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.

Willesden Greeners mobilise to save the Delipod Hub from closure - petition launched

Willesden Greeners have lost no time in launching a petition to Brent Council asking them to act  to save the Delipod Hub at Willesden Green Library from closure (see yesterday's story).

The petition is HERE and states:

The recent decision to terminate the lease of Willesden Green Library’s Delipod Hub café has caused an outpouring of community support.  We believe the decision to terminate their lease – regardless of the doubtless complex intricacies of the case – is a mistake and flies in the face of Brent’s stated aims to improve Willesden Green High Street.

After countless years in the doldrums, Willesden Green has recently started to show signs of growth and development; this is in large part due to the work of like-minded individuals within the community coming together. Our partnership with Brent Council seeks to improve our environment, reduce crime and foster growth on our High Street and has started to yield meaningful results. The small successes we have witnessed this past year have been helped by The Delipod Hub both as a focus of community activity and as a base for the community to meet and launch our campaigns. During the recent Rising Star High Street Award judges’ day, Brent Council touted The Delipod as a focal point for their consideration. Away from the watchful glare of media scrutiny, it’s pride of place at the epicentre of Willesden Green’s community hub should continue to be championed by the council.

Among Brent’s stated ambitions is to encourage the public to spend locally. You employ a full time Town Centre Manager to promote growth and regeneration on our High Street.  In a peculiar turn of events, until mere weeks ago, the Town Centre Manager was excluded from any involvement in this matter.

While business rates are beyond your control and remit, we are aware it is within Brent Council’s gift to make rent reductions. It is the community’s understanding, The Delipod has been communicating through appropriate channels for over one year. They have patiently awaited an answer from Brent Council on a possible rent reduction.  We also understand the owners were led to believe there was consensus within the council supporting a rent reduction; a reduction that would allow them to operate successfully while continuing to provide Willesden Green’s community hub with a much-needed resource.  As happens, the decision-making process became a protracted episode prompting the assignment of this case across several different asset managers, until the most recent one issued a final ultimatum without benefit of a rent reduction.

If Brent Council is serious about investing in our local community, creating a thriving cultural centre hub within the main library and helping our town centre to flourish, then the community believes The Delipod Hub should be viewed as an asset of community value.  Brent must allow its community value to take precedent over commercial considerations.

Assuming the council has made full consideration of the financial issues any business utilising this space will face in managing both the rates and the rent, we have to ask, under current parameters, whom do Brent Council envision will be capable of achieving success? There is understandable concern among the community this space will, in future, welcome a spate of short-term cafes offering no semblance of continuity or stability. This is not in keeping with Brent’s well-publicised ambition for the borough or with the Town Centre Manager and community vision for Willesden Green.  Willesden Green deserves an equal chance to grow and develop along with other parts of the borough. If small, start-up businesses cannot expect and/or receive support from Brent Council how do you propose we achieve growth for the area and beyond?

We respectfully believe this decision to be short-sighted. Brent Council has a responsibility to represent the many while considering the long-term impact of removing yet another highly valued and much-loved facility from a ward fighting to devise a better place to live. We urge you to reconsider this misdirected decision.

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.

Dudden Hill meeting with Dawn Butler on crime and anti-social behaviour TONIGHT 7pm

From Willesden Green Residents' Association

TONIGHT 7pm: Community meeting with Dawn Butler MP (Brent Central) to discuss crime and Anti Social Behaviour in the Dudden Hill area at Learie Constantine Centre, 43-47 Dudden Hill Lane, NW10 2ET. (Nearest tube Dollis Hill)

Also attending are Transport for London, British Transport Police, Metropolitan Police and Brent Council. Please attend if you can!

CIPFA shows how important Brent libraries are to residents

The CIPFA report into public libraries compares the London boroughs with each other. In these tables Brent is 'h' with a black graph block. Brent controversially closed half its libraries creating two major hub libraries at Wembley and Willesden Green and four smaller libraries. Kensal Green, Barham and Preston are run by volunteers while Cricklewood is getting increasingly impatient with developer Octavia Housing as volunteers wait to start running a volunteer library there. (Note: CIPFA do not make judgements so all comments are my own.)

As can be seen from the diagram above Brent has far fewer libraries than the average borough but a slightly higher than average population.

I have long argued that Wembley Library has vastly inflated visitor figures because the electronic counters count Civic Centre staff who use the library entrance off Olympic Way as a short cut to their offices. Apart from entering and leaving at the start and end of the day, some also enter and leave for their lunch break.

