Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, the nature and existence of any relevant disclosable pecuniary or personal interests in the items on this agenda and to specify the item(s) to which they relate.

In relation to Agenda Item 4: 25/2875 - Land next to 125 Preston Road, Wembley, HA9 - all members of the Committee confirmed they had received an approach from both the applicant and an objector but had not engaged in discussion or sought to take any position on the application and therefore felt able to consider the application impartially and without any form of predetermination.

Councillor Maurice additionally advised that he had been approached by an objector, who had been unable to submit his comments to the planning application via the online portal and therefore requested that the Councillor forward the document on his behalf to the Planning officers, which he did. Councillor Maurice confirmed that no discussion had taken place with him regarding the content and therefore felt able to consider the application with an open mind and without any form of predetermination.

No other declarations of interest were made during the meeting.

In relation to Agenda Item 4: 25/2875 - Land next to 125 Preston Road, Wembley, HA9 – it was confirmed that all members of the Committee had received an approach from both the applicant and an objector but had not engaged in discussion or sought to take any position on the application and therefore felt able to consider the application impartially and without any form of predetermination.

Councillor Maurice additionally advised that he had been approached by an objector, who had been unable to submit their comments on the planning application via the online portal and therefore requested that the councillor forward the document on their behalf to the Planning officers, which he had done. Councillor Maurice confirmed that no discussion had taken place regarding the content, and he therefore felt able to consider the application with an open mind and without any form of predetermination.

No other declarations of interest were made during the meeting.

To approve and confirm the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 11 February 2026 as a correct record.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 11 February 2026 be approved as a correct record of the meeting.

RESOLVED:-

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 11 February 2026 be approved as a correct record of the meeting.

Granted planning permission subject to:

(1)      The conditions and informatives, as set out in the committee report, together with an amended Condition 10ii:

•         That the details of garden wall, fences or other form of boundary treatment be provided within the site (including details of external materials and heights), and security measures relating to any gates to the rear garden),

PROPOSAL

Proposed construction of a dwellinghouse with landscaping works to the front and rear gardens, installation of boundary wall and bike and bin storage.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)      The conditions and informatives, as set out in the committee report.

Janesway Cheung (Career Grade Planning Officer) introduced the report, advising members that the application sought full planning permission for a two storey 3 bed, 5 person dwelling which would form a new end of terrace property adjoining with the existing pair of semi-detached dwellings at No.123 and No.125 Preston Road. The development was designed with a pitched roof, with a ridge height of c.8.15m. The proposal also included a single-storey rear extension, measuring 6.0 m in depth, with a flat roof and an eaves and maximum height of 3.0 m. Additional works comprised the creation of a front forecourt with landscaping, combined cycle and refuse storage, the erection of a brick front boundary wall, brick side boundary treatment, and timber fencing along the remaining side boundary. Private external amenity space would be provided to the rear garden for the use of residents at the property. Members also noted that the application had followed refusal of a previous application (ref: 25/1246) on design and appearance grounds that was subsequently upheld and dismissed at appeal on 19 January 2026. The key difference with this scheme was related to the amended roof form from a mono-pitch roof to pitch roof to the dwelling, the altered siting, size and design of the first-floor front facing window and first floor flank window. This was in contrast to the previous scheme, which proposed a predominantly white-coloured external finish to the dwelling, the revised proposal incorporated red brickwork, red clay roof tiles, white render, and PPC matte white aluminum framed windows and doors.

Attention was also drawn to the supplementary report circulated in advance of the meeting, which noted the receipt of one new objection and a further objection from an individual who had previously commented. Members were advised that a summary of the issues raised, together with the officers’ responses, had been detailed within the supplementary report. The recommendation remained to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions and informatives set out within the main committee report.

The Chair thanked Janesway Cheung for introducing the report. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then moved on to consider a request which had been received to speak on the application and invited Kunal Shah (who had registered to speak as an objector, online) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

• In opening his comments Kunal Shah began by stating that the proposed development would be physically attached to his home as his property adjoined the application site.

• Attention was drawn to the Planning Inspector’s appeal decision dated 19 January 2026. Kunal Shah advised that the Inspector had undertaken a site visit, assessed the proposal and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Granted planning permission subject to:

(1)  The conditions and informatives, as detailed in the main and updated within the supplementary committee report.

PROPOSAL

Demolition of existing garages and proposed erection of a two-storey building withbasement level to provide 2 residential dwellings with front lightwells, associated private amenity space, boundary treatment, cycle and refuse storage.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)      The conditions and informatives, as detailed in main and updated within the supplementary committee report.

Mahya Fatemi (Career Grade Planning Officer) introduced the report, advising members that the application sought full planning permission for the demolition of existing garages and proposed erection of two storey building with basement level to provide 2 homes, each with two bedrooms, with front lightwells, associated private amenity space, boundary treatment, cycle and refuse storage. Attention was also drawn to the supplementary report circulated in advance of the meeting, which noted the revised plans received in response to updated information relating to the recently constructed outbuilding at No. 64 Olive Road. It was also noted that the submitted existing and proposed drawings had been amended to accurately reflect this development. Moreover, as part of Part A of Condition 11 (wildlife and nesting features), members heard that the wording of the condition had been updated to provide more site-specific requirements, in line with the Council’s Ecology Officer’s advice. The recommendation remained to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out within the main and updated within the supplementary committee report.

The Chair thanked Mahya Fatemi for introducing the report. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then moved on to consider a request which had been received to speak on the application and invited Adrian Boylan (who had registered to speak as an objector) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

• Adrian Boylan began by noting that his property overlooked the application site and stated that he had not been included in the list of consultees when the proposals were initially announced. He confirmed that he had become aware of the application through word of mouth.

• It was noted that 16 objections to the proposal had been received, including objections submitted by both local ward councillors.

• Members were advised that the proposal involved the replacement of four structures described as garages but contended that these were not used as garages and were instead utilised for commercial storage purposes by the owners.

• Adrian Boylan expressed the view that development within rear garden land should generally be discouraged. He clarified that his objection was not to the principle of development on the site, provided that the existing green space was preserved, but rather to the form and design of the proposed development. It was considered that the introduction of new buildings within a street characterised by 1920s semi-detached properties would be out of keeping with the established appearance of the area.

• As further observations it was highlighted that properties on Wren Avenue typically featured open front gardens, whereas the proposal included a front wall of approximately  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Deputy Director Democratic & Corporate Governance or their representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 60.

There was no other urgent business.

There was no other urgent business.