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

Women during WW1 talk at Barham Library November 17th

Chris Coates (from Preston Community Library) will speak on the subject of Women during WW1 on Saturday 17th November starting at 5:15pm.  Paul Lorber will also make a short contribution on the Suffragette Campaign including an interesting connection with Wembley.

 Barham Community Library is at 660 Harrow Road Wembley HA0 2HB with buses 18, 92, 182, 204 and H17 stomping nearby. Wembley Central station is 15 minutes walk away with most of the above buses stopping nearby.

Brent Council's 'deep and sincere regret' over Cassie's adult social care experience & commitment to learn from the case

Following on from Tuesday's story (see below) about 'Cassie' an adult on the autistic spectrum, who contracted HIV while in the care of Brent Council at a home provided by an Independent Provider, a Council spokesperson has given Wembley Matters the following statement:

“All of the partners on the Safeguarding Adults Board, including the Council, have expressed our deep and sincere regret to both Cassie and her family.   We can confirm that Cassie is now safe and happy and is having all her health and care needs met. 

“As soon as the Council became aware of the situation the Safeguarding Adults Team took immediate action to ensure that Cassie was safe and receiving the support she needed, and further steps were taken to ensure no other person was at risk.  The matter was reported to the police, who undertook a full investigation. 

“Following these immediate actions, the Council asked the Safeguarding Adult Board to consider commissioning an independent Safeguarding Adult Review (SAR).    A SAR is a nationally recognised process, under the Care Act 2014.   The Board and the Independent Chair agreed this met the criteria for a SAR because there had been serious harm in a complex case which involved a wide range of statutory and voluntary agencies.  The purpose of a SAR is to ensure the independent consideration of the facts, and to use these facts to identify and promote effective learning across all agencies.  It is a key part of improving services in order to prevent serious harm occurring again.  The function of SARs is not to apportion blame or make judgements about negligence.

“As a result of the SAR, the Safeguarding Adults Board has a multi-agency action plan.  This will be monitored by the Board and the Board’s Independent Chair, who will ensure that the lessons have been learnt across all the agencies involved.   

“The Council has fully supported this process.  We have already delivered a range of actions to improve the support we provide to vulnerable adults in Brent, including setting up a team that specifically focuses on reviewing the quality of care and support for individuals in residential placements, and integrating the health and social care learning disability teams into a single team providing holistic support to adults with a learning disability. 

“Cassie continues to do well in her new home and we continue to ensure that she is getting the support that she needs.”

-->

Universal Credit in Brent - Information & Campaign Meeting Nov 23rd - Chalkhill Community Centre

'The Girl from Station X' - An evening with the author October 30th at Preston Library

From Preston Community Library

 

AUTHOR EVENT - TUESDAY 0CTOBER 30, 6.30PM, PRESTON COMMUNITY LIBRARY, CARLTON AVENUE EAST, HA9 8PL.  FREE.

The next  in our successful series of literary events at Preston Community Library is this Tuesday coming and we welcome the writer Elisa Segrave with her well reviewed book  'The Girl From Station X' - My Mother's Hidden Life..

When her mother died aged only 42, the author was astounded to discover  12 passports in different names: what could this mean?  

She sets about reading  brilliantly written diaries and letters which reveal that her mother was one of  the first women to enlist in 1939,  was one of the highest ranking women at Bletchley Park,  the secret home of the WW2 Codebreakers, had served in Bomber Command and had been part of the reconstruction team to wartorn Germany. She had also received over 20 proposals of marriage. As the author writes,'my own life seemed dull in comparison'.

As is now realised, all personnel had signed the Official Secrets Act and never spoke about what they did. The book poignantly uncovers the woman behind the mask and paints an unforgettable picture of  young lives caught up in the turbulence of their times.  It is also a searing memoir of a mother Segrave might have loved if things had turned out differently.

Indian Summer dries up many ponds in Fryent Country Park

Completely dried up

It was the warmest and driest autumn that many of us can remember but a walk in Fryent Country Park yesterday revealed its impact on the many ponds in the park.

The ponds are normally full at this time of the year but some have dried out completely. This is likely to affect the number of invertebrates in the ponds and further up the food chain the population of amphibians.

Only damp mud remains at the deepest point of this pond

Just a puddle left in this pond

Completely dried up

Only Repton's artificial pond at the top of Barn Hill has a substantial anount of water although it is far from its normal size. It is the only one of the ponds stocked with fish.

UPDATED: Revised Brent ward changes going to General Purposes Committee on October 31st

Following feedback from councillors Brent Council officers have tabled revisions for the 2 options on new ward boundaries that would reduce the total number of councillors from 63 to 57.  The number of councillors representing each ward varies in the two options. There are some minor changes where particular streets are transferred to a different ward and Wembley Stadium is moved to Wembley park ward, Two further models are also attached which address concerns that Kensal Green ward should mirror the community's identity and the creation of a one member  Barnhill ward.

