Appeal 6004478

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of two storeys above commercial units 116 & 118 to create x4 self-contained flats, minor alteration to shop front of No.118, and partial excavation of basements to form cycle storage at 116 and [address], Neasden, London, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 25/2931, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

It was indicated on the appeal form that the description of development had changed since the submission of the planning application. I have used the amended wording in the banner heading and my formal decision above; it is an accurate reflection of the scheme as it was considered by the Council.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the viability of the existing ground floor commercial [address]; • Whether the development would include an appropriate provision of family housing; • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and • The effect of the development on living conditions for occupiers of the neighbouring flats at No [address], with particular regard to outlook and enclosure.

The appeal relates to a commercial property, on a corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. No 118, on the [address] frontage, is occupied by a dry cleaning business; No 116, which extends along the side [address] frontage, is a barber and hairdresser1. It is a single-storey, flat-roofed building. The proposed development is the construction of two additional storeys above the commercial units; there would be two flats – one studio, and one with one bedroom – on each of the new first and second floors. An entranceway to the new flats would be created in part of the commercial space within No 118. A small basement area would be created under part of the building, providing cycle storage space.

The appeal site is within a small shopping parade (there is a larger shopping area a short way further north along [address]). Policy BE6 of the 2022 Brent Local Plan (“the BLP”) seeks to resist the loss of retail, commercial and business premises in such locations, recognising that they provide convenient access to goods and services which are needed on a day-to-day basis. The policy sets out various criteria which will be considered where the loss of such a unit is proposed; among other things, it says that loss will be permitted where the proposal does not result in a harmful break in the continuity of frontages, where there is equivalent alternative provision within 400m, and where the existing unit or use is unviable.

The floorspace of the existing unit at No 118 is currently around 74m2. Under the appeal scheme, just over 9m2 of that ground floor space would be converted to form the entrance to the new flats, leaving the shop unit at a little over 64m2 – in other words, around one eighth of the commercial floorspace would be converted. The conversion of that small portion of the floorspace would not result in the loss of the unit as a whole, and it would still be of a functional and viable size.

The premises are not vacant at present, and the appellants have stated that the existing dry cleaning business would continue to operate. So far as can reasonably be assumed, the ground floor unit at No 118 would not become vacant as a result of the appeal development going ahead, nor would it otherwise be lost to commercial or retail use. In this situation I consider that an absence of marketing evidence – which would otherwise be sought by Policy BE6 – does not weigh significantly against the proposal.

In general terms it is not an uncommon arrangement within urban centres for retail frontages to occasionally have short interruptions for the entranceways to upper flats. Here, the linear frontage to be given over to the entrance to the flats would, based on my reading of the submitted drawings, be somewhat less than 2m in width. This would be sufficiently narrow that there would be no harmful break in the continuity of the commercial frontage.

Taking these points together, I am satisfied that there would be no harmful loss of a commercial or retail unit or frontage, and no harm to the viability of the existing ground floor commercial [address]. There would therefore be no significant conflict with Policy BE6 of the BLP, the principal relevant provisions of which I have set out above. 1 Divided internally between No 116 and No 116A.

The predominant housing need in Brent is for larger-sized family dwellings with three or more bedrooms; Policy BH6 of the BLP seeks a 25% provision of dwellings of that size in all developments. In the appeal scheme, all four dwellings proposed would be smaller non-family units, so the development would not comply with that requirement. However, Policy BH6 provides for an exception where “the location or characteristics of the development are such that it would not provide a high quality environment for families”.

Here, the proposal would represent the intensification of a small and constrained site; the footprint of the existing building occupies most of the site, with only a very small external yard at the back of No 118, and the site abuts buildings on [address] and [address]. Among other things, the site’s constraints mean that there is no room for the practical provision of private external amenity space. There is a public open space less than 400m away, and I note that in determining the planning application the Council considered that the proposal would be acceptable in that respect. I do not disagree with that assessment; however, I also consider that it illustrates that the characteristics of the site and proposed development are such that it would be unlikely to provide a high-quality environment for families.

While there would be no family units within the development, for the reasons I have just set out I consider that the exception set out in paragraph a) of Policy BH6 applies; in this case a zero provision of family housing would be justified and appropriate. I therefore find no conflict with Policy BH6 of the BLP.

The proposed development would represent a southward extension of the upper floors of the terrace at Nos [address], a Victorian or Edwardian block which is three storeys high and with a pitched roof form. The upward extension here would be flat-roofed, and so to that extent would contrast with the neighbouring block. However, the overall proportions and fenestration of the upper floors would be in keeping with the neighbouring block. Other than at roof level, the form and appearance of the development would be broadly in keeping with the rest of the [address] frontage.

