Councillors and The Queensbury: The roll call of shame

Guest blog from the Save The Queensbury Group

This is an epic battle; good vs evil, David vs Goliath, community vs developer. It seems to also be a battle of resident vs councillor.

Several residents have asked us what our local councillors are doing about the threatened demolition of The Queensbury Pub. Given the huge public opposition to the plans, the response of our elected representatives has been, on the whole, rather shabby. We find it disappointing that they are so out of touch with public opinion and also surprising, given that we are now in the run-up to to next year's local elections.

We urge everyone to telephone and write to local councillors and ask them to take a stand against the loss of a valued community space. Note that some will say that they will pass your views on to the planners but have no view themselves (the "postman" approach).

This is not acceptable - as representatives they should declare a view and stand up for the interests of their residents. If they refuse you might like to ask them why they think it acceptable to remain neutral on (or even support!) the destruction of community facilities in the name of a developer's profit. Don't be shy to email or telephone councillors, remember they are supposed to work for us! You might also like to remind them of the upcoming elections which take place in May 2014.

We have listed local councillors in the four wards closest to The Queensbury, along with their known views and their contact details. If your councillor is one of those who is opposing the development it is still worthwhile dropping them a line thanking them and saying you support their stance.
You can find out which ward you're in here http://www.writetothem.com/

MAPESBURY WARD
146 of the formal objections to the original plans came from residents in the Mapesbury ward.

Councillor Hayley Matthews (Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Matthews' colleagues tell us she against the Queensbury development although she has not made any public statement regarding it nor, as far as we are aware, has she submitted any formal objection to the plans.
cllr.hayley.matthews@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 020 8937 1133
Verdict: Not good enough

Councillor Chris Leaman (Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Leaman is opposed to the demolition of the Queensbury and has submitted an objection.
cllr.chris.leaman@brent.gov.uk
Tel 020 8451 9072
Verdict: Good

Councillor Sami Hashmi (Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Hashmi is a member of the Planning Committee and so is not allowed to declare a view until he hears all the evidence at the Planning Committee meeting. This should not stop you making your views known as a resident and he should still acknowledge your comments.
cllr.sami.hashmi@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 07956 212 825
Verdict: N/A

WILLESDEN GREEN WARD
90 of the formal objections to the original plans came from residents in the Willesden Green ward.

Councillor Lesley Jones (Labour)
Councillor Jones is opposed to the demolition of the Queensbury and has submitted an objection.
cllr.lesley.jones@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 020 8452 3086
Verdict: Good

Councillor Ann Hunter (Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Hunter has so far refused to take a view and is taking the "postman" approach. She has claimed that some residents are supporting the development but has refused to give figures of the numbers of people who have contacted her either for or against.
cllr.ann.hunter@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 020 8830 2152
Verdict: Poor, and possibly dishonest

Councillor Gavin Sneddon (Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Sneddon has not so far taken a view on the demolition of the pub. In conversation he has expressed concern that the development may be inappropriate and too profit-driven but he has made no formal statement. When questioned recently he exclaimed "you can't expect me to make a decision right now!" and was silent when it was pointed out out that that the demolition plans had been in the public domain for 7 months.
cllr.gavin.sneddon@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 07407 155 438
Verdict: Must do better

DUDDEN HILL WARD
41 of the formal objections to the original plans came from residents in the Dudden Hill ward.

Councillor Aslam Choudry (Labour)
Repeated emailing finally got a response 6 months after our original inquiry. Councillor Choudry has stated that he supports the need for new housing in Brent. He has not responded to our reply that just 4 of the proposed 56 flats will be the affordable family-sized homes that Brent desperately needs, and that these could easily be incorporated into a design which preserves The Queensbury.
cllr.aslam.choudry@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 07958 732 384
Verdict: Poor and misguided

Councillor Krupesh Hirani (Labour)
Councillor Hirani has submitted a view that the current proposals do not have enough wheelchair-accessible homes and there is not enough disabled parking provision . He has not objected to the demolition of the pub but will adopt the "postman" approach to residents who send him their comments. In response to a tweet asking him if he supported demolition of the Queensbury he said he had "no opinion". A local politician having "no opinion" on the loss of a community amenity seems quite odd to us.

cllr.krupesh.hirani@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 07886 939 295
Verdict: Poor

Councillor Rev David Clues (Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Clues moved to Brighton over a year ago and has not been seen or heard from for many months. He remains a Brent councillor and is still entitled to collect his allowances. Many residents have complained to us about their emails going unanswered, his lack of response to residents is now the subject of a complaint to the Standards Committee of the council by one resident, another is promising to pay him a visit in Brighton with copies of her unanswered letters about The Queensbury.
cllr.david.clues@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 07957 140 372

Verdict: Absolute disgrace
BRONDESBURY PARK WARD
24 of the formal objections to the original plans came from residents in the Brondesbury Park ward

Councillor Carol Shaw (Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Shaw is opposed to the demolition of the Queensbury and submitted an objection early on in the process.
cllr.carol.shaw@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 020 8958 4436
Verdict: Good

Councillor Barry Cheese (Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Cheese is a reserve on the Planning Committee and prefers not to express a view as it may be grounds to disqualify him from voting. This should not stop you making your views known as a resident and he should still acknowledge your comments.
cllr.barry.cheese@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 020 8459 1716
Verdict: N/A

Councillor Mark Cummins (Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Cummins is a member of the Planning Committee and so is not allowed to declare a view until he hears all the evidence at the Planning Committee meeting. This should not stop you making your views known as a resident and he should still acknowledge your comments.
cllr.mark.cummins@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 07976 739 058
Verdict: N/A

(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

Will this fight follow the Queensbury rules?

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

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

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

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

A Busy Rascals mother said:

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

The petition against the development is HERE 

 Lodge your objection to the planning application HERE