Planning application · Brent
26/0819.
Full / Other Planning at 8 Park Lane, Wembley, HA9 7RP, received 30 Mar 2026 — refused on 22 May 2026 (delegated, Elisa Merlo).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBrent profile →
Refused
Outcome
22 May 2026
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
3
Documents
3 linked
4
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 dry cleaners to adult gaming centre on ground floor
Reference
26/0819
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA9 7RP
Ward
Council
Received
30 Mar 2026
Target date
25 May 2026
Decision date
22 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
26/0819
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA9 7RP
Ward
Council
Received
30 Mar 2026
Target date
25 May 2026
Decision date
22 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
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 Elisa Merlo — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
30 Mar 2026
Application received
25 May 2026
Statutory target date
22 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Elisa Merlo
30 Mar 2026
Application received
25 May 2026
Statutory target date
22 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Elisa Merlo
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed change of use of the premises at 8 Park Lane from a dry cleaners (Use Class E) to
an Adult Gaming Centre (Sui Generis) would result in a separate gambling-related planning unit
immediately adjacent to an existing Adult Gaming Centre. Although the application states that
the premises would be incorporated into the adjoining Adult Gaming Centre at 446 High Road,
this cannot be secured, as the adjoining premises are not included within the application site. As
a result, the proposal would fail to provide the required separation between gambling-related uses,
leading to an unacceptable concentration of such uses at this location. The proposal is therefore
contrary to Policy BE5 of the Brent Local Plan, which seeks to prevent the clustering of Adult
Gaming Centres in order to protect the character, function and vitality of town centres.
1
The proposed change of use of the premises at 8 Park Lane from a dry cleaners (Use Class E) to
an Adult Gaming Centre (Sui Generis) would result in a separate gambling-related planning unit
immediately adjacent to an existing Adult Gaming Centre. Although the application states that
the premises would be incorporated into the adjoining Adult Gaming Centre at 446 High Road,
this cannot be secured, as the adjoining premises are not included within the application site. As
a result, the proposal would fail to provide the required separation between gambling-related uses,
leading to an unacceptable concentration of such uses at this location. The proposal is therefore
contrary to Policy BE5 of the Brent Local Plan, which seeks to prevent the clustering of Adult
Gaming Centres in order to protect the character, function and vitality of town centres.
Policies cited
BE5
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
4
In support
0
Total comments
4
Objections
4
In support
0
Total comments
4
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.