Backland family dwelling at 7 Randall Avenue, London NW2

What was proposed

The application proposed replacing a garage and three sheds with a basement dwelling, two parking spaces, storage, landscaping and access.

“Document Imaged DocRepF Ref: 25/1029Page1of30 COMMITTEE REPORT Planning Committee on11 February, 2026 Item No06 Case Number25/1029 SITE INFORMATION RECEIVED3 April, 2025 WARDDollis Hill PLANNING AREABrent Connects Willesden LOCATION7 Randall Avenue, London, NW2 7RL PROPOSAL Proposed demolition of garage and x3 sheds and, erection of dwellinghouse with basement level, addition of new fence to south side of the site, provision of 2 car parking spaces, cycle and refuse storage,…”

“PROPOSAL IN DETAIL Proposed demolition of garage and x3 sheds and, erection of dwellinghouse with basement level, provision of 2 car parking spaces, cycle and refuse storage, landscaping and associated access to land rear of 7 Randall Avenue. EXISTING The application site includes the curtilage of No. Randall Avenue together with the grassed area to the rear of No.7 and the shared access between Nos. 7 and 9. No.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals included an outline permission, two withdrawn applications, and a later scheme that was refused and dismissed on appeal.

“RELEVANT SITE HISTORY Relevant Planning History 24/2462: Reserved Matters application (Appearance and Scale) in relation to Outline Planning Permission reference 22/0175 dated 28 March 2022 on matters of Layout and Access, for the demolition of existing garage and erection of a 1.5 storeys detached dwelling with associated access. Application Withdrawn.”

“22/0175: Outline planning permission for demolition of existing garage and erection of a 1.5 storeys detached dwelling with associated access (matters to be determined: Layout, Access) - Granted, 28/03/2022. CONSULTATIONS 16 properties and Dollis Hill Residents’ Association were consulted for a 21-day period commencing 15/07/2025. Following receipt of additional/amended plans ,re-consultation letters were sent on 24th September 2025.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the revised dwelling appropriately designed, acceptable for neighbours and transport, and compliant with planning policies subject to conditions.

“Members will need to balance all of the planning issues and the objectives of relevant planning policies when making a decision on the application: Representations received:Objection comments from 23 individuals (some of which has submitted multiple comments) have been received in response to this application. These comments are summarised within the Consultation section below.”

“Impact on neighbouring residential amenities: It is considered that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact in terms of neighbouring residential amenities in terms of light, outlook and privacy. Trees, Landscaping and Green Infrastructure: The impact to trees is considered acceptable. Subject to a condition to ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Planting Plan.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent supported approval, while an objector asked the committee to refuse because of concerns about character, self-build controls, biodiversity, the basement and access.

Members’ questions

Members questioned drainage, the basement, driveway safety, parking, alleged behaviour issues and the changes from earlier schemes.

“Members questioned, with reference to the supplementary report, whether confidence could be maintained in the wider construction method and associated mitigation measures, given the identification of an error in the Basement Impact Assessment. It was further queried whether the proposed drainage arrangements remained sound in light of this error.”

“Details were sought on what other changes, aside from the reduction in height, had been made to render the proposal acceptable when compared with previous schemes. In response, Sarah Dilley (Principal Planning Officer) directed members to paragraph 38 of the committee report, which contained a table outlining the principal changes.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted permission with the report’s conditions and informatives, removing supplementary conditions and requiring a Section 106 agreement on biodiversity and self-build matters.

“(1) The conditions and informatives, as set out in the main committee report, removal of the conditions as set out within the supplementary report and additional requirement for a Section 106 Agreement to secure the following Heads of Terms:”

“In the event that the house is not construction as a self-build in line with the legal definition of Self Build and Custom Build Housing or subsequently sold or occupied for persons other than the applicant within 3 years after the house is completed to notify the Council in writing. The owner would then…”

Minutes

The vote

The decision was agreed unanimously.

“(Voting on the above decision was unanimous).”

Minutes