London Borough of Brent appeal evidence
Refused over permitted development in Brent?
See which existing works, measurements and neighbour effects inspectors examined in the selected Brent examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 5 of 178
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 5 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Brent LPA (51.559665, −0.267612). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Brent appeal findings
Why Brent GPDO proposals were dismissed
The matched local set has no allowed appeal, so the selected examples show dismissed reasoning rather than a successful local comparison.
Counted against appeals
Where Brent GPDO proposals failed
Unlawful work removed permitted development rights
An undisputed unlawful rear extension meant the dwelling had no permitted development rights, so prior approval could not be granted.
Straight-line depth exceeded six metres
A terraced-house extension went beyond six metres from the original rear elevation when measured in a straight line.
Third storey harmed the principal elevation
The proposed third storey was found to tower over the adjoining property, erode symmetry and harm the principal elevation’s design.
No allowed example matched
What Brent GPDO cases still had to show
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
A reason to omit the boundary inset
The dismissed reasoning found no clear reason to depart from boundary-inset guidance intended to maintain appropriate living conditions.
Neighbour effects limited by separation
Although dismissed, the Inspector concluded that a separation gap, boundary treatment and peripheral views would avoid harm to a neighbour’s outlook and light.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify existing work as unlawful?
- Are the dimensions measured in a straight line from the original rear wall?
- Does the refusal identify neighbour effects or harm to the principal elevation?
There is no allowed local comparison, and one selected Brent example is limited to neighbour outlook and light within prior approval. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Read the reasoning in matched appeal decisions
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Dismissed appeal examples
5 examples
17 July 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘construction of one additional storey to the dwelling.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
I agree that visual uniformity is not a sole consideration in the prior approval process, but design and architectural features can contribute to uniformity, and it can therefore form part of the consideration. I have had regard to the other examples but assessment under the GPDO for the purposes of this main issue and the specific context of the appeal site means my findings would not change.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed third storey would awkwardly tower over the adjoining property and create an alien feature that would negatively draw the eye and interrupt the consistency between the properties and their simple original form. The proposal would therefore erode the symmetry between the two properties and subsequently cause harm to the design and architectural features of the principal elevation of the building contrary to the prior approval requirements of this aforementioned section of the GPDO.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
13 December 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether prior approval should be granted under Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO, having regard to the effect of the development upon the living conditions of the occupiers of [address].
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2, 2018 (SPD) provides quite prescriptive guidance in relation to single storey rear extensions. The SPD advises that a single storey rear extension of up to 6m in depth may be acceptable providing that for every additional metre beyond 3m in depth, the extension is set in from the boundary by an additional metre. As the proposed extension would replace an existing extension and project by 6m without any boundary inset, the proposal would not comply with the advice contained within the SPD. There is no clear reason why the SPD guidance would not be appropriate to ensure the maintenance of appropriate living conditions in this case.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
15 April 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Single storey Rear extension in cooperate existing extension up to 6.0 M.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would be permitted development.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In this case the Council’s evidence suggest the extensions to the rear are unlawful and this is not disputed by the appellant. Therefore the dwelling does not benefit from permitted development rights as set out in the GPDO. I acknowledge that the proposal explicitly includes the resizing of the construction on site of the unauthorised extension. However, at the time of this appeal decision, there would be no permitted development rights and therefore it is not possible to grant prior approval for these works at this time.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
3 May 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for a single storey rear extension to dwellinghouse.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development would constitute permitted development under the terms of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A.1 (g) of the GDPO.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
It is this angled form which results in a straight-line distance (not angled) from the rear wall of the office/study to the furthest extent of the proposed extension of greater than 6m. Whilst the submitted plan shows angled lines of 6m to follow the side elevation boundaries of the proposed extensions, the permitted development criteria does not allow for this, with it simply stating that it is permitted to extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 8 metres in the case of a detached dwellinghouse, or 6 metres in the case of any other dwellinghouse. This is a terraced house and there would be a distance of over 6m from an original rear elevation to the end of part of the proposed extensions.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
3 November 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is therefore whether prior approval should be granted, having regard to the effects of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] with particular regard to outlook and light.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I note the Council did not find harm in respect of the adjacent neighbouring property or garden at No [address]. Although it is understood that a development at No 6 has also been constructed, the council’s officer report advises that the proposed extension would accord with guidance within the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document Residential Extensions and [name] 2018 (SPD). The proposed extension would not project significantly further than the extension to No 8. Although there are windows on the rear, due to the separation gap it would only be visible in peripheral views within the dwelling, and this would be above the joint boundary fence. The remainder of the garden had a substantial boundary treatment, this and the separation gap would reduce the effects within the property and garden and would therefore not result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of this property.
Paragraph 14 · Source pages 2, 3