Letters have dropped through doors with technical jargon about 110 Walm Lane and The Queensbury which has left even the hardened campaigners confused as to what is going on. Here is our attempt to explain:
The developer has two plans lodged with Brent for a decision. Scheme A and Scheme B. The differences between the two (below) are marginal. The developer recently shifted some internal walls so technically they have to inform locals about the changes. That is why letters have been sent out.
More sinister, there is a document tucked away which has been added to both revised applications in which the developer claims to have considered whether to retain the existing pub. Among the hundreds of technical documents over the last 6 years this proposal gets just one page, below with scant consideration as to why this option is not possible.
RETAINING THE QUEENSBURY
Please write to Brent and tell them the developer has not properly considered a scheme which retains The Queensbury. Nor did they exhibit this last year or offer it as an option on the forms handed out at the exhibition.
While you are online ask Brent why there isn’t a kitchen in the plans for the replacement pub, why there is zero noise reduction between the pub and the upstairs flats (leading to complaints then the pub shutting) and also the toilets are in the basement (putting Busy Rascals pram and wheelchair users off).
Please keep responding. The developer is banking on people becoming fatigued and using lack of response as implied acceptance of the revised plans.
THIS HAS LITTLE RELEVANCE TO THE APPEAL WHICH IS STILL SCHEDULED FOR LATE AUGUST!
HAPPY EASTER! HAPPY EASTER! and SPOT THE DIFFERENCE . . .