As a result although Wembley has the highest number of visitors Willesden green has the highest number of borrowers. Watch our for media claims that Wembley Library has a record number of visitors:

Due to the closures Brent has a low number of what CIPFA call service points:

Overall Brent children borrow more books than average with 5 times more fiction than non-fiction borrowed. Primary class visits to the libraries will account for some of this. Adult fiction book issues is below the average but non-fiction higher which may reflect the large number of students who use the libraries.

 One area of concern is the low number of housebound readers. Some boroughs provide a delivery service, often run by volunteers, and this is something the Scrutiny Committee could investigate.

Book stocks are another measure of the quality of the service and here Brent lags. Children do better than adults which may explain the discrepancy in figures. Residents borrow more books than average even though book stocks are lower than 13 other London boroughs:

When the  'Libraries Transformation Project' was launched much was made of access to computers and other digital resources such as e-books. The figures show Brent is below the average for the number of devices available but that they are well used.

The Brent  libraries website is particularly successful and ease of on-line renewal may account for the low level of overdue fines in Brent:

A proposal to reduce the opening hours for Brent libraries, and the possible complete closure of one, was ruled out after the budget consultation.  CIPFA reports a very positive picture on opening hours with Brent out-performing the average for London boroughs.

The figures indicate that Brent is already spending lower than average on its libraries but it is also collecting less revenue, in terms of borrowing charges, fines and reservation fees. Given the low median income of Brent residents I would oppose an increase in charges but it may be an area that will be vulnerable in the future:

To access the full report follow this LINK

Lots of questions to be answered after Extinction Rebellion spoke at Willesden Green Library

I only heard about Saturday's Willesden Library Extinction Rebellion meeting when a friend picked up a leaflet a couple of days ago so it may have been lack of publicity that meant only 20 or so people turned up - not helped by transport issues on a Wembley Event Day of course. Of those only about a quarter were Brent residents.

The climate crisis is a major issue and Extinction Rebellion (XR) have been successful in publicising the climate emergency through actions such as blocking London's bridges. At the same time Greta Thunberg has galvanised school students across the world and there are already 500 separate actions planned for March 15th.  On the other hand our parliamentary representatives were resolutely ungalvanised with only a handful turning up for the House of Commons debate earlier this week. 

I hoped that XR would provide some answers about how to bring about the necessary changes if our planet is to remain inhabitable by humans.

The first part of the meeting set out the issue (see the video) at some length while the second part (not videoed - my battery ran out!) addressed XR's aims and methods. It was the second part where I began to feel disappointed. The evangelical zeal of the speaker did not make up for what seemed sometimes naive assumptions and an ignoring of the political and economic context in which we seek change.

The speaker, Dan Carpenter stressed the peaceful, non-violent, nature of XR's actions and their good 'respectful' relations with the police. He made links with the tactics of  Martin Luther King and the  Black civil rights movement in the US (the police reaction to that was far from peaceful) and Gandhi.  Carpenter set out the tactics as:

Respectful
Disruptive
Sacrificial
Backfire

'Sacrificial' is when you agree to be arrested and 'Backfire' is when the effect of your arrest is to backfire on the establishment. I was concerned that slides of a neat, clean and modern prison cell was shown to indicate that prison wasn't so bad and British policeman were described as nicer than those in other countries. We have to be realistic and recognise that prisoners are sometimes beaten and there are deaths in custody in the UK - and this is particularly true of black people. I would not want young people to have an unrealistic picture of what is involved. Although it was mentioned that a criminal record may impact on the existing employment of participants it was not emphasised enough that for young people still at college or university, it might have an impact on their future employment.

It was clear that XR gave people the chance to make a contribute at different levels and that a willingness to be arrested was only one way of contributing alongside others presenting lesser risks, and that training was also offered in non-violent techniquesand other aspexts of the campaign.

It was when what all this action was meant to achieve was addressedf that I felt a sense of anti-climax. One of the key slogans of the climate movement is 'System Change: not Climate Change'. This indicates that climate change/chaos can only be combatted if the capitalist system with its emphasis on growth and every increasing consumption and exploitation of the planet's resources is changed. This means major social change, redistribution of wealth within and between nations and much more.

These are XR's aims:

1. The Government must tell the truth about the climate and wider ecological emergency, reverse inconsistent policies and work alongside the media to communicate with citizens.
2. The Government must enact legally binding policy measures to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025 and to reduce consumption levels.
3. A national Citizen’s Assembly to oversee the changes, as part of creating a democracy fit for purpose.

I think this, to put it mildly, underestimates the extent to which politicians, industry and multi-nationals will resist giving up on capitalism, and the depth and breadth of the changes needed.  How exactly will the Government reduce consumption levels? How can the media be made to communicate the messages?  Citizen's assemblies, chosen on a jury/lottery type system, have been used to devise referendum questions and have been suggested by Caroline Lucas for this purpose, but to oversee massive societal change and create a new democratic system?  Where does this leave the very notion of government if a Citizen's Assembly 'oversees' the changes? Citizen's assemblies would be made up of individuals rather than political parties.

