Three-bedroom family dwelling at Land next to 125 Preston Road, Wembley

What was proposed

The application proposed a two-storey three-bedroom dwelling with a rear extension, landscaping, boundary walls, cycle storage and refuse storage.

“PROPOSAL IN DETAIL The proposal seeks 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 is designed with a pitched roof, with a ridge height of c.8.15m. The proposal also includes 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.”

“The key difference with this scheme relates 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.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was a grass verge at a road junction beside 125 Preston Road, in a mainly residential area with good public transport access.

“With a Public Transport Accessibility level (PTAL) of 3, the site has good levels of access to public transport. The site is not situated within a Conservation Area, nor does it contain any listed buildings. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES The key planning issues for Members to consider are set out below. Members will have to balance all of the planning issues and objectives when making a decision on the application, against policy and other material considerations.”

Officer report

Earlier application and appeal

An earlier dwelling proposal was refused for design and appearance reasons, and the appeal was dismissed because of harm to the area’s character and appearance.

“The scheme would also secure the mandatory 10% net gain in biodiversity through purchasing off site habitat units, noting that biodiversity gains provided within private residential gardens do improve local biodiversity but cannot contribute towards the mandatory requirement. Flood Risk: The proposed development is not sited within a flood zone. The proposed hard and soft-landscaping scheme site-wide would ensure that sufficient surface water attenuation would be achieved.”

“The ground for refusal for the above application was subsequentlyupheld and dismissed at appeal(ref: APP/T5150/W/25/3375873)on 19 th January 2026. In dismissing the appeal, the Inspector acknowledged that a contemporary design approach may not always be inappropriate, particularly given the varied architectural styles within the wider area.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the revised roof, materials, layout and detailing addressed the previous refusal while providing a family home and housing contribution.

“In combination with the inclusion of a shadow gap, this design reduces the perception of bulk with the dwelling at No.125 Preston Road and ensures that the new building reads as a distinct dwelling rather than an extension. This approach also aligns with Principle 4.4 of SPD1, which recognises that a pastiche design would not necessarily achieve a contextual response.”

“Considering that the footprint of the proposed development remains unchanged as the previous application, and amendments have been made to the massing, fenestration and materials, the proposal is considered to have addressed the previous reason for refusal.”

Officer report

Who spoke to the committee

An objector asked for refusal, while the applicant’s speaker supported approval and described the revised design and housing benefits.

What members discussed

Members debated the plot’s shape, openness, design, family suitability, parking, security, landscaping, biodiversity and the effect of the earlier appeal decision.

“Members sought clarification as to whether it was important for a plot to be square or rectangular, rather than of the form presented within the proposed application. In response, Kunal Shah referred to the Planning Inspector’s description of the site as a roadside verge, rather than a typical building plot and expressed the view that the plot ought to be of a regular shape and should not be attached to existing dwellings which had been established for approximately 50 to…”

“Concerns were highlighted regarding the shape of the plot, noting that it measured approximately 6 metres in width and became narrowed to around 1.5 metres at the rear. Members queried whether this would provide a suitable family home. In response, Janesway Cheung (Career Grade Planning Officer) noted that, in terms of internal space, the dwelling complied with London Plan standards, with a total floorspace of 93 sqm for a three bedroom, five person dwelling.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee voted five in favour of granting permission and three in favour of refusal.

“Having consider the application, the Committee RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to:”

“(Voting on the above decision was as follows: 5 in favour of granting planning permission, and 3 in favour of refusal).”

Minutes

The final decision

Permission was granted subject to the report’s conditions and informatives, with Condition 10ii amended to include security measures for rear garden gates.

“(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).”

Minutes