Showing posts with label Save the Queensbury Campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Save the Queensbury Campaign. Show all posts

Wednesday 19 June 2019

UPDATED WITH VIDEO: Queensbury pub WON'T be demolished but Wembley green space WILL be built on



Save the Queensbury Campaign present their case against demolition of the pub


Mapesbury Residents' Association present their case against demolition of the pub


 The developer's planning advisor and the publican present their case

It was an evening of contrasts at Brent Planning Committee today. The latest round of the Willesden Green Queensbury pub saga ended in victory for the Save The Queensbury campaign when councillors rejected the Officers' recommendation and voted down the developer's latest plan B by 5 votes to 2.

No less than four local councillors from Willesden Green and Mapesbury spoke against the developer's proposal and there was a written submission by Cllr Tom Miller who could not attend. A powerful submission by Deputy Mayor, Cllr Lia Colacicco, was read out for her by Cllr Liz Dixon, with Cllr Colacicco following proceedings via the livestreaming. She argued that there had been no proper consultation by the developer, merely an exhibition with no discussion, it was an off-the-peg design that would not win any prizes and emphasised the Planning Inspector's comment that 'less than substantial harm' occasioned by a development, does not equate to a less than sub-substantial objection.

The most telling submissions were made by Ian Elliott of the Save The Queensbury campaign and a spokesperson for the Mapesbury Residents Association who clearly had hundreds of people behind them. They had done their research and mastered their brief which was not always the case with planning officers who were left leafing through their numerous documents in some desperation.

Perhaps the most pathetic moments were when the developer's planning agent tried to claim that there WAS a kitchen in the plans and officers tried to indicate a tiny space on the projected plan, unmarked, which they said was a kitchen space; and when officers tried to justify that a black 'tin roof' on the new building would somehow both be in keeping with, and enhance, the area.

The combination of strong community campaigning winning the support of councillors led to victory.

This morning the Save the Queensbury Campaign said:
We’ve asked Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt and Chief Executive Carolyn Downs to review officer conduct running up to & including the meeting last night. Misleading content in reports, biased extracts, incorrect verbal info given to councillors brought local government & planning into disrepute.
In contrast the arguably more far-reaching plans to build on green space in central Wembley went through unanimously with no representation from residents and ward councillors. There was a passionate intervention from the public gallery after the committee had unanimously agreed the proposal with little discussion. The resident lived opposite the proposed development and felt that she had not been properly informed or consulted.

Another London Road resident lamented that her neighbours were not interested enough to get themselves organised and that the area felt neglected by ward councillors and their MP Barry Gardiner. A new development at the end of London Road would add to congestion and crowding and she declared vehemently that after what had happened she wanted to move out of Wembley.

The architect for the development admitted that few people had turned up at the London Road consultation and that this was a continuing problem with people only getting involved when it is too late.

Officers did not mention that many of the trees that will be cut down to make way for the housing development have Tree Preservation Orders on them but it appears that when the development is on Council owned land little can be done to stop the felling.  Planning officers accepted the claim that planting saplings on the estate will make up for the loss of mature trees.

The loss of green space which is both a SINC (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation) and a wildlife corridor is a worrying precedent when we have a council desperate to build much needed housing but with a blind spot regarding the environment and heritage. Officers accepted that a few bird and bat boxes was sufficient mitigation for the loss.

The Save The Queensbury Campaign have now published their own account of the meeting HERE




Thursday 8 November 2018

Should there be 3 options for Willesden Green's Queensbury pub?

Queensbury development Option 1
Queensbury development Option 2
Should this (retention of present building) and 'build around it') be Option 3
On his way out of the St Gabriel's Hall consultation on the Queensbury development a resident said, 'They call it a consultation but it's not really much of a choice. The two options are very similar.'

As you can see the main difference is the roof, dormer windows and the shape of the bays- the actual layout inside is the same for both options.

Others  I spoke to thought the designs 'weren't terrible' but were typical modern buildings that are in no way a match for the character of what they are replacing.


When it comes to the pub there was little more than a floor plan and an artists's impression.(above) The function room  would be next to the bar and managed by the pub. Apparently Brent Council thought they did not have the resources to manage such a small unit as a community room. The function room would have its own outside area, making it suitable for children's activities such as Busy Rascals, and its own external entrance.