Flat roofed terraces (or terraces with butterfly roofs concealed behind a parapet) are reasonably commonplace in London, though I acknowledge there appear to be few examples in the immediate locality. There is a modern flat-roofed block on the opposite corner of [address], but this is a self-contained development which does not in itself set a strong precedent for an extension of the type before me here. However, it does partly help to emphasise the wide variety of building and roof forms in the area.

The adjoining building at No [address] (known as [name]) is a two-storey detached property dating from probably the 1930s or thereabouts, and with a pitched roof form typical of suburban housing developments of that era. The appeal scheme’s side interface with that development would be a largely blank rear wall. However, as the proposed extension would be built right up to the boundary, the side wall would largely be screened by the pitched roof of No 2; while it would be visible from [address], it would not become a dominant or intrusive feature of the streetscene. While it might be preferable if the pitched roof of the terrace from Nos [address] were to be continued across the appeal site to the junction with [address], the proposed form of the development would not put it starkly at odds with the existing buildings on either side.

The step down from the flat roof of the appeal scheme to the pitched roof at No [address] would not represent an especially unusual transition at a corner site between attached buildings with different forms, so would not be noticeably incongruous in an urban area with buildings of a wide variety of ages and styles. Given the characteristics of the site and its surroundings I do not consider that any significant harm would arise from the flat-roofed approach proposed here.

There would be alterations to the existing shopfront at No 118 to create the entrance to the new flats, along with some reconfiguration and refurbishment of the shopfront to No 116. Overall, the coherence and legibility of the commercial units would not be adversely affected. The infilling of the space above the existing commercial units would also be in keeping with the characteristics of the area, where single-storey buildings are not common. It would also have the minor benefits of concealing the gable walls at No [address] and No [address] (which, while architecturally blank, were covered in graffiti at the time of my visit and therefore somewhat detrimental to the quality of the area) and screening the large dormer on the rear roof pitch of No 2.

Taking these points together, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not cause significant harm to the character or appearance of the area. There would therefore be no conflict with Policies BD1 and DMP1 of the BLP which together, and among other things, seek to ensure that the siting, layout, scale, density, detailing and design of development complements the locality and responds positively to the character of Brent’s places.

[name] have already described, the proposed development would infill the gap between existing buildings on [address] and [address]. The Council’s 2018 Brent Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (“the SPD”) advises that, in order to protect privacy, there should be a minimum separation distance of [address]. There is a small garden area at the rear of the ground floor flat at No [address], which would be within 9m of the windows at the rear of the new flats. Privacy in the rear garden of No 2 is already constrained to some degree by its tight urban setting; oblique views into it from rooms on the upper floors at No [address] – especially on the second floor – would already be possible.

Rear windows in the two one-bedroom flats above No 118 would also allow views across part of the rear garden at No 2, although an angled inset in the rear wall would screen the nearest parts. However, those windows would serve the kitchen part of the combined kitchen/dining/living room, with worktops (including the sink unit) in front of them. The internal layout would prevent, or at least heavily limit, anyone in the new flats standing right at the window; in the normal run of things any potential observer would be some way back into the flat, and this would help to limit direct views into the neighbouring garden.

No harm to privacy would arise from the two new studio flats; the only rear windows there would be in the shower rooms which, in order to comply with the building regulations, would need to have obscure glazing. While the windows at the rear of the one-bedroom flats would allow a limited degree of overlooking od the garden at No 2 I am satisfied that, notwithstanding the failure to comply with the guidelines in the SPD, the internal and external layouts of the appeal site mean this scheme would not make the situation significantly worse in terms of privacy.

In adding two further storeys to Nos 116 and 118, the appeal scheme would also lead to some increase in the sense of enclosure at the rear of No [address]. However, the garden, and affected rooms within the flats at No 2, are already constrained by the tight site, and the end gable wall of No [address] in particular. Existing deficiencies or harm do not in themselves provides a strong justification for allowing further harm. Here though, the proposed development here would infill what – when seen from the rear of No 2 – is a relatively small open gap between the existing end wall of No 120 and the corner of No 2. Given the tightly-constrained characteristics of the rear of No 2 as it already exists, and the (albeit limited) separation between the appeal site and the rear garden of No 2 provided by a narrow access walkway, I am satisfied that there would also be no significant increased sense of enclosure or overbearing impact.

For the reasons I have just set out, I conclude that the development would not cause unacceptable harm to living conditions for occupiers of the neighbouring flats at No [address]. There would therefore be no conflict with Policy DMP1 of the BLP which, among other things, seeks to ensure that development provides high levels of internal and external amenity.

The Council’s officer report referred to an earlier application for planning permission which had been refused2. Beyond its description I have not been provided with details of that previous scheme, and the extent of any differences – or similarities – between it and this appeal proposal. I have of course determined this appeal on the basis of the planning merits of the particular scheme before me.

