Planning application · Brent
26/0418.
3 Lancelot Parade, Lancelot Road, Wembley, HA0 2AJ
Full / Other Planning at 3 Lancelot Parade, Lancelot Road, Wembley, HA0 2AJ, received 19 Feb 2026 — refused on 22 May 2026 (delegated, Jeanne Gleize).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBrent profile →
Refused
Outcome
22 May 2026
13 wks
Decision time
5 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
7
Documents
7 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?
Change of use from shop basement to self contained studio flat, provision for cycle and refuse storage with new permeable paving to rear garden
Reference
26/0418
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
19 Feb 2026
Validated
30 Mar 2026
Target date
25 May 2026
Decision date
22 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Premises record
Council register
Reference
26/0418
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 17 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
19 Feb 2026
Validated
30 Mar 2026
Target date
25 May 2026
Decision date
22 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Premises record
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 22 May 2026, delegated decision by Jeanne Gleize — 13 weeks from submission (5 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
19 Feb 2026
Application received
30 Mar 2026
Application validated
25 May 2026
Statutory target date
22 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Jeanne Gleize
19 Feb 2026
Application received
30 Mar 2026
Application validated
25 May 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
22 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Jeanne Gleize
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposal would result in the unjustified loss of commercial floorspace within a designated
town centre, Insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the basement is no
longer required, is unviable, or that its loss would not undermine the operation, viability and
servicing of the existing retail unit or the wider vitality and function of the town centre. As such,
the principle of the development is contrary to Policy BE4 of the Brent Local Plan.
2
The proposed development, by reason of inadequate levels of natural daylight, outlook and
ventilation, including to the kitchen and internalised living/sleeping areas, and inadequate floor to
ceiling heights to significant parts of the accommodation, would result in a substandard
residential accommodation and oppressive living environment, contrary to Policy D6 of the London
Plan and Policy DMP1 of the Brent Local Plan.
3
The proposed due to the removal of basement access would compromise the servicing
arrangements of the ground floor retail unit. Furthermore, the proposed access via a narrow, unlit
rear service road would provide an unsafe and poor-quality pedestrian environment, giving rise to
personal safety concerns. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DMP1, BT1 and BT3 of
the Brent Local Plan (2019-2041).
4
Due to insufficient information provided to demonstrate how refuse would be collected, and as the
distance to the nearest collection point would exceed recommended carrying distances, the
proposal would result in poor waste management arrangements, to the detriment of residential
amenity and the functioning of the public highway, contrary to Policy DMP1 of the Brent Local
Plan (2019-2041).
5
In the absence of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment, the application has failed to
demonstrate that the development would be safe for its lifetime, incorporate appropriate mitigation
measures, or avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere. The proposal also involves the creation of a
basement dwelling in a high flood risk area. As such, the development is contrary to Policy BSUI3
of the Brent Local Plan (2019-2041) and Policy SI12 of the London Plan (2021).
6
The application has failed to demonstrate that adequate fire safety measures would be
incorporated into the design, contrary to Policy D12 of the London Plan. The proposed basement
unit would rely on a single means of escape, and no Fire Safety Strategy or supporting
information has been submitted to confirm safe evacuation, fire separation, or smoke ventilation.
This gives rise to significant concerns regarding the safety of future occupants.
DocFDN
Ref: 26/0418 Page 2 of 4
7
Due to the absence of information, it has not been demonstrated that the use of the adjoining
properties would be acceptable in terms of their impact on the amenity of future occupiers,
contrary to Policy D13 of the London Plan (2021). The introduction of a noise-sensitive residential
use in close proximity to established commercial premises would risk prejudicing their continued
operation and future optimisation.
1
The proposal would result in the unjustified loss of commercial floorspace within a designated
town centre, Insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the basement is no
longer required, is unviable, or that its loss would not undermine the operation, viability and
servicing of the existing retail unit or the wider vitality and function of the town centre. As such,
the principle of the development is contrary to Policy BE4 of the Brent Local Plan.
2
The proposed development, by reason of inadequate levels of natural daylight, outlook and
ventilation, including to the kitchen and internalised living/sleeping areas, and inadequate floor to
ceiling heights to significant parts of the accommodation, would result in a substandard
residential accommodation and oppressive living environment, contrary to Policy D6 of the London
Plan and Policy DMP1 of the Brent Local Plan.
3
The proposed due to the removal of basement access would compromise the servicing
arrangements of the ground floor retail unit. Furthermore, the proposed access via a narrow, unlit
rear service road would provide an unsafe and poor-quality pedestrian environment, giving rise to
personal safety concerns. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DMP1, BT1 and BT3 of
the Brent Local Plan (2019-2041).
Show all 7 rows
4
Due to insufficient information provided to demonstrate how refuse would be collected, and as the
distance to the nearest collection point would exceed recommended carrying distances, the
proposal would result in poor waste management arrangements, to the detriment of residential
amenity and the functioning of the public highway, contrary to Policy DMP1 of the Brent Local
Plan (2019-2041).
5
In the absence of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment, the application has failed to
demonstrate that the development would be safe for its lifetime, incorporate appropriate mitigation
measures, or avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere. The proposal also involves the creation of a
basement dwelling in a high flood risk area. As such, the development is contrary to Policy BSUI3
of the Brent Local Plan (2019-2041) and Policy SI12 of the London Plan (2021).
6
The application has failed to demonstrate that adequate fire safety measures would be
incorporated into the design, contrary to Policy D12 of the London Plan. The proposed basement
unit would rely on a single means of escape, and no Fire Safety Strategy or supporting
information has been submitted to confirm safe evacuation, fire separation, or smoke ventilation.
This gives rise to significant concerns regarding the safety of future occupants.
DocFDN
Ref: 26/0418 Page 2 of 4
7
Due to the absence of information, it has not been demonstrated that the use of the adjoining
properties would be acceptable in terms of their impact on the amenity of future occupiers,
contrary to Policy D13 of the London Plan (2021). The introduction of a noise-sensitive residential
use in close proximity to established commercial premises would risk prejudicing their continued
operation and future optimisation.
Policies cited
BE4D6DMP1BT1BT3BSUI3SI12D12D13
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.