Steve McCormack, 69, of St Gabriels Road in Willesden Green, says Brent Council built a brick pillar in the middle of his driveway without his permission, and he and his neighbours now face a bill of £8,222.40 for the installation.
The dispute dates back to 2019, when McCormack and his neighbours repaved their driveway after their front wall cracked. They admit they 'naively' failed to apply for planning permission for the works, which prompted a complaint.
Seven-Year Planning Dispute
The homes sit in the Mapesbury Conservation Area, which has strict guidelines to ensure new development adheres to the area's character. After an inspection, planning officers found the new driveway breached these guidelines because it was more than three metres wide and lacked enough 'soft landscaping'.
McCormack claims that when the Edwardian house was split into four flats in the 1980s, the driveway was widened to accommodate two parking spaces, for which planning permission was granted at the time. His retrospective planning application was denied, and Brent Council issued an enforcement notice against the property in August 2021.
An appeal to the Planning Inspectorate was dismissed, and the notice was upheld with amendments in January 2023 after work was done to add more soft landscaping. Compliance was due by July 2023, but no action was taken by the four flats.
Pillar Installation and Reaction
At 7am on Thursday, November 5, McCormack and his neighbours were woken by a bang at the door, only to find six contractors sent to action the enforcement notice, building a pillar in the middle of the driveway at a cost of £8,222.40.
McCormack said the council's decision was 'riding roughshod over considerations of natural justice, fairness and common sense'. He added: 'For 40 years, they've had 2 independently used parking spaces. Now, you're saying that a very, very minor planning consideration entitles us to put out this brick pillar there. Which kills one of the parking spaces. You can't get a car behind the wall now Everyone on the road thought it [the new driveway] was an improvement.'
McCormack quoted Brent's Planning Enforcement Policy, which says: 'It is at the Council's discretion whether enforcement action will be taken. The planning enforcement service is concerned with resolving serious breaches of planning control where there is harm to public amenity.'
Neighbour Support and Council Response
Dozens of neighbours have made representations supporting McCormack. Phillip, a neighbour, said: 'I think it's absurd that the local council are focusing on enforcement to prevent people from parking rather than looking at enforcement of real issues to do with contravention of planning regulations in the area. There is no harm to the public amenity of the area at all; it would be more convenient if you could have two cars parked off the road here and safer for the residents.'
Tens of thousands of pounds have been spent by the four flats on their driveways, from the initial works to the fresh installation of soft landscaping. The neighbours now expect to receive a bill of more than £8,000 in the coming weeks for the pillar installation and the council's administration fees.
A Brent Council spokesperson said: 'We took enforcement action because the unauthorised driveway works harmed the character of the Mapesbury Conservation Area. An independent Planning Inspector agreed with this finding. The Planning Inspector found that support from neighbours did not outweigh the harm caused by these works that were carried out without planning permission. The enforcement notice required changes to the unauthorised changes, but did not prevent the existing use of the driveway for parking. The Inspector allowed a three-metre-wide entrance and confirmed that two cars could still park there, although one might need to be moved to let the other out. Ignoring an enforcement notice is a criminal offence. The owners were given until July 2023 to complete the required works, but these were not carried out despite advice from council officers. The council then arranged for the work to be done to ensure the notice was complied with. There has been no cost to the taxpayer. The owners will be charged for the contractor's work and the council's administrative costs.'