I have considered the conditions proposed by the Council having regard to the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) and the advice in the PPG. Where necessary I have altered the suggested wording and ordering in the interests of clarity and effectiveness. In addition to the standard time limit condition (1) I have specified the approved plans and other documents so as to provide certainty (2). A condition requiring the submission and approval of external facing materials (3) is necessary to protect the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal scheme involves the excavation of a small basement below part of the existing buildings on the site. A condition requiring the submission and approval of a basement impact assessment (4) is necessary to protect the integrity of the appeal site and surrounding properties, and to protect neighbours’ living conditions. A construction method statement (5) is necessary to protect neighbours’ living conditions and the wider local environment. Given the 2 [name]: 25/1896; the development was described as “Proposed erection of 2x self-contained flats, bicycle storage unit and replacing shop front window with a smaller window”. constrained nature of the site, and the effect that any site preparation or demolition works would be likely to have on neighbouring properties and occupiers, these two are necessarily pre-commencement conditions.

A condition relating to water consumption (6) is necessary to ensure a sustainable development by conserving that vital natural resource. I note the Council’s comments about the accessibility of the proposed basement cycle storage, and its preference that cycle parking and storage might instead be provided on the private forecourt of No 116. The submitted drawings indicate that the proposed cycle storage would be accessed by way of a tight staircase, so it is not clear that it would be conveniently accessible to all residents of the flats; a condition requiring the submission of further details of cycle parking and storage (7) is necessary to ensure the adequate provision of such facilities.

The appeal site is within a controlled parking zone and was described in the Planning, Design and [name] as being car-free. A condition is necessary to secure that status, and to ensure that the development does not lead to a potentially harmful increase in demand for parking (8). I have amended the wording from that suggested by the Council so that the condition accords with guidance set out in the Framework and the PPG.

For the reasons given above I conclude that planning permission should be granted, subject to conditions.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings: • Location Plan (Planning Portal Reference: PP-14409390v1) dated 15 October 2025 • Proposed Ground Floor Plan (with inset basement plan) – Dwg 227/02/PGF dated 14 October 2025 • Proposed First Floor Plan – Dwg 227/03/PGF dated 14 October 2025 • Proposed Second Floor Plan – Dwg 227/04/PSF dated 14 October 2025 • Proposed Roof Plan – Dwg 227/06/PRP dated 14 October 2025 • [name] – Dwg 227/11/PFE dated 14 October 2025 • [name] – Dwg 227/08/PRE dated 14 October 2025 • Existing and [name] – Dwg 227/12/SEl-C dated 14 October 2025 • Existing and [name] – Dwg 227/10/SSE dated 14 October 2025 • [name] – Dwg 227/14/FSS dated 14 October 2025 • [name] – Dwg 227/15/FFS dated 14 October 2025 • [name] – Dwg 227/16/SFS dated 14 October 2025

Where they have not been specified in the planning application form or approved drawings, no installation of external facing materials (including door and window frames and glazing) shall take place until details and samples of the materials to be used for those external surfaces in the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and samples.

Prior to the commencement of development, a basement impact assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This document shall include the assessment of potential impacts on the structural stability of the building and neighbouring properties, vibration, disturbance, drainage and groundwater issues, with a method statement and mitigation measures as necessary. The approved method statement and mitigation measures shall be implemented in full and the mitigation measures shall thereafter be retained.

Prior to the commencement of the development, a Construction Method Plan (“CMP”) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CMP shall outline measures that will be taken to control dust, noise and other environmental impacts of the development arising from development works and related vehicle movements.

The building shall be designed so that mains water consumption does not exceed a target of 105 litres or less per person per day, using a fittings-based approach to determine the water consumption of the development in accordance with requirement G2 of Schedule1 to the Building Regulations 2010.

No development other than site preparation works shall take place until full details of the provision of secure parking and storage for four bicycles have been provided to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details will include evidence that the approved facility will provide safe and convenient access for all residents of the development. The cycle parking or storage shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.

Occupation of the four dwellings hereby approved shall not take place until arrangements have been made to secure the development as a car-free development in accordance with a detailed scheme or agreement which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme or agreement shall ensure that: i) no occupiers of the approved development shall apply for, obtain or hold an on-street parking permit to park a vehicle on the public highway within the administrative district of the local planning authority (other than a disabled person’s badge issued pursuant to section 21 of the [name] and Disabled Persons Act 1970 or similar legislation); and ii) any occupiers of the approved development shall surrender any such permit wrongly issued or held. Such scheme or agreement shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted and shall be retained and operated for so long as the use hereby permitted continues.