All these questions bubbled up in me and may, to be fair,have been satisfactorily answered, but no space was given at the event for questions or discussion.

Queensbury developer called out on dodgy Christmas tactics - don't let this slip under your radar

Re-posted from Save The Queensbury website. LINK We are used to consultations taking place at inappropriate times so that they slip under the public's radar. Is this another example?

This week has seen a cynical (desperate) attempt by Redbourne to swamp the local council and residents with three plans, at what is the busiest week of the year. 

Two planning applications have been thrown in this week, with variations on the same theme:– 48 flats with insufficient Affordable housing. This is AS WELL AS the scheme currently being appealed. The new plans are Scheme A and Scheme B. See below Let’s call the scheme being appealed Scheme C. 

A,B and C downplay the existing building, all have a replacement pub doomed before it even opens because of its substandard design. The developer is trying to portray  that there are few options for The Queensbury other than demolition. 

We disagree. There is a plan D, which would make less profit but retain the existing building. This developer is clearly not interested in Plan D. 

PEOPLE OF WILLESDEN STAY FOCUSSED: What is important is to comment on Plan C – the Refused scheme which is being appealed. The government’s planning inspector needs your comments by 3rd January.  

There are sound planning reasons to object to all of these plans as being detrimental to Willesden and Mapesbury: 

• The replacement building does not preserve or enhance the conservation area – especially looking from inside the conservation area 
• The existing building makes a positive contribution to the historic interest of the area, which will be lost 
• The existing building also makes a positive contribution to the setting of the listed station, which according to the previous Appeal inspector, would be desirable to preserve
• The mass of the base block (to the rear) is too bulky for the setting
• The design of the proposal is detrimental to the conservation area
• The proposal contains a pub but the design is poor – there is no soundproofing built into the design which means complaints from those above, and the pub becoming unviable. Those in the business refer to this as a “Trojan Horse” 
• There is insufficient affordable housing proposed 
• There are no safeguards for Busy Rascal, i.e. no legal agreements for them to continue whilst building works are underway. Nothing in the plans about how they would operate in the new premises. Both were promised by the previous developer as planning conditions. 

ONLY AFTER you have commented to the inspector, turn your attention to the new scheme via Brent’s website: 

Planning apps 18/4675 https://bit.ly/2LrpCTY 
And 18/4701 https://bit.ly/2rJpYfD 

Only comment once, but mention the other when you do. Neither of these will be considered before the Appeal. If the Appeal is kicked out (again) then so will these two.

Merry Christmas to you all. Let’s hope it’s a good one, without scheme A,B,C.

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

Willesden Green 'Foxy Mystery' solved as Yana, the guide dog, is reunited with her toys

Just a month after Wembley Matters LINK reported on the Foxy Mystery of Willesden the puzzle has been solved - by a chance chat between neighbours. Nicole Davy of Chandos Road was chatting with a neighbour from Cranhurst Road who began to tell her about the foxes that had been leaving soft toys in her garden, apparently as presents in exchange for feeding them. The gardens of the two roads back on to each other.

After hearing about two teddies and a rabbit, the penny dropped when the final present of Eeyore was mentioned.

'They're Yanna's toys! They've been missing for weeks.'

After establishing that Yana was a dog, and a very special one, and not a tearful toddler,  Liz told Nicole the whole story and they pieced events together.

While Nicole, who has been blind since the age of 19,  was away on a week's holiday the foxes nabbed the soft toys that had been left out on the lawn and presented them, one by one, over several days, to their friend Liz.

Yana, a labrapoodle, is Nicole's guide dog and usually chases the foxes out of her garden. She has never had puppies and enjoys licking and cuddling the toys.

The toys were advertised as 'Found' on street posters as well as on Wembley Matters but the real owner came as quite a surprise.

Despite the toys having been washed in detergent to remove the foxy smell, Nicole described Yanna's excitement when she was reunited with them and accepted them immediately.

Yana, Nicole and Teddy

'I took Floppy out of the bag and she leapt on it in excitement and rushed into the front room, jumping around and playing with it. When she came back and I gave her another, and then another, she was beside herself with excitement.

I had searched the house and garden when I returned from holiday and they just couldn't be found. I was going to buy replacements from a charity shop but then I bumped into Liz and here we are - I have a very happy dog.

Yana is very serious when she is in harness and doing her job, I sometimes tell her to relax, but out of the harness she is really playful and these toys clearly mean a lot to her.'

