Let’s get The Queensbury listed

We’ve already got The Queensbury listed as an Asset of Community Value which is great, but this carries limited weight when it comes to planning decisions. Since our campaign began we have continued to ask Brent Council why 110 Walm Lane is not on their ‘local list’ of protected buildings, which get special consideration when plans are submitted for their demolition.

Following the unsuccessful appeal by Fairview Homes earlier this year (when it became clear to everybody just why the building should be included) we again asked for a formal review.

We can confirm that Brent council has finally started a process for people to nominate buildings that they believe should be given special consideration when plans for development are submitted. See last week’s Brent and Kilburn Times.

Your assistance is once again required.

Please spare 10 minutes to respond to the consultation on Brent’s website. The more people who ask, the better. The consultation will ask you about four things.

1. Authenticity: is the building authentic?

The Queensbury is authentic. The pub and the wider building has all of its original features retained, both internally and externally. It is an authentic example of a local building of note and therefore should be included.

2. Architectural significance: is there anything architecturally significant?

It’s not the Taj Mahal but 110 Walm Lane is unique to Willesden, as the largest example of a detached property on Walm Lane and in the Mapesbury conservation area. As one of the first buildings to appear when the Metropolitan railway was built, 110 Walm Lane is an excellent, surviving example of the “Arts and Craft” style that Mapesbury was based upon.

3. Historical significance: what was the building used for in the past?

110 Walm Lane has a significant history as a community facility, firstly as a doctor’s surgery, then as a social club and more recently as a venue for baby / toddler groups / public house which is recognised by Brent as an Asset of Community Value. The recent appeal decision (and Brent’s own evidence to it) confirms both its historic and recent importance. This is an historic building that has been used exclusively by the community since it was built in the 1890s and should be recognised as such.

4. Townscape significance: how does the building ‘fit in’ locally?

Built in the late 1890s, 110 Walm Lane was the first example of a large detached building in the Mapesbury conservation area. It epitomises the local character of the estate which is an attractive addition to Willesden Green and sits positively opposite the Grade II listed station. The significance of 110 Walm Lane and its position were both highlighted by the inspector during the recent appeal and Brent’s own evidence to the public inquiry also makes its contribution clear.

Other local buildings already recognised on the local list include Barclay’s bank, The Spotted Dog (oh the irony), the Royal Oak pub in Harlesden and some public toilets on Willesden Lane. We believe there’s room for The Queensbury on this list and the more people who say it, the more chance we have.

The consultation ends on 11th October. Please spare 10 minutes to respond.

999 Save the Queensbury

On our 999th day of campaigning we had another visit to Brent’s civic centre and another marathon meeting. And yet more success. 

We achieved two things tonight. 

First, Brent is adopting a ‘pub protection’ policy. This will mean extra scrutiny on developers who want to close viable pubs. This is a major achievement and will help pubs like The Queensbury, The Corrib’s Rest and others purchased by speculative developers. 

Second, the ‘local list’ of protected buildings is to be reviewed and we’ve been assured we will be involved in that process. Remember, Brent didn’t value 110 Walm Lane when it took a decision to demolish. It was only at the appeal stage that Brent disclosed the historical importance of the building, largely thanks to our persistence. We’ve asked to be involved and will update this site when we know more about how you can be involved. 

With these two things in progress we are better prepared for a new planning application, should Fairview Homes submit one. 

Stay with us and look forward to another 1000 days! 

How soon is now?

It’s summer and time for an update on our campaign to save The Queensbury, following the appeal by Fairview Homes which was refused in March. It’s been quiet but we’ve not been idle.

Last month we wrote to Brent Council with a formal request to add 110 Walm Lane to their “local list” of buildings, and for it to happen NOW! (Buildings on the list are given special consideration when proposals to demolish are lodged).

The inspector’s report on 110 Walm Lane is compelling and Brent should use this evidence to list the building and protect it. We are tired of waiting around and hearing excuses for inaction while Fairview Homes plan their next application.

We’ve always figured that we’re in a battle with Brent’s planning department as much as Fairview and we formally complained about Brent’s apparent review of the building – they say it’s run-down and deteriorating, not worthy of saving. We asked for a formal review, in light of the inspector report because we disagree.

