Appeal 3371794
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
7 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
for a part ground floor side extension and ground floor rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Application for costs
An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Council and is the subject of a separate decision.
Section 04
[name]
Whilst not explicitly referred to within the description of the proposed development found within the submitted planning application forms, the council’s sole concern is with regard to the scale of the front porch on the principal elevation of the host dwelling. I was able to view this part of the appeal site from the public highway and consequently carried out an unaccompanied site visit. I determined the appeal on this basis.
Section 05
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed porch upon the character and appearance of the area.
Section 06
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a bay fronted link-detached house with a hipped roof porch canopy over the front door. There are many examples of replacement porches within the street, some of which project forward of their respective bay window. It is not for me to comment on the appropriateness of these or otherwise however, but ultimately each case must be assessed on its own merits.
In this particular case, the proposal is for a gable fronted enclosed porch that would project forward of the bay window on the host dwelling, in lieu of the existing subservient feature which appears to be original in its construction.
In purely two dimensional form, the proposed porch would appear largely proportionate to the principal elevation of no 6, however in three dimensional reality it would be viewed differently by virtue of the overall depth and consequent forward projection.
I accept that the building frontages along The Ridgeway are not uniform and whilst it may not interrupt a continuous building line and remain visually recessive relative to the more forward sited no 4, I consider that the proposal would detract from the overall character and appearance of the host dwelling itself.
I acknowledge that a 3m2 porch could quite possibly be constructed under permitted development rights, however that is not the proposal before me. I note that the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (January 2023) stipulates that with respect to porches they should not extend forward of any existing projecting features e.g. beyond a bay window, unless it is a common feature of an area’s character. [name] acknowledge that there are some examples where porches project beyond bay windows I consider that these are not a common feature and to allow so further would erode the overall character and appearance of the area.
I therefore find that the front porch would detract from the visual amenities of the host dwelling and in addition to conflicting with the advice set out within the SPD, also conflicts with policy DMP1 of the Brent Local Plan 2019 – 2041 which stipulates that development will be acceptable provided it is of a design and scale that compliments the locality.
Section 07
Conclusion
Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed.
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 297No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 October 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 6 October 2025 (page 1)
Costs Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 297No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 October 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 6 October 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3371794
- Application reference
- 25/0942
- 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
- 43 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
- 26 August 2025
- Valid date
- 26 August 2025
- Start date
- 1 September 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 3 June 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 17 October 2025
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
- Yes
- 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
- 78172
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21