Reflections from the Brent Agents Forum

We attended the Brent Agents Forum this week, and it turned out to be one of the more useful planning conversations we've had in some time.

Two hours inside Brent Civic Centre with the Planning and Development team, representatives from both the North and South area teams, and a room of architects and agents who work in the borough regularly. The format was simple: an open discussion, with the planners genuinely listening rather than presenting. It sounds straightforward. In practice, it's rarer than it should be.

Initial design for Red Arches House on Hazel Road, Kensal Green - a contemporary infill dwelling by RISE Design Studio that demonstrates Brent’s design-led approach to small urban sites.

What the Forum Actually Covered

Representatives from the North Team, Colin Leadbeatter and Sean Newton, and the South Team, Damian Manhertz and Andrew Neidhardt, were joined by Vanraj Raj from Technical Support. The conversation covered a range of issues that come up repeatedly in practice: how the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD is applied, the use of the Pre-Application Service, biodiversity net gain at small scales, and the broader question of how Brent approaches design quality on infill and backland sites.

The most substantive part of the discussion centred on what the officers called "justified alternatives" within the SPD: the principle that designs can depart from the guidance when there's a clear, site-specific rationale backed by evidence. The planners were direct about this. They want architects to use the pre-app process to test ideas properly before formal submission, and they want design arguments that engage seriously with context rather than defaulting to compliance with diagrams that weren't drawn with every site in mind.

That's a meaningful shift from the kind of pre-app feedback that amounts to a checklist applied regardless of what you've actually proposed. Whether it's consistently delivered across all officers and all applications is a separate question, but the direction of travel is right.

Red Arches House as a Case Study

We shared our experience with Red Arches House on Hazel Road in Kensal Green, a contemporary 163 sqm infill home on a former side garden plot. The project transforms an underused piece of land between terraces into a car-free, low-energy family dwelling: red stock brick facade, zinc roofline, sunken front garden, and a design that responds to the rhythm of the street without simply replicating it.

The project required early and sustained dialogue with Brent's officers on overlooking distances, daylight impacts on neighbouring properties, and the relationship between the new building and the established street pattern. The officers at the forum recognised it as a working example of how justified alternatives function in practice: a proposal that doesn't fit neatly within the SPD's standard diagrams but succeeds because the design rationale was clear and the evidence was thorough.

The honest account of that project, including where the process was difficult, seemed useful to the room. Several colleagues around the table had encountered similar challenges on comparable site types.

On the SPD Review and Small Sites

The officers mentioned that a review of SPD1, Brent's Design Guide, is underway. The stated aim is to shift the guidance from prescribing what not to do toward defining what makes genuinely good places. That's the right framing. Guidance that articulates positive outcomes is considerably more useful to architects trying to design well than a list of constraints to navigate around.

There was also discussion of a potential small-sites approach to unlock sensitive suburban intensification, which is the right area to focus on. Brent has substantial suburban housing stock where single dwellings occupy plots that could reasonably accommodate two or three homes without materially affecting neighbourhood character. Getting the policy and design guidance right on these sites is more important, in terms of housing delivery, than most larger schemes.

On biodiversity net gain, the officers clarified that while developers must use registered BNG providers for small schemes, they don't need to be on a Council-approved list. That's a proportionate and practical position, and it was genuinely useful to have it confirmed clearly.

The Committee Question

The forum also surfaced something that anyone working in Brent will be familiar with: the gap between officer recommendation and committee decision. One scheme discussed in the room, a strong design proposal at Preston Road, was recommended for approval by officers but subsequently overturned at committee.

The officers were candid about this. Committee decisions involve a different set of pressures and a different set of considerations, and the outcome isn't always predictable regardless of the quality of the design argument. Their advice was consistent with what good practice requires anyway: build the strongest possible design justification at pre-application stage, so the case for the scheme is well-documented and well-understood before it reaches committee.

This is worth stating plainly for any client planning a project in Brent: pre-application engagement isn't just useful, it's necessary. The quality of the conversation you have with officers before submitting shapes the quality of the recommendation they make, and the robustness of the case if it goes to committee.

What We Took Away

Brent is not a frictionless planning environment. No London borough is. But this forum was evidence of a planning department that is engaging seriously with the architects who work in it, taking feedback on board, and trying to align its processes with what produces good design outcomes rather than simply compliant ones.

The officers who attended were direct, well-informed, and genuinely interested in the conversation. That matters. Planning works best as a collaboration rather than an adversarial process, and the willingness on Brent's side to create that kind of forum is a good sign.

We came away with useful clarifications on several policy points and a clearer sense of how the department is thinking about the issues that come up most frequently in our work in the borough. We'll be using the pre-application service more systematically as a result, and we'd encourage other practices working in Brent to do the same.

Our thanks to David Glover, Victoria McDonagh, Damian Manhertz, Andrew Neidhardt, Colin Leadbeatter, Sean Newton, and Vanraj Raj for organising and running a session that was genuinely worth attending.

If you're planning a project in Brent, whether a householder extension, an infill scheme, or something more complex, and want to understand how to approach the planning process, we'd be glad to talk it through.

→ Email us at architects@risedesignstudio.co.uk
→ Or call the studio on 020 3947 5886

RISE Design Studio, Interior Designers + Sustainability Experts

☉ Architecture for people and planet
☉ Trading since 2011
☉ Company reg no: 08129708
☉ VAT no: GB158316403