We have also asked yet again for the council to adopt a wider pub protection policy, NOW and send a message to developers that the council will look very closely at applications which seek to demolish pubs. Our complaint asked for an officer outside the planning department to investigate, to avoid us turning round saying “they’ve investigated themselves and found they are not at fault.”

Guess what happened next?

Brent’s Chief Exec asked the Head Operational Director of Planning to investigate (go figure) and he did respond to our complaint, pointing to cuts and staff turnover for the lack of attention to our cause. He can’t see where they’ve done anything wrong, aside from not having enough staff.

How soon is now?

There will be a meeting of the Planning Committee at the Brent Civic Centre in Wembley on 29th July at which we believe pub protection and the “local list” of buildings will be discussed (we need to wait until the week before the meeting when the papers are published to see what exactly is being proposed). Heaven knows we may see some progress, we’ve already waited too long, but all our hope is not yet gone…

We’ll be at the meeting and we’re hoping to address the councillors yet again. There’s been great support from people attending at these meetings in the past so if you’d like to come please get in touch.

Regardless of the meeting on 29th July, Fairview Homes own the site and while they do they will want to develop it – we agree but we think development should not mean demolition! We believe the inspector’s report gives Brent Council sufficient grounds to use all its powers to protect the pub, before it goes the same way as The Corrib Rest or even The Carlton Tavern.


Hey ho, it’s off to the Ombudsman we go

Things have gone a little quiet since the appeal to demolish The Queensbury was refused in March.
We are still working in the background and last month returned to Brent Council with a formal request to add 110 Walm Lane to their “local list” of buildings. (Those on the list are given special consideration when proposals to demolish are lodged). The goverment Planning Inspector’s report on 110 Walm Lane is compelling and Brent should use this evidence to list the building and protect it.
We formally complained to Brent about their refusal to list the building (saying it’s run down and deteriorating) and asked for a reassessment in light of the inspector report.
We have also asked yet again for the council to adopt a wider pub protection policy and send a message to developers that the council will look very closely at applications which seek to demolish pubs.
Unfortunately, we were due a response from Brent by yesterday and yet again we have been ignored by those employed to respond to their communities. Sadly this is a regular pattern, so we will now move quickly to the next steps and make a formal complaint about Brent Council’s maladministration to the Local Government Ombusdman because time is not on our side.
Why the rush?
Fairview Homes own the site and they will want to develop it. They may be back with a more sensible plan or they may throw in the towel and dispose of the site (not sure who’d buy it though). Or they could take the Carlton Vale route, remove the pub tenant and drive a bulldozer through the building.
What’s to stop them? Proper protection from Brent Council, that’s what.

Save The Queensbury presents: Our manifesto for pubs


Our message to the country for this election is clear: hardworking people deserve places to go and meet their friends; to socialise and to have a drink. Even non-hardworking people deserve this, along with the non working, the disabled, the young, the feckless, the poor and the parents on maternity leave. This shouldn’t be taken away by developer greed with their gross profit margins – our pubs need protection.

P1380047 LR © Pete Firmin

The Carlton Tavern in Kilburn, demolished without warning shortly before its was due to be listed (Pic: Pete Firmin)


When we are elected to run this country we will commit to the following pledges:

1. Anybody who demolishes a popular, viable community pub should be imprisoned. Anybody who proposes to demolish one should be given community service and placed in the stocks.

What happened at The Carlton Tavern is nothing short of criminal. A developer demolished an open, viable pub on the eve of a preservation order being served on it. It’s not the first time it’s happened – look at Tommy Duck’s in Manchester for an even worse crime – but let’s make it the last so that The Queensbury doesn’t suffer the same.

2. Pubs should be protected by local councils

Many local councils have “pub protection” policies which stop aggressive development on sites where pubs are open and flourishing. The Corrib Rest has apparently been sold to a developer. It is currently closed and we wait and see what happens next. When we run the country we will legislate to ensure that all local councils have a pub protection policy. And we will make the Leader of Brent council sign theirs in blood.

3. Developments of 10 storeys or more should come with those binoculars that you get in the cheap seats at the theatre.

Nobody should have to strain their eyes from their penthouse, especially when you’ve paid £1.5m for the view, so a key plank of our first Queensbury Speech will to be mandate developers to provide binoculars for floors above 9 and 10. It’s only fair that the rich can observe the mundane happenings of the commoners below.