The Conservative Group gave notice that they were submitting their own proposals to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE).

The General Purposes Committee will be discussing the proposals at their meeting on October 31st 5pm, at Brent Civic Centre. It is the only major item on the agenda.

The two main options

Option 1 (19 wards each with 3 councillors)

Option 2 (20 wards 17 with three members and3 with 2 members)

In Option 2 the wards with only 2 members are Harlesden, Stonebridge and Church End. As can be seen these are not far from the average of electors per councillor although it might be argued that the nature of the wards generates more than average casework.

There is much more detail in the reports including responses to councillors' submissions and detailed maps of the proposed wards and the Barnhill and Kensal Green models. They can be found HERE.

Former Lib Dem councillor and Council Leader Paul Lorber has written to Brent Council CEO Carolyn Downs on the subet of the boundary changes:

 Dear MS Downs

I note that the Council is struggling to prepare an acceptable package for submission to the Boundary Commission.

The Commission has set a number of parameters including reasonable match with average number of voters per Councillors but also sensible ward boundaries matching natural and recognisable areas that local residents can relate to.

Until some 20 years ago Brent had mostly 2 member wards (with only around 3 member wards). At that time Brent was reformed into around 20 x 3 member wards in the unrealised expectations that the then Labour Government would force elections for London Boroughs to be reformed so that Councillors retire in 3rds.

As a result of these changes wards names such as Cricklewood, Brentwater, Kingsbury and others were lost. Local people lost their links with their natural local communities with very much larger wards being created which destroyed those links.

The current requirement to re-ward Brent again is an opportunity for radical change which revives some of those natural communities that local people can relate to. Two member wards should be revived to achieve this. This also has advantage of creating smaller more manageable wards (yet still large enough with around 8,000 electors) that Councillors can get to know much more easier.

In the case of the area I am familiar the previous changes scrapped Barham Ward which had been created as a memorial tribute to Titus Barham 1st Charter Mayor of Wembley and a major local benefactor. The current proposals recommend moving areas such as Maybank, Rosebank, Fernbank and Greenbank Avenues and other areas close to Sudbury Town into Northwick Park Ward. These areas have absolutely no connection with Northwick Park.

Pursuing my suggestion for 2 member wards will give an opportunity to recreate Barham Ward around Barham Park while creating both Sudbury Ward and Northwick Park Ward of sensible size and to include areas which local people genuinely recognise as either Sudbury or Northwick Park (or even Sudbury Court as Northwick Park used to be called before).

Similar benefits will arise by recreating 2 member wards in other parts of the borough thus recreating wards with represent natural communities.

I note that an item is coming back to the Council’s GP Committee responding to Councillors concern. The risk is that taking this approach simply responds to ‘political considerations. The Council is still fortunate to have in its ranks staff who have been with the authority for 30 years or more. They can assist in contributing to this exercise by reminding those offers doing the number crunching of the natural community areas that existed and still existed in Brent. Their knowledge should be used to help in creating wards which meet this aspect of the Boundary Commission criteria.

I trust that this suggestion will be considered and pursued.

FoI reveals why approval for the Woodfield-Village School Multi-Academy Trust was delayed

Brent NEU sent an FoI request to Martin Post, the Regional School's Commissioner, asking why a letter had been sent to the DfE  suggesting that the controversial MAT proposed for The Village and Woodfield special schools was not approved.  The NEU allege that the school had denied there was any such decision and  had replied to the FoI request in a misleading way.

Post's response indicated  that the Head Teachers' Board (HTB) that approves MAT requests had concerns over governance:

The proposed structure was not felt to be robust:

• Two proposed members are also Trustees, and these individuals are also the Chairs of the Governing Bodies at each school, which raises issues for accountability.
• Both the vice chairs of the local governing bodies are also trustees
• Three of the proposed trustees are also employees
• All of the trustees are either employees or on the current local governing bodies of the two schools
• Ex-Head of the school as a member
• Overall there needs to be some independent individuals on the Board

Has the trust completed a skills audit for the Board of Trustees? Would expect appointments to be made based on skills - would expect the trust to aim for a skills based Board post the transition phase

Both The Village School and Woodfield currently have interim heads of school - what happens when these individuals leave/.what is the future plan for Heads of school?

Governance and particularly the lack of  public and democratic accountability has long been a major issue raised by those of us opposed to academisation and the HTB's comments reinforce those reservations.

Surely these are are issues that should have concerned Brent Council. Why did they not seek information from the RSG or make their own representations over governance. Surely it can't be because the Labour Chief Whip, Cllr Sandra Kabir, is Chair of Governors of one of the schools,  a key champion of academisation and apparently unaware of these problems?

In the absence of an Education Committee on Brent Council it is surely time that the Scrutiny Committee looked into the issue of academisation and its impact in Brent in some detail.

The NEU's local newsletter, with more on this issue and the background. is posted below. Click on the bottom right square for full page version: