Both sides

This page gives you two views on the development. (click on the images to see them bigger to read)

Do put your comments at the bottom of the page - all comments are moderated but all will be posted unless they are offensive. We're keen to hear both sides of the argument.

Firstly from Karen Buck Labour MP for the area:

And from Councillor Lindsey Hall, of the local Conservative party.


  1. I am fed up with the deceitful language that is being used regarding this proposal:

    * the terms 'investment' and 'no cost to the residents' cannot both be true – the 'investment' is surely the residents of Westminster's money, and this community is losing a resource, which we feel is a significant cost.

    * the 37% increase in sporting facilities depends on including the cycle storage area on the new Moberly site, and excluding the MUGAs on the existing sites, neither of which is being replaced, only relocated on other existing sites. When like for like are fully compared, there will only be 7% more space available.

    * Describing the new pool as a 6 lane pool despite it being exactly the same size as the Jubilee poll is misleading, and many swimmers hate narrow lanes.

    * Describing the new smaller pool as a Teaching Pool is misleading as it will not be big enough for the classes of 30 that use the Jubilee every day during term time, it will only suit the small private classes at evenings and weekends.

    * The repetition that there will be 12 units of affordable housing to replace the 12 Housing Association homes is misleading, as the existing homes were available to rent by families on the Housing list, which will only be the case for 5 of the new homes. Calling homes available for part-buy 'affordable' is misleading, as they wont be affordable to anyone even on an average income, never mind the nurses and teachers and bus drivers and other low paid essential key workers we depend on in this city.

    * The offer of space at St.Augustine's school for football and Queens Park Gardens for Basketball are NOT new pitches to replace those on the existing sites, so there will be a NET LOSS of outdoor sports space, again, against the borough's own policy.

    * Finally, the Moberly is NOT in Westminster, it is in the LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT, it cannot make up for the loss of the Jubilee in the centre of the ward and will be inaccessible to many regular Jubilee users

  2. Bulldoze it...PLEASE. The Jubilee is not fit for purpose. It cannot contain the noise created by hosting ever larger louder more frequent events. If you pass by on Lancefield St., you can hear at great volume annoying shrieks, alarming screams, ball

    collision bangs and crowds cheering! You can even hear shoes squeaking, amid the whistle blowing. It's been like this for decades and residents have complained to Environmental Noise Officers for 25 years but are fobbed off because it is sublet by

    WCC! They used ALL the car parking space for the so called (Planning App.) "enclosed play area' for 'part of the car park'. Now residents suffer limited RPBs, heavy traffic, noisy street parking resulting in traffic flow chaos and more noise. The

    centre is mismanaged and the ball court is lit past 2100 and left open 24/7 inviting more noise at any hour. The court has a tennis facility with a portable net on site but somehow it's never, EVER utilised.
    How much extra money have the protests cost WCC (and are happy to waste) so far and in total if the project is abandoned? Nobody will answer that.

  3. Do you prefer 'annoying shrieks, alarming screams, ball collision bangs and crowds cheering' to what is likely to happen when you remove the only community facility in Queen's Park? Surely better to address the problems of the 'enclosed play area' than demolish the entire sports facility. What are you expecting the young people of the Mozart Estate to do when it's replaced by a luxury development? I suggest improvements rather than destruction. Be careful what you wish for..