Planning application · Brent
22/0274.
Priory House, Marsh Road, Wembley, HA0 1ES
Full / Other Planning at Priory House, Marsh Road, Wembley, HA0 1ES, received 26 Jan 2022 — refused on 29 Apr 2022 (delegated, Liam McFadden).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBrent profile →
Refused
Outcome
29 Apr 2022
13 wks
Decision time
5 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
30
Documents
30 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?
Demolition of two storey building (priory house) and erection of a 4 storey building comprising offices/general industry/storage or distribution (Use Class E(g)(i)/B2/B8), provision of car and cycle parking and refuse storage
Reference
22/0274
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA0 1ES
Ward
Council
Received
26 Jan 2022
Validated
31 Jan 2022
Target date
2 May 2022
Decision date
29 Apr 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
22/0274
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA0 1ES
Ward
Council
Received
26 Jan 2022
Validated
31 Jan 2022
Target date
2 May 2022
Decision date
29 Apr 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
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 29 Apr 2022, delegated decision by Liam McFadden — 13 weeks from submission (5 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
26 Jan 2022
Application received
31 Jan 2022
Application validated
2 May 2022
Statutory target date
29 Apr 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Liam McFadden
26 Jan 2022
Application received
31 Jan 2022
Application validated
2 May 2022
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
29 Apr 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Liam McFadden
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The submitted information lack sufficient detail on the proposed uses to be implemented on site.
As such, it has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would be compatible with the use of the
site, which is protected solely for industrial uses as set out within policy E4 of London Plan 2021.
It would therefore be contrary to Policies E4 of The London Plan 2021 and BE2 of Brent’s Local
Plan 2019-2041.
2
The proposed fenestration would introduce and unwanted and incongruous design to a prominent
corner location. This would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and would
be contrary to Policies DMP1 and BD1 of Brent’s Local Plan 2019-2041
3
The proposal has failed to provide a Fire Statement produced by a third party, suitably qualified
assessor, setting out how the development proposal would function in terms of the criteria set out
within policy D12b of London Plan 2021.
4
The submitted plans do not demonstrate the existing Urban Greening Factor (UGF) or what steps
have been taken to contribute to the Urban Greening of the site. This would be contrary to Policy
G5 of The London Plan 2021.
5
Due to the lack of car parking for unit 4 and position of its loading bay next to unit 5, together with
the lack of a loading bay for unit 6, lack of tracking diagrams relation to the loading bays for units
4, 5 and 6, and the absence of a Car Parking and Servicing Management Plan, it has not been
demonstrated that the development would be suitably and safely accessed in terms of accessed
by service vehicles. This would be contrary to policies DMP1, BT2 and BT3 of Brent’s Local Plan
2019-2041. Furthermore, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure a contribution, the
scheme has failed to contribute towards funding to implementing pedestrian and cyclist access
improvements in the vicinity of the site. This would be contrary to policy DMP1 and BT1 of Brent's
Local Plan 2019-2041.
6
The submitted Energy Strategy fails to show compliance with the four stages of the energy
hierarchy and as such has failed to demonstrate that the maximum reduction in energy demand
has been achieved. This would be contrary to Policy SI2 of The London Plan 2021. Furthermore,
in the absence of a legal agreement, any identified shortfall in zero carbon setting, has not been
secured through an payment in lieu, as set out within policy SI2 of London Plan 2021.
7
The proposal has failed to submit a drainage strategy in accordance with the drainage hierarchy
as set out within policy SI13 of London Plan 2021. As such it has failed to demonstrate that the
proposal would achieve greenfield runoff rates for surface water, or where greenfield run-off rates
cannot be achieved that this has been clearly justified. Furthermore, insufficient information has
been provided in relation to the design and layout of the proposal in relation to drainage measures
as required by policy BSUI4 of Brent's Local Plan 2019-2041. .
8
The air quality assessment has failed to consider the transport emissions of the proposal and
therefore failed to demonstrate that it would be air quality neutral as required by policy SI1 of
London Plan 2021 and policy BSUI2 of Brent's Local Plan 2019-2041.
1
The submitted information lack sufficient detail on the proposed uses to be implemented on site.
As such, it has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would be compatible with the use of the
site, which is protected solely for industrial uses as set out within policy E4 of London Plan 2021.
It would therefore be contrary to Policies E4 of The London Plan 2021 and BE2 of Brent’s Local
Plan 2019-2041.
2
The proposed fenestration would introduce and unwanted and incongruous design to a prominent
corner location. This would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and would
be contrary to Policies DMP1 and BD1 of Brent’s Local Plan 2019-2041
3
The proposal has failed to provide a Fire Statement produced by a third party, suitably qualified
assessor, setting out how the development proposal would function in terms of the criteria set out
within policy D12b of London Plan 2021.
Show all 8 rows
4
The submitted plans do not demonstrate the existing Urban Greening Factor (UGF) or what steps
have been taken to contribute to the Urban Greening of the site. This would be contrary to Policy
G5 of The London Plan 2021.
5
Due to the lack of car parking for unit 4 and position of its loading bay next to unit 5, together with
the lack of a loading bay for unit 6, lack of tracking diagrams relation to the loading bays for units
4, 5 and 6, and the absence of a Car Parking and Servicing Management Plan, it has not been
demonstrated that the development would be suitably and safely accessed in terms of accessed
by service vehicles. This would be contrary to policies DMP1, BT2 and BT3 of Brent’s Local Plan
2019-2041. Furthermore, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure a contribution, the
scheme has failed to contribute towards funding to implementing pedestrian and cyclist access
improvements in the vicinity of the site. This would be contrary to policy DMP1 and BT1 of Brent's
Local Plan 2019-2041.
6
The submitted Energy Strategy fails to show compliance with the four stages of the energy
hierarchy and as such has failed to demonstrate that the maximum reduction in energy demand
has been achieved. This would be contrary to Policy SI2 of The London Plan 2021. Furthermore,
in the absence of a legal agreement, any identified shortfall in zero carbon setting, has not been
secured through an payment in lieu, as set out within policy SI2 of London Plan 2021.
7
The proposal has failed to submit a drainage strategy in accordance with the drainage hierarchy
as set out within policy SI13 of London Plan 2021. As such it has failed to demonstrate that the
proposal would achieve greenfield runoff rates for surface water, or where greenfield run-off rates
cannot be achieved that this has been clearly justified. Furthermore, insufficient information has
been provided in relation to the design and layout of the proposal in relation to drainage measures
as required by policy BSUI4 of Brent's Local Plan 2019-2041. .
8
The air quality assessment has failed to consider the transport emissions of the proposal and
therefore failed to demonstrate that it would be air quality neutral as required by policy SI1 of
London Plan 2021 and policy BSUI2 of Brent's Local Plan 2019-2041.
Policies cited
E4BE2DMP1BD1D12bG5BT2BT3BT1SI2SI13BSUI4SI1BSUI2
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.