4. Local council offices should have a “poor door” and planning officials should be made to use it.

When developing swanky flats, developers build separate entrances for those who can’t afford the extortionate market rate. They get a discount and as a punishment they enter through a side or rear door, often next to the bins. That’s what was planned for The Queensbury. We would outlaw poor doors but leave a legacy whereby planners have to use one themselves to remind them of their failures.

5. Children should be banned from pubs. They don’t belong there. Their little feet stick to the carpet and they aren’t even big enough to reach the coin slots of the fruit machine.

No, we’re not serious. Responsible parents should be able to take their children to responsible venues, at appropriate times of the day. The Queensbury is a responsible venue and throws open its doors daily to babies, children and parents via Busy Rascals / NCT activities. The developer of 110 Walm Lane objects to this. Given the shortage of community venues in Willesden we will legislate to ensure all pubs are open for children of all ages and have cot facilities onsite too.

6. When an unprecedented number of people sign a petition, that should be enough evidence to list a building as a local asset.

The petition to save The Queensbury gained over 4,000 signatures but this was still not enough for Brent Council who have persistently failed to protect the building at 110 Walm Lane. Quite the opposite – officers at Brent council refused to put The Queensbury on the register of locally listed buildings while other officers sitting opposite wrote a report recommending its demolition. We think that’s wrong and the government’s inspector agrees with us. We will pass a law to ensure that if local people think a building should be protected then local councils have to take them more seriously.

7. If you order stuff online you have to print it off using a 3D printer at home.

At the public inquiry on The Queensbury a resident asked where the Asda Ocado van would park to deliver to Altitude Towers. Incredibly, the developer insisted that online ordering would mean fewer delivery trips. We will follow this through to its natural conclusion – order online and there will be no delivery – print it yourself.

8. When locally elected members have meetings with developers, these should be documented and made available to the public.

Back in early 2012 Fairview Homes met with lots of Brent Councillors about their plans for The Queensbury. We don’t know what yarns they spun at these meetings. Unfortunately, local councillors did not ask their residents what they thought of the proposals and we were unaware that these clandestine meetings were taking place. Other London councils are open and transparent and print minutes of their meetings, so we can all see what was said. When we rule the world, we’ll make this a law.

9. Free beer Fridays

Pints, spirits, shots and slammers will be available free of charge in all pubs on Fridays, from noon until midnight only (let’s not go overboard).

Too silly? Not when you consider this.

10. People who do not register to vote should not be allowed to vote on The X Factor.

Either you’re in or you’re out. If you can’t be bothered to register for a vote in May then that should disqualify you from all forms of democratically decided events such as The X Factor, Britain’s Got Talent and I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here. You can’t have it both ways.

So when your doorbell rings and you see a fearful candidate with a horrific rosette, simply ask which of these pledges they will deliver if elected in May.


The Queensbury is saved!

The appeal by Fairview New Homes has been dismissed by the government Inspector. The Queensbury is saved, again!
Two years of campaigning are summarised in a 17 page letter from the Inspector, received today. The design was flawed, the case for a “landmark” building was flawed, the impact on the conservation area would have been severe. The Inspector gave more reasons than Brent Council (they refused permissionoriginally, in March last year) and the decision is very thorough.
The Inspector noted our campaign and acknowledged that some comments he received “attest to the high esteem in which the venue is held as a well managed, safe and congenial social facility in an area where these are felt to be lacking.” Yep.
In a nutshell he says “the adverse impacts in this instance would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.” Yep.
We are very proud of what we have achieved. We were up against a legal team in a five day inquiry and an architect who paraded his awards for design. Fairview threw tens of thousands of pounds at a QC Barrister (no wonder when you consider the price of apartments in Willesden). 
We are convinced that had we not taken full part in the Inquiry then the reasons for refusal would have been diluted and Brent’s decision probably overturned. So…….. well done us.
What’s next? The ball is in Fairview’s court but we’d like to see a scheme that retains the building. Fairview will have to go back to the drawing board (literally) and return with something more sensible, or dispose of the land to someone less greedy and willing to reduce their profit. Or they could play the long game and allow the lease on the pub to expire in 2017 and let the building dilapidate (aka The Spotted Dog).
One things is certain – we will be vigilant and continue to fight for our local community buildings, doing our best to protect them. 
You can read the inspector’s full decision here

These things take time

A week on from the end of the marathon public inquiry into The Queensbury and three popular questions we’ve been asked are: What’s the decision?  How was the inquiry?  And….. Do you think we’ll win?

