Planning application · Brent
26/0648.
142 Draycott Avenue, Harrow, HA3 0BZ
Full / Other Planning at 142 Draycott Avenue, Harrow, HA3 0BZ, received 13 Mar 2026 — refused on 2 Jun 2026 (delegated, Elisa Merlo).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBrent profile →
Refused
Outcome
2 Jun 2026
12 wks
Decision time
4 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
15
Documents
15 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 dwellinghouse to 6 bedroom/6 person HMO, demolition of stores and erection of single storey rear extension, conversion of garage into habitable room with replacement of garage door with window, cycle and refuse storage and hard and soft landscaping
Reference
26/0648
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA3 0BZ
Ward
Council
Received
13 Mar 2026
Validated
7 Apr 2026
Target date
2 Jun 2026
Decision date
2 Jun 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
26/0648
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA3 0BZ
Ward
Council
Received
13 Mar 2026
Validated
7 Apr 2026
Target date
2 Jun 2026
Decision date
2 Jun 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
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 2 Jun 2026, delegated decision by Elisa Merlo — 12 weeks from submission (4 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
13 Mar 2026
Application received
7 Apr 2026
Application validated
2 Jun 2026
Statutory target date
2 Jun 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Elisa Merlo
13 Mar 2026
Application received
7 Apr 2026
Application validated
2 Jun 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
2 Jun 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Elisa Merlo
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed communal kitchen, dining and living accommodation, while meeting minimum
floorspace requirements in quantitative terms, is poorly designed and fails to provide a functional
and acceptable shared amenity space. The narrow internal width results in cramped living and
dining arrangements, restricted circulation, and inadequate usability for six occupants. In addition,
kitchen storage provision is insufficient and the location of refuse storage outside the kitchen is
impractical. As a result, the proposal fails to provide an acceptable standard of internal amenity
and does not comply with Policy BH7 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 and the requirements of
the Brent Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document (November 2022).
2
The ensuite serving Bedroom 5 at first floor level fails to meet the minimum dimensional standards
of the Brent Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document, having an internal
width of approximately 0.8m where a minimum of 0.9m is required. This results in a cramped and
poorly functioning bathroom and an unacceptable standard of accommodation. The proposal
therefore fails to comply with Policy BH7 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 and the requirements
of the Brent Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document (November 2022).
3
The application site lies within Flood Zone 3a (surface water) and no Flood Risk Assessment has
been submitted. As a result, it has not been demonstrated that the development would
adequately manage surface water or incorporate appropriate sustainable drainage measures, nor
that it would not increase flood risk on site or elsewhere. The proposal is therefore contrary to
London Plan Policy SI5 and Policy BSUI4 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041.
4
The proposed development fails to provide an adequate level of soft landscaping within the front
garden, with less than 50 percent provision, contrary to Policy BT2(e) of the Brent Local Plan,
which requires front gardens to include at least 50 percent soft landscaping and permeable
surfaces. This is of particular concern given that the site lies within Flood Zone 3a (surface water).
In addition, while the submitted Urban Greening Factor calculation indicates a score above the
required target, it does not accurately reflect the proposals, as it fails to account for the removal of
existing trees and includes elements not shown on the submitted proposed site plan. As such,
the calculation cannot be relied upon to demonstrate compliance with the required UGF target.
The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy G5 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies BH4 and
BT2 of the Brent Local Plan (2019-2041).
DocFDN
Ref: 26/0648 Page 3 of 5
1
The proposed communal kitchen, dining and living accommodation, while meeting minimum
floorspace requirements in quantitative terms, is poorly designed and fails to provide a functional
and acceptable shared amenity space. The narrow internal width results in cramped living and
dining arrangements, restricted circulation, and inadequate usability for six occupants. In addition,
kitchen storage provision is insufficient and the location of refuse storage outside the kitchen is
impractical. As a result, the proposal fails to provide an acceptable standard of internal amenity
and does not comply with Policy BH7 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 and the requirements of
the Brent Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document (November 2022).
2
The ensuite serving Bedroom 5 at first floor level fails to meet the minimum dimensional standards
of the Brent Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document, having an internal
width of approximately 0.8m where a minimum of 0.9m is required. This results in a cramped and
poorly functioning bathroom and an unacceptable standard of accommodation. The proposal
therefore fails to comply with Policy BH7 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 and the requirements
of the Brent Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document (November 2022).
3
The application site lies within Flood Zone 3a (surface water) and no Flood Risk Assessment has
been submitted. As a result, it has not been demonstrated that the development would
adequately manage surface water or incorporate appropriate sustainable drainage measures, nor
that it would not increase flood risk on site or elsewhere. The proposal is therefore contrary to
London Plan Policy SI5 and Policy BSUI4 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041.
Show all 4 rows
4
The proposed development fails to provide an adequate level of soft landscaping within the front
garden, with less than 50 percent provision, contrary to Policy BT2(e) of the Brent Local Plan,
which requires front gardens to include at least 50 percent soft landscaping and permeable
surfaces. This is of particular concern given that the site lies within Flood Zone 3a (surface water).
In addition, while the submitted Urban Greening Factor calculation indicates a score above the
required target, it does not accurately reflect the proposals, as it fails to account for the removal of
existing trees and includes elements not shown on the submitted proposed site plan. As such,
the calculation cannot be relied upon to demonstrate compliance with the required UGF target.
The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy G5 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies BH4 and
BT2 of the Brent Local Plan (2019-2041).
DocFDN
Ref: 26/0648 Page 3 of 5
Policies cited
BH7BSUI4SI5G5BH4BT2
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.