Purple marks the green space. Note greenery opposite
Part of the green space and the side wall of 125 Preston Road
The proposed house on the corner of Preston Road and Pellatt Road
The proposed house from Pellat Road
Preston is a Wembley area of 1930s semi-detached houses benefitting from many small green spaces: verges, corner plots and roundabouts. This gives the well laid out roads a unique character.
The alarm is being raised by residents that such spaces could be threatened if a planning application to build on one, lodged with Brent Council, succeeds.
The wide grass verge on the corner of Preston Road and Pellat Road has somehow ended up in private hands and the owner wants to build a 3 bedroomed house there.
I am not sure how to interpret the following extract from the deeds of 125 Preston Road and whether it contains any protections for the adjoining land. The residents of 125 Preston Road are opposing the application.
Objection from 125 Preston Road:
I write to object in the strongest terms to planning application 25/1246 for the proposed construction of a two-storey, three-bedroom dwelling directly adjoining my house 125 Preston Road. I submit this objection based on the following material planning considerations:
Overdevelopment and Inappropriate Layout
The proposed scheme represents an excessive and over-intensive use of a narrow and constrained wedge-shaped corner plot. It stretches the full depth of the site and includes a 6m rear projection along the boundary with 125 Preston Road-double the allowance permitted under Brent's Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD for semi-detached properties.
This fundamentally alters the spatial relationship of the existing pair of semis by eliminating the gap and unbalancing the pair. It converts No. 125 into an end-of-terrace structure in a location dominated by semi-detached homes with generous spacing. The resulting layout is cramped, disruptive to the established suburban rhythm, and incompatible with the original form and character of Preston Road.
Scale, Height, Visual Intrusion, and Daylight Impact
The scale and bulk of the proposed dwelling-particularly its flat, monolithic two-storey form and oversized rear element-are disproportionate to neighbouring properties. The massing extends beyond typical building lines and introduces visual intrusion from the street and adjacent homes. It severely impacts daylight, sunlight, and the open outlook from No. 125, and would dominate rear garden views.
The proposed development also breaches the 45-degree rule in relation to a ground-floor habitable window on the rear/side elevation of 125 Preston Road, which sits directly adjacent to the boundary where the 6-metre rear extension of the proposed dwelling is planned. Although only a single storey in height, the scale, depth, and proximity of this extension would severely restrict daylight to the affected window and create a pronounced sense of enclosure. The extension falls well within the 45-degree sightline, which is a standard Brent Council uses-under SPD1 and the Residential Extensions & Alterations SPD-to assess daylight and outlook impacts. The lack of a daylight/sunlight assessment to justify this massing is a notable omission and reinforces non-compliance with Policy DMP1, which requires protection of neighbouring amenity. This extension would result in material harm to the light, aspect, and enjoyment of No. 125.
Most of the comments on Brent Planning Portal are against the proposal but one person supports:
I do agree the green is nice but we need more housing in local communities and not high rise buildings taking over.
There are plenty of parks around to enjoy the green of nature.
It seems to be an East facing house, guessing this wouldn't block the sunlight too much.
Overall I like the front garden proposal and generally the house has a new type of concept which am willing to adapt to.
I would say it is an improvement to seeing just a flat side of a house.
Another respondent states:
If the land is part of the adjoining house, I have no objection but if the land is an empty green space, I strongly object to all these areas being snapped up for building projects.
Someobe suggests a Council investigation:
I was horrified when I saw this planning application. I know the site and it is no greater than a grass verge, originally the public walkway to some fields and now to some housing. How could one build on a grass verge in a corner as it is not even a real parcel of land? It will restrict access to parents with children and people needing support when disabled. When did this public walkway become a personal property and what due diligence was there for its sale? This beggars belief and the Council should investigate this transaction.
Furthermore, this area of Wembley has a unique character with housing in keeping with its community feel. This uncharacteristic new building will be a carbuncle and completely out of touch with the local aesthetic.
This contribution sums up the issues:
Although I am not a direct neighbour, I am concerned about the broader implications this proposal may have on Brent's townscape, the integrity of local planning policies, and the overall quality of development in such a prominent and visible location. My objections are based on the following points:
1. Prominent and Sensitive Location
This site occupies a highly visible corner at the intersection of Preston Road and Pellatt Road, a gateway route frequently used by residents, visitors, and tourists heading to Wembley Stadium. The existing green space here provides a valuable visual break in an otherwise densely built environment. Replacing it with a bulky, flat-roofed building would permanently alter the character of this area for the worse.
2. Poor Design and Incongruous Materials
The proposed design is at odds with the surrounding Metroland-style housing. While neighbouring properties feature red brick, white render, pitched tiled roofs, and traditional detailing, this proposal introduces pale bricks, lime slurry coating, and an angular minimalist design with a flat roof. This stark contrast undermines Brent's design guidance, notably SPD1 and Policy BD1 of the Local Plan, which stress the importance of sensitive, high-quality design that complements its context.
3. Non-compliance with Key Planning Policies
This application appears to breach several local and regional planning policies:
* Brent Local Plan Policy BD1: The proposal fails to reinforce local character.
* Policy DMP1: The development does not sufficiently protect neighbour amenity or respond appropriately to its setting.
* SPD1: This policy discourages "terracing" on corner plots and calls for new buildings to respect traditional roof forms, materials, and building lines.
* London Plan Policy D4: The design fails to integrate effectively with its surroundings, introducing an out-of-place structure in a highly visible location.
4. Risk of Setting a Harmful Precedent
If approved, this application could set a disastrous precedent for similar developments on corner plots throughout Brent, particularly those that compromise garden space, architectural harmony, and the overall character of the area.
In conclusion, this proposal represents a poorly conceived design that does not respect the local character of the area, violates several planning policies, and risks undermining the quality of development in Brent. I strongly urge the Council to reject application 25/1246 in the interest of maintaining good design principles and preserving the borough's urban integrity.
The application has not yet been tabled at Planning Committee and could be delegated to a planning officer if there are few objections fom residents or councillors.