Council pauses work in Furness Road to re-assess the situation

A spokesperson for  Brent Council told Wembley Matters this afternoon that the Council had paused the work in Furness Road 'for now so that we can re-assess the situation.'

Earlier in answer to a request from Wembley Matters they gave the background to the issue:

“When a footway is selected for renewal based on a condition survey, we make an assessment of all the trees in that street to identify those that are either dead, diseased or dying, and so which can sensibly be replaced by a new tree as part of the work.

“It’s actually a means of taking advantage of the work in order to be proactive in the management and replacement of poor quality trees.

“There are also other factors that may need to be taken into account regarding these trees, not least if their roots are presenting a significant trip hazard that cannot be overcome or if their health is likely to be impacted negatively by the new footway work so that they perish soon after.

“Of those considered a safety risk, a further site assessment is carried out specifically to see if there may be a workaround so that we don’t take them out unnecessarily.   

“Whenever we decide we must remove a tree as part of these works, it’s always a case of one out and a new one. There is no net loss. We are very mindful of air quality and climate change considerations and the council is committed to a much wider programme of planting new trees all over Brent.

“There’s a balance to be struck. As the local highways authority, we do have a duty to provide safe footways for our residents, particularly for the elderly and for those with mobility issues.”

Pensioner's heating restored after a week of cold

I am pleased to hear from John Healy that his heating was restored yesterday by Oakray. His South Kilburn flat was without heating and hot water for more than a week following a boiler breakdown.  Vaillant were distinctly unhelpful and attempts to make a complaint via Brent Council failed. LINK

Brent children need clean air NOW!

Dr Ian Mudway addressing the meeting

A packed meeting held at Queens Park Community School last week (Tuesday 12 November) heard from experts and campaigners how severely our children’s health is being affected by air pollution, and what should happen now to stop it.

Over 60 parents and campaigners from across Brent came together to hear Dr Ian Mudway, a respiratory disease specialist at King’s College London, explain how children’s lungs are damaged by daily exposure to diesel emissions, even when they don’t display any apparent symptoms.  Dr Mudway, a global expert on the subject, said:

I now believe that there’s no doubt that children who grow up in polluted areas have stunted lung development. Their lungs don’t develop properly. We’re seeing that in our children in Tower Hamlets and Hackney. Their lungs at the age of nine were already smaller than they ought to be. And that’s a burden that they’ll carry with them for the rest of their lives.

The meeting also heard from Rosamund Kissi-Debrah.  She became a passionate campaigner after her daughter Ella, who had a rare and severe form of asthma, died in 2013.  She was nine years old.  The pathologist who carried out her post mortem said it was “one of the worst cases of asthma ever recorded in the UK”. The family were living next to the South Circular road at the time. 

Rosamund said:

It is unacceptable that children in Britain today die from asthma. There are 240,000 under-19s with a diagnosis of asthma in London.  Government and local authorities are not taking strong enough action…there needs to be new Clean Air Act.  Air pollution is related to many other diseases as well, costing the NHS millions each year to treat…My daughter suffered terribly, and hopefully her death will not be wasted.

In May 2019 Ella’s inquest was re-opened, to determine whether "unlawfully high levels of air pollution" were partially the cause of her death. Air pollution has never previously been officially recorded on an individual's death certificate.

Cllr Krupa Sheth, Cabinet Member for the Environment at Brent Council, attended to outline various Council initiatives to combat air pollution including measures to increase awareness about the dangers of idling, and a piloting of School Streets.   She said that “air quality has become a high priority in the council.”

Cllr Thomas Stephens who is currently chairing a Scrutiny Committee Air Quality Task Group said:

Air pollution is an invisible killer.  It’s hard to persuade people to take action when you cannot see it.  For example there’s a perception that people are safer inside a car, when this is not the case. We need to do a lot and need to do it quickly.

Mark Falcon, Chair of Clean Air for Brent, which is taking part in the Air Quality Task Group said:

Brent contains 4 out of 10 of London’s most polluted roads (1).  We believe the time has come for traffic control measures in the worst pollution hotspots, particularly those near schools. We urge Brent Council and Transport for London to take bold action now to protect our children’s health.

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.