The Wembley Hospital site was marketed for the NHS in September 2024
There was a degree of panic at Brent Planning Committee's July meeting when the controversial proposals for redevelopment of Wembley Hospital having been passed on the chair's casting vote, was declared void when it emerged that a member of the committee had not been present during the whole consideration of the item. Removing his vote meant that the proposals were rejected. Planning Officers quickly moved to suggest the item be deferred and it will return to the Planning Committee on Wednesday next week.
The Officers' Report notes:
This application was presented to Planning Committee on 2 July 2026, with a recommendation to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 legal agreement. The majority of members voted against the recommendation to grant planning consent, with members indicating they were minded to refuse the application due to the following aspects of the proposal (not all issues were raised by all members who voted against the recommendation to grant permission):
1. Insufficient provision of affordable housing (3 members);
2. Insufficient parking provision on-site and the impact of congestion on surrounding streets
3. Lack of community space (1 member);
4. Lack of on-site play space for older children (1 member);
5. Insufficient provision of family sized housing (2 members);
6. Harm to neighbouring amenity, including loss of daylight (1 member); and
7. Impact on non-designated heritage asset and character of the streetscene; (2 members).
A decision was taken by Members to defer a final decision to a future committee meeting to enable officers to provide a further report setting out an analysis, assessment and testing of the potential reasons for refusal cited above by Members.
Their further report includes some small changes won from the developer, warnings that some reasons for refusal will not stand up to Appeal, and in some cases result in possible costs to the Council. Their recommendation remains approval incorporating the changes but they include draft reasons for refusal if committee members are so minded. No draft reasons are included for family housing: '...officers do not consider there to be any reasonable grounds to refuse the application owing to the provision of family housing proposed.'
I recommended you read the full report HERE to read the complete arguments but I summarise below:
1. Insufficient provision of affordable housing
There is no evidence to substantiate the refusal of the application based on the insufficient provision of Affordable Housing as it has been demonstrated through the consideration of technical information by industry leading experts acting on behalf of the council that the proposal would deliver the maximum reasonable amount of Affordable Housing in line with the relevant policies. Without such evidence, the Council is unlikely to be able to defend the refusal of planning permission at appeal on these grounds and is likely to be subject to the award of costs against the council for unreasonable behaviour.
Notwithstanding this, if Members are minded to refuse planning permission due to the insufficient provision of affordable housing, then a reason for refusal has been drafted as follows:
The proposal would fail to deliver the maximum level of affordable housing that is deliverable within the scheme and therefore would not make an appropriate contribution to identified local housing need within the Borough. This would be contrary to Policy BH5 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policies H4, H5 and H6 of the London Plan (2021).
2. Insufficient parking provision on-site and the impact of congestion on surrounding streets
Following the July Committee meeting, the applicant has proposed minor site layout changes which result in the provision of one additional on-site parking space, taking the total provision to 13 spaces. The additional parking space is not required to ensure that overspill parking does not occur (as this is mitigated through the parking permit restriction that would be secured). However, it does represent an increase that is in direct response to Members’ parking concerns with, and this increase can be supported when balanced against the
policy requirements set out above to move towards more sustainable modes of travel and for car-free development to be the starting point for all development in accessible locations.
A reason for refusal of planning consent must be contrary to a policy and result in identified harm. The proposal is in line with adopted London Plan policy T6.1, meeting minimum requirements for blue badge parking and being below the maximum parking standards. The site is in an accessible location with good access to public transport options, where Brent policy BT2 sets out that car-free development should be the starting point. With only 13 car parking spaces proposed on-site, the development would not be expected to lead to unacceptable congestion on the road network generally from trip generation and technical information to support this has been submitted to the council and reviewed by the Council’s own experts. To address the potential for increased parking demand on surrounding roads (and associated congestion), a parking permit restriction will be secured which is in accordance with Brent policy BT2 (b). A Car Park Management Plan would be secured through condition to ensure that car parking spaces are leased rather than sold which is a requirement of London Plan Policy T6.1 (B).
