Planning application · Brent
26/0741.
7 Monks Park Gardens, Wembley, HA9 6JB
Full / Other Planning at 7 Monks Park Gardens, Wembley, HA9 6JB, received 23 Mar 2026 — refused on 27 May 2026 (delegated, Janseway Cheung).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBrent profile →
Refused
Outcome
27 May 2026
9 wks
Decision time
1 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
13
Documents
13 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?
Proposed conversion of dwellinghouse into a 4 bedroom 5 person house in mutiple occupation (HMO), soft landscaping to front and rear and installation of cycle and refuse storage
Reference
26/0741
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA9 6JB
Ward
Council
Received
23 Mar 2026
Validated
1 Apr 2026
Target date
27 May 2026
Decision date
27 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
26/0741
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA9 6JB
Ward
Council
Received
23 Mar 2026
Validated
1 Apr 2026
Target date
27 May 2026
Decision date
27 May 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 27 May 2026, delegated decision by Janseway Cheung — 9 weeks from submission (1 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
23 Mar 2026
Application received
1 Apr 2026
Application validated
27 May 2026
Statutory target date
27 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Janseway Cheung
23 Mar 2026
Application received
1 Apr 2026
Application validated
27 May 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
27 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Janseway Cheung
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development fails to provide accommodation of an acceptable quality for future
occupants where the proposal fails to provide sufficient internal communal space, the kitchen
would fail to provide adequate facilities for cooking, and no details have been provided regarding
the capacity of the washing and drying facilities, nor has their location been clearly identified on
the submitted plans;
Furthermore, there is a shortfall in external amenity space provision.
This is contrary to policies DMP1 and BH7 of Brent’s Local Plan (2019-2041) and the guidance in
Brent’s Houses in Multiple Occupations SPD (2022).
2
Due to the limited details provided in the Management Plan, the submission has failed to
demonstrate that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the
neighbouring amenity. This is contrary to policies DMP1 and BH7 of Brent’s Local Plan
(2019-2041) and the guidance in Brent’s Houses in Multiple Occupations SPD (2022).
3
The proposal would fail to create a healthy environment which people choose to cycle, due to the
short-fall of long-stay and short-stay cycle parking spaces provision. This is contrary to policyT5
of the London Plan (2021), policy DMP1 of Brent's Local Plan (2019-2041), and the guidance set
out in Brent's Houses in Multiple Occupation SPD (2022).
4
The proposed development by virtue of its shortfall in recycling bins provision has failed to
demonstrate that adequate facilities would be provided to store waste. This is contrary to policy
DMP1 of Brent's Local Plan (2019-2041), the guidance in Brent's Houses in Multiple Occupation
SPD (2022) and Brent's Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Guidance for Residential
Properties (2013).
DocFDN
Ref: 26/0741 Page 2 of 3
1
The proposed development fails to provide accommodation of an acceptable quality for future
occupants where the proposal fails to provide sufficient internal communal space, the kitchen
would fail to provide adequate facilities for cooking, and no details have been provided regarding
the capacity of the washing and drying facilities, nor has their location been clearly identified on
the submitted plans;
Furthermore, there is a shortfall in external amenity space provision.
This is contrary to policies DMP1 and BH7 of Brent’s Local Plan (2019-2041) and the guidance in
Brent’s Houses in Multiple Occupations SPD (2022).
2
Due to the limited details provided in the Management Plan, the submission has failed to
demonstrate that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the
neighbouring amenity. This is contrary to policies DMP1 and BH7 of Brent’s Local Plan
(2019-2041) and the guidance in Brent’s Houses in Multiple Occupations SPD (2022).
3
The proposal would fail to create a healthy environment which people choose to cycle, due to the
short-fall of long-stay and short-stay cycle parking spaces provision. This is contrary to policyT5
of the London Plan (2021), policy DMP1 of Brent's Local Plan (2019-2041), and the guidance set
out in Brent's Houses in Multiple Occupation SPD (2022).
Show all 4 rows
4
The proposed development by virtue of its shortfall in recycling bins provision has failed to
demonstrate that adequate facilities would be provided to store waste. This is contrary to policy
DMP1 of Brent's Local Plan (2019-2041), the guidance in Brent's Houses in Multiple Occupation
SPD (2022) and Brent's Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Guidance for Residential
Properties (2013).
DocFDN
Ref: 26/0741 Page 2 of 3
Policies cited
DMP1BH7
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.