Appeal 3278197
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
4 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
a single storey front infill porch extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is whether the proposed development would conserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Northwick Circle Conservation Area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling, with half-timbered features and a double height bay window and overhang gable on brackets – features mirrored by the dwelling’s attached neighbour, Number [address].
The appeal property is located within a residential area and is situated within the Northwick Circle Conservation Area, a planned residential estate built between 1924-1937 and characterised by the presence of a variety of largely two storey, predominantly detached and semi-detached dwellings. Retained original features, particularly half-timbering, tiled roofs, gables, bays and period detailing make a significant contribution to a strong sense of uniformity and to Northwick Circle Conservation Area’s distinctive sense of place.
Houses tend to be set back from the road behind parking areas and/or gardens and have long gardens to the rear. This and the presence of grass verges, gardens and street trees provides for rhythm and regularity, and a sense of greenery and spaciousness.
The appeal property’s half-timbered, bay and gabled features make a positive contribution to the Northwick Circle Conservation Area, as does its distinctive and carefully detailed porch, with its overhanging tile roof, supporting pillar and doorway with windows to either side of the door. Further, the appeal property’s attractive porch is mirrored by that of No 32 and in doing so, makes an important contribution to the visual balance of the adjoining dwellings.
During my site visit, I observed that, whilst the appearance of Number 32 and 34’s garages and areas above them differ, the central areas of the two dwellings are so similar as to provide for a pleasing sense of symmetry, in keeping with the qualities of the Northwick Circle Conservation Area.
The proposed development would infill the original porch in an unsympathetic manner, such that important architectural detailing would be lost. This would be to the detriment of the overall appearance of the appeal property and further, the proposed infill porch would significantly unbalance the symmetrical qualities of the two adjoining dwellings, to the harm of the identified attributes of Northwick Circle Conservation Area.
[name] also noted during my site visit that other nearby properties have had their front porches infilled and/or extended, I consider the porches of the appeal property and its adjoining neighbour to be distinctive to these two dwellings and that the appeal property’s porch makes a positive contribution to the Northwick Circle Conservation Area. 10.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would fail to conserve or enhance the appearance of the Northwick Circle Conservation Area. Having regard to paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and to Planning Practice Guidance, I consider that the harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would be less than substantial. This needs to be balanced against any public benefits the development may bring. 11.In this respect, there is no substantial evidence to demonstrate that there are any benefits that would amount to such public benefits that they would outweigh the harm identified. 12.Consequently, I find that the proposal would fail to conserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Northwick Circle Conservation Area, contrary to the Framework; to Brent Development Management Policies Plan (2016) Policies DMP1 and DMP7; and to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: SPD2 [name] and Alterations (2018), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 601No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 October 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 5 October 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3278197
- Application reference
- 21/0575
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Brent
- Planning authority code
- E09000005
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 1 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Yes
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 1 July 2021
- Valid date
- 1 July 2021
- Start date
- 21 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 15 April 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 19 October 2021
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 4830
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21