As such, the proposal is not contrary to the planning policies which relate to parking and congestion and would not result in material harm in relation to parking and congestion. The Council is unlikely to be able to defend the refusal of planning permission on these grounds and at appeal would likely to be subject to the award of costs against the council for unreasonable behaviour.
Notwithstanding the above, if Members are minded to refuse permission due to the insufficient provision of parking and the impacts of the development on congestion on the local streets then a draft reason for refusal is as follows:
The proposed development fails to provide an adequate level of on-site parking and insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the resulting parking demand would not lead to overspill parking stress and congestion on surrounding streets. This would be to the detriment of the safe and efficient operation of the highway network, contrary to policies T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021) and policies BT1 and BT2 of the Brent Local Plan.
3. Lack of community space
It is not feasible to provide community uses on all sites, with larger developments better suited to enable thedelivery of such facilities. A new community facility is being delivered with Brent Wembley Housing Zone development on the corner of the Wembley High Road and Cecil Avenue.
Acknowledging the concern raised by Members it is proposed that the scope of the s106 Heads of Terms be broadened, so that the play space contribution of £50,000 could also be utilised for enhancements to nearby existing community facilities, if that was deemed a more appropriate use for the contribution at the relevant time.
The proposal is not considered to be contrary to adopted policy in relation to the provision of community facilities, nor is it considered that the proposal will result in material harm, and with no specific requirement for the provision of a community facility within this site, the council is unlikely to be able to defend a reason for refusal on this basis and at appeal may result in the award of costs for unreasonable behaviour.
Nevertheless, should members choose to refuse permission on this basis, a draft reason for refusal is as follows:
The proposed development, by reason of the absence of community facilities, would fail to meet social infrastructure requirements by securing provision for needs arising from the development in relation to the provision of community facilities. This would be contrary to Policy BP7 of the Brent Local Plan.
4. Lack of on-site play space for older children
Considering the improved on-site play offer proposed and the remaining reduced shortfall for the 12+ age group that would be experienced by future occupiers, alongside the mitigation to be secured through the Heads of Terms, Officers remain of the view, that on balance, the play strategy is considered to be acceptable.
In view of the mitigation that has been agreed by the applicant, which as referred to above is to provide a contribution of £50,000 to address the identified deficiency in play space provision, Officers do not consider there to be reasonable grounds for refusal based upon lack of on-site play space for older children, which could be successfully defended at appeal.
Notwithstanding the above, if Members are minded to refuse permission due to the insufficient provision of play and recreational facilities, a draft reason for refusal is as follows:
The proposal would fail to provide an adequate quantity of on-site play space for children aged 12 years and over, resulting in an identified shortfall. The lack of sufficient on-site play and informal recreation would fail to adequately meet the needs of future occupiers, particularly older children. In the absence of sufficient on-site provision, the proposal would be contrary to policies S4 and D6 of the London Plan (2021) and policy BH13 of the Brent Local Plan.
5. Insufficient provision of family sized housing
The scheme presented to Members in July 2026 proposed that 26 of the 108 dwellings would be family sized (with at least 3 bedrooms). It was acknowledged in the main Committee report that this would represent a marginal shortfall (1 home) below the Local Plan BH6 policy target of 1 in 4 new homes to be family sized.
Notwithstanding this marginal shortfall the development, it was considered that the proposal would provide a meaningful contribution of much needed family sized homes (including family sized affordable homes). For these reasons, the proposed development was considered acceptable in respect of family sized housing provision.
Following the July Committee meeting the applicant has proposed an increase in family sized housing provision to directly address Members’ concerns. An additional family sized 3-bedroom dwelling is proposed at ground floor level within block A, by converting a 1-bedroom affordable dwelling into a 3-bedroom affordable dwelling through the relocation of a bicycle store, which will result in the overall provision of family homes being 27 of the 108, meeting the 1 in 4 policy target. As referenced above, almost half of the affordable homes (45%) would now be family sized also, which is positive given the significant need for family sized affordable homes. The increased level of family housing proposed is fully in accordance with Local Plan policy BH6. As such, officers do not consider there to be any reasonable grounds to refuse the application owing to the provision of family housing proposed.
