Demolition of rear larder and proposed single storey side infill extension, rear outrigger extension and replacement of rear dormer window with Juliet balcony to the dwellinghouse

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 August 2026 By G Powys Jones FRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011634 186 Chamberlayne Road, London, NW10 3JU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Simon Welsh against the decision of Brent Council. • The application Ref is 25/3576. • The development proposed is demolition of rear larder and proposed single storey side infill extension, rear outrigger extension and replacement of rear dormer window with Juliet balcony to the dwellinghouse. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for demolition of rear larder and proposed single storey side infill extension, rear outrigger extension and replacement of rear dormer window with Juliet balcony to the dwellinghouse at 186 Chamberlayne Road, London, NW10 3JU in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/3576, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule to this decision. Preliminary and procedural matters 2. In the interests of accuracy, the Council’s description of the proposed development as appears in its decision notice has been adopted. 3. The development proposals comprise two principal elements. The Council has no objection to the first, the proposed demolition of the rear larder and proposed single storey side infill extension. I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s assessment on this aspect of the proposals, as set out in the officer report on the application. Accordingly, the second element of the scheme, that affecting the roof, remains to be considered. 4. The property is situated within the Kensal Rise Conservation Area (CA). The reason for refusal refers to the Queens Park Conservation Area Design Guide (2015), probably in error. However, the Council has provided me with a copy of the Kensal Rise Conservation Area’s Character Appraisal (2024) and I have paid particular regard to those chapters describing the CA’s special interest and recommendations for roof forms and coverings. Main Issue 5. This is whether the proposed alterations and additions at roof level would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Appeal Decision 6011634 2 Reasons 6. The host property forms part of a terrace of attractive Victorian properties, beyond which, to the north, is a small cinema and The Constitutional Club. The property fronts Chamberlayne Road, but its garden backs onto Leighton Gardens. The property’s main rear roof is occupied by a box-like dormer structure. The dwelling has a rear protrusion, described more commonly as an outrigger. The intention is to alter the existing dormer by introducing new fenestration and a Juliette balcony, and to enlarge the dormer at right angles onto part of the outrigger’s roof. 7. The proposal was rejected largely on the advice of the Council’s Heritage Officer (HO). He advised that the existing rear dormer is of a poor design quality; that its proposed extension would create visual clutter and disunity at roof level, and that the changes would undermine the established relationship between the terrace’s main roofs and their outrigger roofs in the CA. The HO further commented that the uncharacteristic changes ‘…would also be readily visible in dynamic views experienced when walking down Leighton Gardens into the conservation area.’ 8. The existing dormer and proposed extension could not be seen from Chamberlayne Road. As part of my inspection, I travelled along Leighton Road towards the appeal property and the CA. Neither the exiting dormer nor the outrigger’s roof could be seen from along virtually the whole length of the road, since they are effectively screened by the bulk of the dwellings occupying Leighton Gardens’ northern frontage. Both the dormer and its extension would be seen fleetingly in a small gap between 2 Leighton Road and that part of No 184 Chamberlayne Road’s fenestrated elevation fronting Leighton Gardens. 9. I share the HO’s view that the extant dormer is not an attractive design. However, it now forms part of the fabric of this part of the CA contributing to local character, and its presence cannot be discounted. I consider the proposed change in its’ fenestration to be a design betterment, improving the dormer’s appearance. The small extension proposed would be limited to but part of the outrigger’s roof, being constrained between the stub of what remains of a largely demolished chimney stack and the extant dormer. The development would not catch the eye in this small gap, and much of that which could otherwise be seen would be screened by trees for most of the year - those growing in the appeal property’s garden and in the adjoining footway. 10. In conclusion, I find the development would at worse have a neutral effect on the CA’s visual amenities, not resulting in harm, thus preserving the CA’s character and appearance. Accordingly, no conflict arises with those provisions of policy DMP1 & BHC1 of the Brent Local Plan (LP) and HC1 of the London Plan requiring development to avoid harm, to maintain and to conserve the significance of heritage assets. Conditions. 11. The standard conditions in respect of the approved plans and materials are imposed in the interests of certainty and amenity. Other matters 12. I have taken account of the references made to the planning history of the site, other development plan policies and to the National Planning Policy Framework. I Appeal Decision 6011634 3 have taken account of the appellant’s references to existing similar development both within and adjacent to the CA, where the CA’s setting is affected. 13. No other matter raised is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations leading me to my conclusions. G Powys Jones INSPECTOR SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: the location plan and Drawings No 1066-01 & 1066-opt 4. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building.