Planning application · Brent
21/3275.
62 Dagmar Avenue, Wembley, HA9 8DF
Full / Other Planning at 62 Dagmar Avenue, Wembley, HA9 8DF, received 27 Aug 2021 — refused on 18 Oct 2021 (delegated, Mahya Fatemi).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBrent profile →
Refused
Outcome
18 Oct 2021
7 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
14
Documents
14 linked
0
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Brent planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Conversion of dwellinghouse into two self-contained flats, erection of a single storey rear extension, alteration to fenestration and provision for cycle and refuse storage
Reference
21/3275
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA9 8DF
Ward
Council
Received
27 Aug 2021
Target date
22 Oct 2021
Decision date
18 Oct 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Appeal decided
Council register
Reference
21/3275
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA9 8DF
Ward
Council
Received
27 Aug 2021
Target date
22 Oct 2021
Decision date
18 Oct 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Appeal decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Brent portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 18 Oct 2021, delegated decision by Mahya Fatemi — 7 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
27 Aug 2021
Application received
22 Oct 2021
Statutory target date
18 Oct 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Mahya Fatemi
27 Aug 2021
Application received
22 Oct 2021
Statutory target date
18 Oct 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Mahya Fatemi
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development by reason of excessive depth for single storey extension is
considered to be an overdevelopment of the site due to its size,scale and sitting in the rear
garden, resulting in the reduction in the size of the rear garden . The proposed development is
contrary to DMP 1 of the Brent Development Management Polices Plan (2016), emerging policies
BD1 of Brent's Draft Local Plan 2020, and the guidance set out in SPD 2- Brent Design Guide
(2018).
2
The proposal would result in a substandard accommodation for future occupiers by virtue of the
lack of outlook and unacceptable levels of natural light to the kitchen for Flat 1 and internal
bedroom size for Flat 2 . The proposal is therefore unacceptable and is contrary to the
requirements of Policies D6 and D7 of the London Plan (2021), DMP1 and DMP18 of Brent’s
Development Management Policies (2016), and the guidance set out in Brent’s SPD1 (2018).
3
The submission fails to demonstrate that the proposed development will achieve an appropriate
standard of fire safety and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policy D12A of the London Plan
(2021).
DocFDN
Document Imaged Ref: 21/3275 Page 2 of 3
1
The proposed development by reason of excessive depth for single storey extension is
considered to be an overdevelopment of the site due to its size,scale and sitting in the rear
garden, resulting in the reduction in the size of the rear garden . The proposed development is
contrary to DMP 1 of the Brent Development Management Polices Plan (2016), emerging policies
BD1 of Brent's Draft Local Plan 2020, and the guidance set out in SPD 2- Brent Design Guide
(2018).
2
The proposal would result in a substandard accommodation for future occupiers by virtue of the
lack of outlook and unacceptable levels of natural light to the kitchen for Flat 1 and internal
bedroom size for Flat 2 . The proposal is therefore unacceptable and is contrary to the
requirements of Policies D6 and D7 of the London Plan (2021), DMP1 and DMP18 of Brent’s
Development Management Policies (2016), and the guidance set out in Brent’s SPD1 (2018).
3
The submission fails to demonstrate that the proposed development will achieve an appropriate
standard of fire safety and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policy D12A of the London Plan
(2021).
DocFDN
Document Imaged Ref: 21/3275 Page 2 of 3
Policies cited
DMP1BD1D6D7DMP18D12A
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.