Planning application · Brent
23/0531.
32 Meyrick Road, London, NW10 2EJ
Full / Other Planning at 32 Meyrick Road, London, NW10 2EJ, received 16 Feb 2023 — refused on 5 May 2023 (delegated, Lena Summers).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBrent profile →
Refused
Outcome
5 May 2023
11 wks
Decision time
3 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
15
Documents
15 linked
1
Objections
1 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?
Proposed demolition of existing commercial building and erection of new 6 No. self-contained flats (C3) with rear amenity space and associated bicycle and refuse storage
Reference
23/0531
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
NW10 2EJ
Ward
Council
Received
16 Feb 2023
Target date
5 May 2023
Decision date
5 May 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
23/0531
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
NW10 2EJ
Ward
Council
Received
16 Feb 2023
Target date
5 May 2023
Decision date
5 May 2023
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 5 May 2023, delegated decision by Lena Summers — 11 weeks from submission (3 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
16 Feb 2023
Application received
5 May 2023
Statutory target date
5 May 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Lena Summers
16 Feb 2023
Application received
5 May 2023
Statutory target date
5 May 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Lena Summers
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development by reason of the lack of financial contribution or viability assessment
would fail to provide sufficient consideration for off site affordable housing. This is contrary to Local
Plan Policy BH5.
2
The proposed development by reason of the lack of industrial provision or lack of justification for
the loss of industrial floorspace compromises the delivery of industrial provision on the site
allocation and the retention of the Local Employment Site. This is contrary to Local Plan Policy
BE3 and BSSA8.
3
The proposed development by reason of the inadequate quality and quantity external amenity
proposed for the first and second floor units would fail to accord with Local Plan Policy BH13 and
London Plan Policy D6.
4
The proposed development by reason of the incongruous unbalanced front dormer, proposed
materials and uncharacteristic cluttered rear elevation would fail to deliver a high quality urban
design or reflect the identity of local surroundings. This is contrary to Local Plan Policy DMP1
and BD1.
5
The proposed development by reason of the rear terraces and proximity to neighbouring gardens
and windows would fail to sufficiently protect the privacy of neighbouring amenity. This is contrary
to Local Plan Policy DMP1.
6
The application has failed to provide sufficient information regarding Fire Safety contrary to London
Plan Policy D12.
7
The proposed development by reason of the poor layout and restricted floor to ceiling heights
would create an inadequate standard of accommodation for Flat E. This is contrary to Local Plan
Policy DMP1 and London Plan Policy D6.
1
The proposed development by reason of the lack of financial contribution or viability assessment
would fail to provide sufficient consideration for off site affordable housing. This is contrary to Local
Plan Policy BH5.
2
The proposed development by reason of the lack of industrial provision or lack of justification for
the loss of industrial floorspace compromises the delivery of industrial provision on the site
allocation and the retention of the Local Employment Site. This is contrary to Local Plan Policy
BE3 and BSSA8.
3
The proposed development by reason of the inadequate quality and quantity external amenity
proposed for the first and second floor units would fail to accord with Local Plan Policy BH13 and
London Plan Policy D6.
Show all 7 rows
4
The proposed development by reason of the incongruous unbalanced front dormer, proposed
materials and uncharacteristic cluttered rear elevation would fail to deliver a high quality urban
design or reflect the identity of local surroundings. This is contrary to Local Plan Policy DMP1
and BD1.
5
The proposed development by reason of the rear terraces and proximity to neighbouring gardens
and windows would fail to sufficiently protect the privacy of neighbouring amenity. This is contrary
to Local Plan Policy DMP1.
6
The application has failed to provide sufficient information regarding Fire Safety contrary to London
Plan Policy D12.
7
The proposed development by reason of the poor layout and restricted floor to ceiling heights
would create an inadequate standard of accommodation for Flat E. This is contrary to Local Plan
Policy DMP1 and London Plan Policy D6.
Policies cited
BH5BE3BSSA8BH13D6DMP1BD1D12
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
1
In support
1
Total comments
2
Objections
1
In support
1
Total comments
2
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.