The first question is easy. These things take time. The government’s planning inspector has indicated that a decision will be made “on or before 25th March” so look out for a tweet / email nearer that time.

Second, how did it go? We gave it our best shot, took a full part and reinforced just how strong local feeling is against this development. Brent Council’s consultant heritage expert made a great case that a 10 storey building simply does not sit or fit well at 110 Walm Lane. It was a tiring and difficult process to be involved in but a good 12-15 local people came forward to attend / speak at the inquiry so it was really worthwhile. Importantly, we secured some key detail around the community space and opening hours IF the proposal gets the go ahead.

Onto the third question: will we win? The fact that the inquiry lasted a week and the decision is taking a further seven weeks means that it is difficult to call. The proposal for a dense 10 storey tower is new for Willesden and is consistent with some policies but inconsistent with others. Fairview threw everything at it, including a very experienced QC barrister to fight their corner.

The inspector has to consider everything and produce a cast-iron decision that cannot be challenged. The decision will be detailed, offering reasons why the appeal was unsuccessful (or successful). We have to respect that decision, accept whatever future the Inspector decides for The Queensbury and take it from there.

Yes yes yes….   but will we win?

The inspector’s decision is something we just can’t predict. Obviously we hope that the existing pub and building will stay, but even if he rules in Fairview’s favour we have won a major victory in securing a pub and community space in the new building, something which Fairview strongly resisted but for our campaign.


Day 5 at the planning inquiry

Below is a summary of day five – the final day. A fuller reflection will be posted over the next few days.

At 10am precisely the inspector and those taking part met at 110 Walm Lane to conduct a site visit. A resident saw what they were up to and heckled – nothing to do with us but goes to show what locals think about plans to demolish the pub.

They popped into the pub and saw those parents who’d braved the snow at the Busy Rascals Bumps and Babies group. The inspector then led a two hour walk around the conservation area, including stepping left and right of the images provided by Fairview Homes (often from behind trees and lamp posts).

Onto the Civic Centre for closing submissions but before then we had detailed discussion over the opening hours of the pub IF permission is given to build the tower block. Hours will be the same as now – which is longer than when we started 5 days ago.

We had our say. As is our mantra we asked to build around the existing building, with a lower and more sympathetic design. The inspector cannot dictate this; he can only say whether or not to allow this proposal. We expressed concerns that the design was one of a residential block, and that the pub replacement  wasn’t a particularly good example, with its dog-leg shape and two room layout. Above all, we can’t see how a 10 storey block “fits” onto the site, there is still a shortfall of affordable housing and there is nowhere for Busy Rascals to go.

Brent’s barrister leaned heavily on their witness, a heritage and conservation expert. He referred to the proposal as “Rude”. Fairview’s QC (a bigshot on legal planning matters) dismissed this and reiterated their evidence – this is a suitable design and fits the area. The location lends itself to a dense building.

Whether the existing building is a “non-designated heritage asset” was covered. This is so frustrating because for the last two years council has repeatedly been asked by us to consider a local listing. Their apathy and inefficiency has left its mark because they simply did not act. That’s one for the post-mortem.

The inquiry is over and we can expect a decision in a few weeks.

What’s our view?

We’ve saved a pub (The Queensbury II) if permission is granted to demolish the building. This would be run by the current operators. We won a load of concessions to safeguard Busy Rascals in the meantime (and if the pub isn’t operating for whatever reason).

Our time and effort over the last two years means that what was previously a purely residential scheme is now a pub/community/residential scheme and we really should not underestimate how developers resist this mix. Whatever happens now, that is a significant achievement.

The decision hinges on one simple question: does a shiny 10 storey tower belong on the site and is it worthy of demolishing the building?

Only the inspector can decide and we await his verdict.

Day 4 at the planning inquiry

We opened with another of Willesden’s fabulous residents, vociferously urging the inspector to reject the developer’s appeal. Whatever the eventual decision we thank inspector for allowing the community’s voice to be heard throughout this process.