Labour sweeps the board in Willesden Green, Greens narrowly win second party status

Click on image to enlarge

Candidates in order of vote:

Click to enlarge

Parties in order of total vote:

Labour 4980
Green 795
Conservative 735
Lib Dem 627

Turnout was 25.49%

The overall message was of continued Labour dominance but Greens felt they had mounted a good campaign with fewer resources than other parties.

Green candidates William Relton and Shaka Lish with Martin Francis, Election Agent

Why vote Green in Willesden Green?

The election for the last three seats on Brent Council takes place on Thursday June 21st and the voters in Willesden Green have an opportunity to ensure that the Council's actions are subject to rigorous scrutiny.

They won't do that by electing yet more Labour councillors - there are already 57 pitched against 3 lack lustre Tories.  Immediately after the May 3rd election Muhammed Butt, leader of the Council, tightened his grip on power appointing a rubber-stamping Cabinet and extending his period of office.  Just after the election councillors gave themselves a rise and the Cabinet confirmed that that £17.8m of public money would be spent on cosmetic 'improvements' to Olympic Way.  Their actions have shown us what we face  for the next four years unless electors make a stand.

This matters because the right-wing is still firmly in control on the Council despite an increase in Momentum activists in the borough. The latter found themselves campaigning for council candidates who had little sympathy with Corbyn and unlikely to mount any significant opposition to cuts or Butt's close relationship with developers.  There are perhaps 3 or 4 of the 57 who may ask awkward questions and it would considerably strengthen their hands if Green councillors were elected on the 21st.

But Green councillors on their own would provide a new dynamic committed as they are to a range of policies far more radical than those of Brent Labour providing rigorous scrutiny of issues such as social housing, planning, clear air, the use of the community infrastructure levy, the condition of roads and pavements, protection of open spaces, upkeep of parks, provision of affordable meeting places for community groups, effective consultation rather than a tick box system and opposition to academisation.  They would challenge the current Wembleycentric bias in Brent.

Green councillors in other London borough have shown that even one Green voice can make a big difference. Willesden Green voters should seize the chance on June 21st.

Green Party Willesden Green Election Action Day Sunday June 17th

Action Day for Willesden Green by-election. Join us, take pics, help out, ask questions, grab posters & find out about @TheGreenParty! Sunday 17th June 11am-1pm Willesden Green station.

Sian Berry (Green Party Assembly Member) and Rashid Nix (Green party activist from Lambeth) will be joing us. 

Our candidates are Shaka Lish (above), William Relton and Peter Murry.

Celebrating Brent's Conservation Areas

I am please to publish this guest post by local historian Philip Grant
 

Conservation Areas were introduced in England by the Civic Amenities Act 1967, as a way of preserving the character of areas in towns or villages which had special architectural or historic interest. They are meant to provide a level of protection for those areas when planning decisions are made.

The Victorian commercial character of the Willesden Green Conservation Area helped campaigners in 2012 to save the remaining Victorian section of the Willesden Green Library building, despite the plans of Brent Council and their development partner, Galliford Try, to demolish it. The façade of the 1893 library now forms the High Road frontage of the modern Willesden Green Library.

The distinctive late-Victorian and Edwardian suburban villas which characterise the residential Mapesbury Conservation Area have, so far, managed to save “The Queensbury” in that area from demolition, and from an inappropriate development of flats on its site.

The inter-war planned garden suburb of the Sudbury Court Conservation Area, has relatively narrow tree-lined streets with grass verges, which form an essential part of its character. However, this did not prevent Brent Council pushing through its plans in 2016 to expand Byron Court Primary School, built in the early 1930’s as a two-form entry school for the children of this Comben & Wakeling estate, to five-form entry, generating traffic that the areas roads will not be able to cope with.

Anyone interested in Conservation Areas and their history will be very welcome at a Wembley History Society talk on this subject, on the evening of Friday 8^th June:-

Brent’s first Conservation Area, designated in 1968, was the Roe Green Village Conservation Area in Kingsbury (whose proud sign is shown on the poster above). As well as marking 50 years as a Conservation Area, the village is also celebrating its centenary this year. It was specially planned by the Government’s Office of Works during the First World War, as housing for workers at an aircraft factory (“AIRCO”) on the opposite side of Stag Lane.

The Roe Green Village Residents’ Association is holding a number of events during June 2018 as part of the village’s centenary celebrations:-

If you don’t know Roe Green Village, why not treat yourself, and come along to the Village Day on Saturday 30^th June! As well as lots of other attractions on offer that afternoon, on the Village Green in Roe Lane (yes, the WW1 plans included a village green, although the village pub that was meant to stand beside it was not built!) Wembley History Society will be putting on a display of pictures, telling the story of AIRCO and how the village came about. I look forward to seeing you there.

-->