans (at great cost to Fairview) and raised a huge amount of profile for the pub in local press and within the local area. Please don't do anything because you think the closure of the pub is inevitable - I assure you it isn't!!



In many ways you mums hold the 'Trump Card' - Fairview cannot be seen to be closing down children's groups - bad for the company reputation, AND the council would be much, much less concerned about this application if the Queensbury was 'just a pub'! Please use your trump card!

Fairview and Brent Council still ignoring residents demand that the Queensbury be preserved

Guest blog by Save The QueensburyGroup:

Since yesterday’s news that Fairview are withdrawing their planning application to demolish the pub the Save The Queensbury Group, along with many other groups, individuals and councillors, have received an email from Fairview’s PR company stating:

Following conversations with the planning team at Brent Fairview have decided to withdraw their application and re-submit it with a number of revisions. These involve, principally, an alteration to the site boundary so that it incorporates improvements to the pavement in front of the three shops to the right of the site. They have also increased the amount of non-residential space at ground floor level with a view to its including A3 use (which includes uses such as a coffee shop, restaurant or Bistro) and D1 use (which includes crèches and day nurseries).

These changes mean that the amount of non-residential space at ground floor level will be roughly the same as the current ground floor area in the Queensbury. At this stage Fairview are proposing that the split be along the following lines: A3 (one third) and D1 (two thirds).

Clearly Fairview and the Council are still ignoring the vast majority of residents who wish to see The Queensbury pub and the historic building preserved. We will be calling a meeting soon to bring people together and to discuss our response. Keep checking www.savethequeensbury.info for news.

Fairview withdraws Queensbury demolition application

The Save The Queensbury Campaign seems to have won a delay in the plans to demolish the Willesden Green pub. The campaign announced yesterday that Fairview Homes have withdrawn their plans which involve demolition of the pub and its replacement with flats.

The resourceful campaign has focused on the loss of the community facilities provided by the Queensbury as well as the loss of the pub itself and the impact of the new flats on local amenity.

Fairview Homes are now likely to come forward with new plans for the site which had been sold to them by the former Conservative Club owners.

(Another) Open Letter to Fairview Homes: When is enough enough?

Guest Blog from Save The Queensbury Group. The Queensbury Pub in Willesden Green has been bought by developers who plan to demolish it and build flats.

 Dear Fairview Homes: when is enough enough?
 
When 3000 people petition against your plans, is that enough for you to think you may have underestimated local feeling?

When the Leader of Brent council waxes lyrical about the services The Queensbury offers is that enough to realise you didn’t appreciate what you bought a year ago – i.e. not just a pub?

When the area’s biggest resident association surveys its members, meets to hear your changes in response to criticism, but still objects formally to Brent council - isn’t that enough to realise you do not have any community support?

When The Wanted, DJ Sara Cox, the local MP, the local GLA member, local Councillors and the former Mayor of London all oppose your plans do you not think you may struggle to get these accepted?

When 450 thoughtful, eloquent objections are lodged on Brent’s planning site isn’t that enough to appreciate The Queensbury is a valued amenity?

When other pubs in London and England have been saved by recent changes to legislation didn’t your experts suggest The Queensbury would not be so straightforward?

When you decided not to consult pub users or Busy Rascals on your plans last summer did you really not know they existed? Or were you reluctant to hear their views?

When you fuel rumours about the viability of a pub on the site, but when challenged (and the pub clarifies it is thriving) you cannot offer any information to substantiate your claims, isn’t that enough to appreciate the community is not stupid?

When you claim community support for your scheme (based on 22 comments at your consultation) but when challenged you hide behind “Data Protection Legislation” as a reason to not publish these comments, isn’t that just a bit weird?

When you lodge a plan with Brent Council but stall a decision for 6 months because you know it will be refused, isn’t that enough to go back to the drawing board and devise a scheme that keeps the pub but perhaps makes you less profit?

When you attempt to pacify the locals by offering a broom cupboard as a replacement community space did you really think this would be accepted as a substitute for the potential loss of The Queensbury? And did you seriously think that your lack of profit would be accepted by locals as a reason to demolish the pub?

When is enough negative media coverage, which continually damages your company’s reputation, enough to work with the community rather than against it?

Fairview Homes: tell us, when is enough enough?


http://savethequeensbury.info

Queensbury developers 'trying every trick in the book'

 The Save The Queensbury group is demanding that developers Fairview Homes play fair in their attempt to gain planning permission to demolish the Queensbury pub.

The Campaign says:

Since October, when the original planning application was submitted, representatives acting on behalf of Fairview Homes have been active in fuelling rumours that the pub is unviable and that the owners are desperate to leave. We are pleased that the Queensbury owners have put on record their desire to continue running a business at 110 Walm Lane. In addition we would like to point out the following:

• a debt of a holding company is not the same as a business's profit and loss account. To pick a random figure from a set of accounts and state that it means the pub is unviable is highly disingenuous.

• The Queensbury has proved that it is a viable pub. This has been confirmed by the owners, by discussions with CAMRA, and by the residents who pack it out night after night. With its its location and its demographic, we suspect that this would be the case whoever was running the pub.

• the financial affairs of the pub owners are not a material planning consideration when deciding whether to grant permission for "change of use" from drinking establishment to residential premises.

We are now seeking a meeting with representatives of Fairview Homes at which we will ask them to refrain from spreading such rumours which, we believe, are an attempt to undermine support within the community for the campaign to save the Queensbury. In addition, at this meeting we will be requesting that Fairview produces alternative plans for the site at 110 Walm Lane which respects the community's demand that they preserve the existing pub and build around it, rather than demolish it

Ian Elliott of the Save The Queensbury group said:

The planning application to demolish the Queensbury was lodged months ago and it's very clear just how unacceptable the proposals are. The developers are trying every trick in the book to convince locals but there is absolute resistance to having a tower block built over a popular pub, one that sits in a conservation area.