6. Harm to neighbouring amenity due to the loss of daylight
Following the July Committee meeting the applicant has sought to further demonstrate the relationship between the proposed townhouses, namely unit 101, and 15 Fairview Avenue, in response to Members’ concerns that the proposal would cause harm to neighbouring amenity.
An illustrative section analysis of this proposed relationship has been provided which shows that the boundary fence provides a degree of screening to the existing kitchen (side facing) window to 15 Fairview Avenue. It shows that the first floor and second floor windows of the proposed home that are directly opposite the kitchen window of No. 15 are bathroom windows and would be obscure glazed (which can be secured by condition), and that the bedroom
windows of the new houses would be at an angle to the kitchen window. The illustrative plan shows the smaller pane of each bedroom window is to be obscurely glazed which would further reduce the overlooking and loss of privacy (again this can be secured by condition). The same obscure glazing strategy is also proposed to the rear façade of unit 100.
One member was minded to vote to refuse permission due to the impact of the proposal on the light received by the kitchen window of No. 15. As discussed above, the proposal will have an impact on the amount of daylight that is received within the kitchen of No. 15, and that impact will be noticeable. However, the No Sky Line assessment shows that the levels of reduction are 6 % beyond the threshold set out within the BRE guidance.
While the impacts are acknowledged, it is considered that they are considerably outweighed by the benefits of the development that are set out within paragraphs 358-373 of the committee report and include the provision of a significant number of new homes, with one in four of those homes being family sized and 11 of the homes being proposed as affordable homes.
Notwithstanding the above, if Members are minded to refuse permission, a draft reason for refusal is as follows:
The proposed development, by reason of its siting and proximity to the side facing kitchen window of 15 Fairview Avenue would result in an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of occupiers of this property.
7. Impact on non-designated heritage asset and character to the streetscene
Any historic association with the Barham Family, who originally donated the land to build the Old Wembley Hospital or the Copland Sisters, who funded the establishment of the hospital through the Copland Charity, is not legible when one views the site. The Council’s Heritage Officer has judged that these historic associations on their own do not represent an element of heritage significance special enough to justify retention.
In summary, the proposals would accord with relevant paragraphs of the Framework, including 203 and 216, and policies BHC1 of the Local Plan and HC1 of the London Plan. Overall, the harm/total loss of the Non Designated Heritage Asset(NDHA) could be overcome by public benefits delivered on the site. It is important that the lost buildings, which played an important role in the area’s history, are recorded. This has been done in part through the agreed Level 2 Building Recording and a condition is recommended that that an interpretation panel and/or plaque be placed on site to explain the former role the hospital played in the community (including its founding via a local charity and its use during the Second World War).
Impact on the character of the streetscene
Where building heights then step up to four/five/six-storeys, in terms of scale, this responds appropriately to the larger civic buildings. In terms of character, the proposed multi-tonal bricks are reflective of the surrounding residential context. Facades are broken down and well-articulated, including the feature brickwork detailing. Architectural inspiration for the scheme has been derived from the surrounding Metroland context, as well as the listed Wembley Fire Station, located nearby, built in an art-deco style. This inspiration is clear to see across the proposed scheme, and demonstrates the level of regard that has been had to the surrounding context.
In summary, the character of the proposed development represents a considered and appropriate response to the surrounding context. Officers consider the overall approach in terms of design and appearance to be appropriate in light of the site’s specific characteristics, and in design terms the requirements of Local Plan policy BD1 are satisfied.
Nevertheless, if, having regard to the discussion above, the Planning Committee are minded to refuse the application due to the concerns raised, then a draft reason for refusal is as follows:
The proposed development by reason of the demolition and loss of the existing non-designated heritage asset and the form, appearance and character of the proposed development would fail to preserve or appropriately respond to the significance of the heritage asset, resulting in heritage harm to Brent’s historic environment. Furthermore, the proposed development would fail to respect the prevailing character of development in the area, resulting in harm. The proposal therefore conflicts with policies HC1 and D3 of the London Plan (2021), policies BD1 and BHC1 of the Local Plan, and heritage and design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), which seek to conserve heritage assets and secure high-quality design that responds positively to local character and context.
Given that to all intents and purposes this was public land, the question is, are the public getting a good deal?
