Brent Council Builds Driveway Pillar, Bills Steve McCormack £8,000 in Willesden Green 2026

Key Points

• Contractors instructed by Brent Council erected a brick pillar on a shared residential driveway in St Gabriels Road, Willesden Green, North London, without the permission of the property’s leaseholders.
• The works cost £8,222.40, and the owners of the four flats at the address expect to be billed more than £8,000 within weeks to cover both the contractor’s fees and the local authority’s administrative costs.
• The intervention stems from a seven-year planning dispute initiated in 2019 after residents repaved the driveway and repaired a cracked front wall without applying for planning permission in the Mapesbury Conservation Area.
• Brent Council issued a formal enforcement notice in August 2021 after determining the driveway gap exceeded three metres in width and lacked sufficient soft landscaping.
• The Planning Inspectorate dismissed the residents’ appeal in January 2023 and upheld the amended notice, setting a compliance deadline of July 2023 that went unmet.
• Resident Steve McCormack, 69, stated that the newly constructed pillar eliminates one of the two independently used parking spaces that had operated at the property for 40 years.
• Brent Council confirmed that ignoring an enforcement notice is a criminal offence and stated that direct action was taken at zero cost to the wider taxpayer.

Willesden Green (North London News) November 14, 2026 – A 69-year-old North London resident and his neighbours are facing a bill exceeding £8,000 after six contractors hired by Brent Council arrived at 7am to build a brick pillar across their shared driveway without their consent.

Why Did Brent Council Build a Pillar on the Willesden Green Driveway?

As reported by Louis Dargavel Corbett of MyLondon, the construction of the brick pillar was carried out by Brent Council to enforce compliance with a long-standing planning enforcement notice issued against four flats in St Gabriels Road, Willesden Green. The property sits within the Mapesbury Conservation Area, a designated zone subject to strict planning regulations designed to preserve the architectural and environmental character of the neighbourhood.

According to the How2London Newsroom, council planning officers determined that the repaved driveway breached conservation guidelines because the entrance gap measured more than three metres wide and did not incorporate enough soft landscaping. When the flat owners failed to carry out the required modifications by the statutory deadline, the local authority arranged for external contractors to install the brick structure directly.

How Did the Seven-Year Planning Dispute Begin?

As reported by Louis Dargavel Corbett of MyLondon, the dispute began in 2019 when 69-year-old resident Steve McCormack and the owners of the other three flats decided to repair a cracked front wall and repave their driveway to give the frontage a new lease of life. The residents stated that they “naively” did not apply for planning permission before undertaking the refurbishment, unaware that a routine driveway upgrade would trigger a seven-year legal and administrative battle.

Following a complaint to the local authority, Mr McCormack was instructed to submit an application for retrospective planning permission. As reported by MyLondon, Brent Council refused the retrospective application on the grounds that the driveway exceeded the permitted three-metre width limit and lacked adequate soft landscaping. Despite evidence that the two-car-wide driveway had been in continuous use for the past 40 years, Brent Council argued that the opening was now too large and served a formal enforcement notice against the property in August 2021.

What Happened When the Residents Appealed the Enforcement Notice?

According to reports by the How2London Newsroom, the flat owners challenged Brent Council’s enforcement notice by lodging an appeal with the national Planning Inspectorate. During the appeal process, residents carried out additional works to introduce more soft landscaping onto the driveway in an effort to satisfy conservation standards.

However, as detailed by Louis Dargavel Corbett of MyLondon, the Planning Inspectorate dismissed the appeal in January 2023 and upheld the enforcement notice with amendments. The ruling gave the owners of the four flats until July 2023 to comply with the amended requirements, which necessitated narrowing the driveway opening. No further structural alterations were carried out by the residents before the July 2023 deadline expired.

What Did Resident Steve McCormack Say About the Pillar and the £8,000 Bill?

As reported by the How2London Newsroom, Steve McCormack stated that six contractors arrived at the St Gabriels Road property at 7am, knocking on his door as they began preparing the site and constructing the pillar without his permission. The construction work itself cost £8,222.40, and the owners of the four flats expect to receive a formal invoice exceeding £8,000 within weeks once council administrative fees are added.

Speaking to Louis Dargavel Corbett of MyLondon, Mr McCormack criticised the local authority’s handling of the matter, stating:

“They have never engaged with us at all. Why is Brent Council wasting their time and money on this when there’s so much else wrong in the London Borough of Brent?”

Mr McCormack further explained the practical impact of the structure on the household’s parking arrangements. As quoted by MyLondon, he stated:

“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.”

In additional remarks reported by the How2London Newsroom, Mr McCormack noted that the residents had apologised for the oversight and had only sought to repair their damaged front wall, pleading:

“Please let us keep our two parking spaces.”

How Did Brent Council Respond to the Criticism?

In response to the residents’ complaints, Brent Council defended its decision to use direct enforcement powers under planning legislation. As reported by Louis Dargavel Corbett of MyLondon, a spokesperson for Brent Council stated:

“The planning enforcement service is concerned with resolving serious breaches of planning control where there is harm to public amenity.”

Addressing the legal obligation to follow Planning Inspectorate rulings and the financial cost of the intervention, the Brent Council spokesperson told MyLondon:

“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.”

Background: Conservation Area Rules and Direct Council Action

Under UK planning law—specifically the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—properties located within designated conservation areas such as the Mapesbury Conservation Area are subject to stricter controls than standard residential streets. While many minor alterations to house frontages normally fall under “permitted development” rights, local authorities frequently remove these rights in conservation areas via Article 4 Directions to protect historic streetscapes, front boundary walls, and front gardens from excessive hardstanding.

When a property owner carries out alterations without consent and subsequently loses an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate, a planning enforcement notice becomes legally binding. Under Section 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, if the required steps are not taken within the specified compliance period, the local planning authority holds statutory power to enter the land, execute the works directly through appointed contractors, and recover all reasonable expenses—including administrative overheads—as a charge on the property owners.

Prediction: How Could This Development Affect Homeowners and Leaseholders in Conservation Areas?

This enforcement action in Willesden Green serves as a clear precedent for homeowners, landlords, and flat leaseholders residing within the Mapesbury Conservation Area and similar protected zones across London. Residents planning routine maintenance—such as repaving driveways, widening vehicle crossovers, or rebuilding damaged boundary walls—face significant financial and practical risks if they proceed without verifying local Article 4 restrictions or securing prior planning approval.

Furthermore, the case demonstrates that local councils are prepared to exercise direct default powers under Section 178 rather than relying solely on prosecution when compliance deadlines pass. For leaseholders in multi-flat conversions, non-compliance with an upheld enforcement notice can result in substantial collective contractor bills, administrative surcharges, and the permanent loss of off-street parking spaces, potentially affecting both household convenience and property valuations.