Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

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 works

One-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.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. 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.

  3. 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