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 There is no persuasive evidence that any of the policies are out of date. Considering the policies as a whole, the policies are not out of date and I conclude that the ‘tilted balance’ under paragraph 11 of the Framework is not triggered.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: 

Palestine-Israel: A Jewish Perspective Thursday Granville Centre

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.

Asphalt wars break out again as Mapesbury residents challenge Brent Council

Residents in Dartmouth Road have taken on Brent Council over the proposed asphalting of their footway LINK. They claim that while there are strict rules involving the protection of their Conservation Area regarding changes to their properties, Brent Council is ignoring the spirit of such legislation in its plans to replace paving with asphalt.

The policy was challenged three years ago over the asphalting of Chandos Road with a petition launched on 38 degrees. LINK

There are, I understand, now getting on for 150 signatories on the Dartmouth Road petition to the council opposing the action and the operation which was due to start today has been suspended for a week.

Meanwhile the image above shows Grendon Gardens in the Barn Hill Conservation Area which was re-paved with brick blocks and paving stones after the asphalting policy was introduced.  When I tweeted a photograph of the work at the time someone suggested a Brent councillor must live in the street - I am sure that is not true but residents are looking for consistency in Council policy.

Brent Council defends removal of Furness Road trees

A spokesperson for Brent Council asked to comment on the proposed removal of eight mature trees in Furness Road , five of which are outside Furness Primary School, said this morning:

"These trees have been identified by our tree experts as poor quality that would need to be removed in the near future and so it makes sense to take advantage of the footway works and replace them at the same time. 

"It's our responsibility to maintain a healthy and safe tree stock across the borough and we replace every tree that is cut down so that there is no net loss."

Cllr Claudia Hector tweeted:

 The trees in Furness Road are going to be replaced. Brent has been planting more trees every year.

A different view was given by a resident who along with others had an impromptu meeting with a council officer at the site this morning:

Brent’s response is completely incorrect. I have just spent the last 2.5 hours with an officer of Brent looking at each of eleven trees that have been selected by Brent’s so-called experts for removal. All but one are healthy. The trees are removed either to make paving around them less difficult/costly, to avoid future subsidence claims, or because they are deemed to costly to maintain. This is a budget issue. Unfortunately environmental costs don’t feature in their cost: benefit analysis. Makes a mockery of their Climate Emergency Declaration. I do appreciate the officer having taken the time to explain his position today and reconsider which trees they will remove. He seems to be between a rock and a hard place.

Dawn reprieve for the Furness Road trees

The trees outside Furness Primary School this morning

Cones stacked this morning

Local residents report that the parking restrictions outside Furness Primary that had been imposed to make ready for the removal of five trees this morning LINK have been removed.  News of the proposed felling spread like wild fire yesterday on Facebook and Next Door with the vast majority of local residents opposed. Another three trees were scheduled for removal elsewhere in Furness Road.

Children left their own messages nearby:

Whether this signals a temporary reprieve or a major re-think is not yet clear. Meanwhile the chair of  Harlesden Area Action has written to Cllr Krupa Sheth, lead member for the Environment and Gary Rimmer, Trees officer:

I am receiving feedback from many residents (nearly 50 comments on Nextdoor), far and wide within both the Harlesden and Kensal Green wards, voicing their grave concerns related to the rampant removal of trees. It has come to our attention that a number of trees (8?) are to be removed on Furness Road tomorrow. In addition, one tree, located near 56 Furness Rd has now been removed, and the cutting down of another located at 88 Furness Road has taken place. 

As you are aware, Brent has declared a Climate Emergency; you spoke of this at the Clean Air for Brent meeting last Tuesday. In that light, we would like to understand the rationale behind removing these trees, for each individual tree.  

Would you please provide us with the following: 

1. Specific reason for the removal of each tree.

2. Specific reason for the removal of the tree outside of 56 Furness Road

3. Specific reason for the removal of tree cut down at 88 Furness Road

Lastly, we have understood that you have "asked the officers and contractors to put a hold on the felling of the trees until I have further information, nothing will happen this weekend”.

Please also confirm that no tree will be removed as you noted in your email to residents until we have received further information and have had time to review it.

Cllr Jumbo Chan sent this written request to Brent Council nd promised to keep residents informed of the response:

My thanks to Caitlin for the photographs.

Who's kidding Brent Council? Signage mystery deepens

These signs appeared in the north of the borough  out of the blue a while ago but seem to have  suddenly disappeared.

Their positioning seemed quite random, a Salmon Street slip road had 6 or 7 over a short distance and they were often fixed facing the wrong way. I drew Brent Council's attention to the fact that they were so poorly fixed that they often slipped down to the base of the post and suggested that they get the contractor back to attach them properly. They said they would do so. Nothing happened and they were blown in all directions, broken and dangled forlornly to much derision.

Most seem to have been removed as suddenly as they appeared leaving just a few remnants apart from the lone survivor above. Is there is a market for stolen skid signs?

But seriously, several questions arise, this is all money that could be spent elsewhere:

1. Why was it deemed necessary to install these signs and was there any consultation on their installation and the speed limit imposition involved?

2. How much did it cost to buy and install them?

3. Was the contractor asked to put poor installation right or had their fees reduced because of poor performance?

4. How much did it cost to remove them?

4. Are they going to be replaced?

If only we had an opposition on Brent Council to ask such questions...

Note: all pictures taken today.

UPDATE: A reader has sent in the following comment which seems to solve the mystery:  

My impression is that these signs are put up by the company which has the new pothole injection-filling contract - there is an online map which shows that they have indeed been filling holes in the Salmon Street service road.

Consternation over Brent Council's removal of 8 mature trees in Furness Road

Brent Council's consultation on climate change actions closes today (make a last minute submission HERE) and unfortunately it coincides with what appears to be an act of environmental vandalism by the Council.

Residents report that the Council is to remove 8 mature trees on Furness Road, Harlesden, 5 of which are outside Furness Primary School.

Apparently the removal is due to a 'pavement renewal project'  which suggests confusion over priorities when the Council recently declared a Climate Emergency.

Elsewhere local authorities are recognising the importance of trees in combatting air pollution and climate change and some are encouraging schools to plant trees in their grounds and on the playground perimeter.

This is the response one resident got from Cllr Krupa Sheth, lead member for the environment:

 I nor the council want to remove trees unless they absolutely need to be removed. Yes if there are issues where we would be liable for insurance claims then we do have to remove the trees as the insurance pay outs worth thousand of pounds from the council’s already diminishing budget would not be the wisest choice for the residents nor the council.

We do our best to look after and preserve our trees and are constantly looking for funding including Brent’s CIL funding to plant more trees as well.

Cllr Sheth said that she would get back to the resident but nothing further has been heard. Meanwhile the removal signs have gone up.

The removal of the trees is due to start tomorrow - is there time for a last minute attempt at saving them?