The developers argued that taking into account the bar, the function room, the outside area and the basements to both rooms, the total area was more than the present pub.

The developers said that a lease agreement has been made with the publican of the Queensbury although it wasn't clear to me whether this meant the publican supported the particular designs being exhibited for the site.






I was concerned that the plans showed the existence of 'poor doors' - separate entrances for private and social/affordable flats.  The developers argued that there was a common entrance from the street (top left) but I pointed out there were separate entrances once inside the development (in the plan top left, next to the blue line of the pub and on the right,  below the two green rectangles which represent outdoor space. They said this was necessary for the convenience of what will be two separate management companies/agencies.  The outdoor space will be communal.

Of the 48 flats 10 will be social rent and 5 affordable rent. The developers said the actual rent level was a matter for Brent Council or the agency letting on their behalf. Of the total number of flats 70% will be rented and 30% shared ownership. The developer said that 35% of all habitable rooms were at social /affordable rent. This is because of the 3 bedroomed social rent flats included in the scheme.

The Feedback form asked attendees for personal details (name. phone, address, email) and there were just 2 questions: 'How did you hear about this exhibition?'  and  'Which design option do you prefer?' plus space to say why you prefer the design option. If you missed the consultation you can still write or email:


 Initial reaction on Twitter was not very impressed by the design:












Tuesday 26 November 2013

Queensbury Caption Comp: and the winner is....

After reviewing the very high standard of entries, the winner of the caption competition is Anonymous, who posted on Wembley Matters. The winning caption is:

" Right, that's the 'Green' bit deleted. Now for 'Willesden' "

Congratulations to the anonymous captioner. Please would they make themselves known and email savethequeensbury@gmail.com to claim their meal voucher for two, kindly donated by The Queensbury Pub. Please claim your prize within 14 days or it may be awarded to another entry.

Thanks to everyone who entered and we would particularly like to thank Councillor Butt for his sense of humour and taking this competition in the light hearted manner in which it was intended.

Below are some of the other entries which came in via Twitter and Facebook. The other comments are under 'Comments' on this blog HERE
No need for a caption. There are times when a picture is worth a thousand words. (Sarah Cox)

Maybe there is some mileage in introducing Butt Bikes, there's an app for that. (Sedley Bryden)

No library,no pub,evictions,impoverishment..and  lots of scary signs.Do I get the David Blunkett award ? (Graham Durham)

Beam me out Scotty. (Monika Hofman)

He is about to press the red button ! (@orfray)

The Queensbury? Now that rings a bell, let me google that..." (@JudithKerem)

23p, 2 Euros and a zloty! Busking is no substitute for council expenses! (@BartonBank)

Think Bungler (@pinemarten100)

Think Burglar - 'Burglary classes and tips from the pros (@MorganCannonDJ)

Always be careful when standing near these signs and a photo is being taken. IT can show you in a poor light! (@Dan_Filson)

Delete N, add R...delete E, add A...press return...sorted! (@BartonBank)

Oih! Someone's pinched me assets! (Martin)

Police investigate new lead in disappearance of books and muriels from local library (Ed)

The catch is the meal is with @CllrButt and @PukkahPunjabi is paying. (@CllrButt) [Ed's note - it's not, we promise]
Thanks to everyone who took part and especially to Cllr Muhammed Butt who took it in a good spirit.

Monday 25 November 2013

Queensbury revised application pros and cons

Fairview's new planning application contains space for a pub or wine bar as well as for community use. The latter details are set out in this statement LINK and Busy Rascals (and any sub groups) are named. A minimum of 15 hours weekly is given and rents will be comparable to similar local facilities. The table below shows the amount of non-residential floor space.

The level of affordable housing in the development is tiny (14% of the total housing) and appears to be little more than a gesture. It is set out in the application LINK

Here is the table indicating the floor space:


Campaigners will need to consider whether this revised planning application meets the aims of their campaign. On the one hand there will be a public house or wine bar on the site, although its precise size will need to be looked at, and some community use is retained. On the other hand the original building will be lost and there will be ten storey block/s and very little social housing.