Then came Fairview’s planning consultant who blinded us with some technical details on density and references to the London Plan. Unfortunately Brent’s barrister decided not to cross-examine him. We were then given opportunity to make several points relating to both the layout of the proposed new space and the interim arrangements for Busy Rascals while construction  is underway.

We impressed upon the inspector that the current layout of the The Queensbury with its 2 interconnected rooms is ideal for Busy Rascals use as it allows parents to drink tea and coffee in the front while still being able to watch the classes taking place in the back. In contrast, the new proposed layout will have 2 strongly delineated spaces with the back room accessed via a corridor and no line-of-sight view between the two rooms.

We further made the point that Busy Rascals have not been shown any of the proposed interim spaces nor have they agreed that any of them are suitable.

We did manage to secure an agreement that in the event of the appeal being allowed that the interim space for Busy Rascals would need to be agreed as suitable by themselves, as well as Fairview and Brent Council.

The rest of the afternoon was taken up with fairly technical matters relating to the nature of the affordable housing (whether it would be for shared ownership or for rent) and details of the Section 106 agreement (money which developers pay to the council to improve local infrastructure).

The inquiry will not sit on Monday but will readjourn on Tuesday at 1pm for closing submissions.

It’s been a tough 4 days, so we’re off to the pub (while we’ve still got one).

Day 3 at the planning inquiry

Another day at the planning inquiry, another day in the chilly Civic Centre with flickering lights and no heating.

We began with a resident of Westly Court who spoke briefly about the impact that such a large residential development with (probably more than) 100 residents would have on this corner of Willesden and told the inspector very firmly, “The Queensbury has put Willesden Green on the map, it’s what gives us our character”.

We then went onto Fairview’s heritage expert who tried hard to persuade us that that The Queensbury was part of Willesden town centre so its relationship to the Mapesbury Conservation Area, despite sitting within it, was of limited relevance. We heard a few gems such as how much people exiting Willesden Green station would appreciate the new building –a claim which we found to be a distinctly odd given the several thousand petition signatures we collected from people outside the very same station.

After the heritage expert spoke at length about the limitations of 2D drawings and photographs we asked why a scale model, as requested by Brent’s Design Review Panel, was never produced. Their answer? “Mr X asked us to produce a model, but Mr X should have asked Mr Y to ask us, then we would have done it”.

There was some discussion of a document which is publicly available on Brent Council’s website called the Tall Buildings Policy which is undated, unverified and no one, including Brent Council, seems to know if it represents a policy, is a background paper, or something with which to line the cats litter tray. This inquiry experience has taught us that these are not mutually exclusive categories.

However, on the plus-side, we’ve also improved our language skills and we’ve now become quite fluent in Developer Speak –a language which does not contain the phrase “tower-block”, but instead speaks of “a building with a strong vertical quality”.

Onto parking and transport. Mapesbury councillor Lia Colacicco asked about the extra traffic that 100 extra residents on a busy corner would generate – not just through private car use but also servicing of bins, parcel deliveries and so on. Fairview’s transport expert seemed to be under the illusion that most things bought online are delivered digitally such as e-books and mp3s. Let’s hope he never gets into ordering his groceries online as he’s likely to get terribly hungry if he’s relying on a loaf of e-bread for sustenance.

Then we came to a main point of contention – that of the affordable housing provision.

There was a long and detailed discussion on the possibility of reducing the number of affordable units from 18 to 10 – but 8 of these 10 units would be for affordable rent rather than shared ownership. Affordable rent properties are more in line with Brent’s current needs but they are more expensive for the developer to provide so this was a bit of a devil or the deep-blue sea choice. Brent’s legal counsel also pushed for a reevaluation of profits part-way through the sales period which would enable Brent to demand more affordable units if rising property prices meant Fairview achieved a better than expected return. Needless to say this was strongly resisted by Fairview.

Amidst all this we got confirmation that the affordable units will have a separate entrance (more commonly known as a “poor door”) to keep the residents of the luxury flats from the riff-raff. We also got sight of the costings which revealed that Fairview expect to achieve a 20% profit amounting to £4.5 million. Who knew that segregation was so profitable?

And that was the end of day 3. This is challenging and technical stuff for us; mountains of paperwork to absorb and cross-reference every day, complex detail to keep track of and, nervous of sounding stupid in front of the besuited experts, we are but amateurs who simply want to preserve the character of our area and save our pub.

That shouldn’t be so hard. Should it?