A month of contradictions

Fairview have submitted a positive change to the ground floor use plan, but also an appeal against The Queensbury’s listing as an Asset of Community Value.

Last we heard a planning decision is due on 12th March. Meanwhile a supplementary document was sent to planners, by Fairview earlier this week, “Ground Floor Use and Operation Statement.”  (Welcome to The Queensbury II.)

The document says that “there have been a number of responses to the planning application which has prompted Fairview Homes to produce this statement which outlines current position and to make sure the whole community is fully aware of the current proposals.” Clearly the 4,000 strong petition and 100s of objections have struck a nerve. “We have listened and now have a very good understanding of what the community want.” In the document is a summary of their discussions with the current pub operator and an outline of how the community space will work, opening hours etc. They say they’ll accept an obligation to fund the rehousing of Busy Rascals in the meantime, but the accompanying updated community facilities document is not even worthy of posting a link. There is reference to A4 (pub) but not A3 (cafe) in addition to D1 (community use) yet the entire application remains unchanged. Progress, but some distance away from the guarantees we are seeking if Brent decide to allow the building to be demolished.

Meanwhile a letter from Fairview’s lawyers dropped into the mailbox the same day…. they are appealing the community asset status, citing the proposed arrangements above as a reason to not list the pub as an asset. In other words if both parties agree to end the lease (in place till 2017) and there are plans to rehouse the community groups then hey Brent, why not just take the pub off your list? Brent Council are holding an oral hearing around 19th March and we have been invited to take part. Who’s up for a grilling?

The above begs a number of questions:

  • How can we trust Fairview to actually deliver what is in their amended plan when, afterall, they have also asked for cafe use in their application, which remains ‘live’ and unchanged?
  • Which Fairview do we believe, the one that says they’ll put in a great pub / community space or the one that continually objects to The Queensbury as an asset?
  • Why are Fairview so reluctant for the pub to be listed as an asset, if they claim to have listened? How can a planning decision possibly be taken on 12th March when the community asset status is appealed the following week?
  • The existing building still disappears and there are still plans for 10 storeys. If Fairview have genuinely listened and understand what the community wants, as they claim, then surely they would address one or both of these concerns?

Questions questions questions…

One thought on “A month of contradictions

  1. >The existing building still disappears and there are still plans for 10 storeys. <

    That's bound to be the case. Anything else would limit Fairview's capacity to maximize their profit, which is always going to be a developer's major ( or sole?) motivation.

    Consequently, its vital to get community asset status, – and its why they are always going to oppose it

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>