Retrospective application for the retention of an existing vehicular access and dropped kerb fronting Oakington Manor Drive

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 June 2026 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010463 Thomas House, Oakington Manor Drive, Wembley HA9 6LZ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Valukalam Anthony & Matilda Thomas. • The application Ref. is 26/0027. • The development proposed is described as a retrospective application for the retention of an existing vehicular access and dropped kerb fronting Oakington Manor Drive. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is whether it is both acceptable and feasible for Thomas House to have a vehicular access and off-road parking having regard to the effect on pedestrian safety and the visual amenity of the streetscene. Reasons 3. On my visit to the site, I saw that Thomas House is a recent development of a detached dwelling with a modern but not overtly contemporary design. There is an existing dropped kerb and crossover that clearly pre-dates the development. The front garden area has been laid to tarmac and I observed a medium sized car parked on this area with the gates closed. 4. The boundary is a low brick wall with piers and iron railings, the latter including the vehicular access gates. These gates have been hung to open outwards over the pavement, presumably to facilitate the manoeuvring of a car when it parks on the tarmac. 5. The appeal application seeks the retrospective approval of the above, which are substantial changes to the proposal for the dwelling under approved application reference 23/1918. In this application, approved drawing No. AA3GA03 shows two areas of proposed soft landscaping, one each side of a pedestrian gate; the area of hard surfacing labelled as ‘Permeable paving’, and adjacent to the highway side of the front boundary a note ‘Reinstatement of footway and verge’. The supporting Design and Access Statement dated 1 June 2023 confirms this proposed reinstatement. 6. The Council’s objection to the current appeal application is twofold: it firstly relates to on-site parking and the retention of the dropped kerb, thereby potentially Appeal Decision Ref. 6010463 2 compromising pedestrian safety; secondly the boundary treatment is detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene. 7. As regards visual amenity, I observed that the Thomas House is the only dwelling on this side of the road between the junctions with Grand Avenue and Neeld Crescent. On the opposite side of the road the houses are mid-C20th and at a higher level set behind front garden walls. Given that the appeal dwelling is for the most part seen separately from this context and is of a modern design, I see no reason to object to the front boundary of a brick wall and iron railings. 8. However, the omission of the two approved areas of soft landscaping and the permeable paving, both replaced with the aesthetically poor tarmac for the purposes of on-site parking, is in my view harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene and thereby in conflict with Policy BT2e) of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 adopted 2022 (‘the Local Plan’) and the Council’s Residential Extensions & Alterations SPD 2025. 9. On the second issue of the on-site parking and retention of the dropped kerb, I can readily understand why the appellants would prefer to retain the development and access as constructed. Off-street parking would give greater security, more convenience and would increase the property’s value. 10. However, the removal of the kerb and a car-free development is sought by the Council because the erection of the 2-bedroom dwelling exceeds the maximum car parking standard allowance of 0.75 spaces and fails to meet the minimum front garden depth of 4.8m (both required in the Council’s Domestic Vehicle Footway Crossover Policy). These requirements were stipulated by the Council at the time of the application to enable the scheme to comply with Local Plan Policies. The appellants duly complied, and permission was granted on this basis. 11. As built and in contravention of the approved plans, the gates open over the footway and in my view a larger car than that parked at the time of my visit may not be able to park diagonally, project beyond the brick piers and overhang the pavement. In any event, the lack of space for manoeuvring and the presence of the gate piers and railings makes it awkward for a driver reversing from the forecourt to see a pedestrian walking past the property. This situation and the retention of the dropped kerb together comprise a conflict with Policies Local Plan BT2 & BT4 and the Council’s Domestic Vehicle Crossover Policy. 12. In summary I find that the appeal scheme for the retention of the development in its present form is in harmful conflict with the above Local Plan policies and guidance on both highway safety and the amenity of the street scene. I have also had regard to Government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024, but have found nothing to outweigh my conclusions on both elements of the main issue. Conclusion 13. For the reasons set out above the appeal fails. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR