Appeal 3334108
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
Construction of dormer window to front of dwellinghouse.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the dwelling and of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site (No.40) is a substantial two-storey house located within the Mapesbury Conservation Area (MCA) which is a planned residential area dating from the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries featuring large eclectically detailed town houses1. The MCA character appraisal states that although front dormer windows appear in a handful of dwellings they were not included in the majority and design guidance2 indicates new front roof dormers would have a harmful impact on unspoilt roof forms as found at No.40.
Although the appellant suggests front roof dormers are a ‘relatively common feature’ this does not accord with my own observations which tend towards understanding the examples given as non-original insertions which do not support the prevailing character of the MCA. Even if argued that the harm would affect only a single dwelling, further insertions would cumulatively harm the prevailing character and appearance of the MCA and such should be given considerable importance and weight3, to an extent which is not outweighed by any other factor raised.
The proposal would conflict with Policy BHC1 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 (BLP) which requires proposals to sustain the significance of a heritage asset and, therefore, fails to accord with the development plan as a whole. 1 Mapesbury Conservation Area Character Appraisal 2 Mapesbury Conservation Area Design Guide 3 Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
Consequently, for the reasons given and taking all matters raised into account, the appeal cannot succeed.
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 2574No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 22 February 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 January 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3334108
- Application reference
- 23/2922
- 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
- 4 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- 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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 29 November 2023
- Valid date
- 29 November 2023
- Start date
- 6 December 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 27 October 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 22 February 2024
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
- No
- 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
- 46981
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21