Planning application · Brent
20/1803.
52 Blenheim Gardens, London, NW2 4NT
Full / Other Planning at 52 Blenheim Gardens, London, NW2 4NT, received 22 Jun 2020 — refused on 21 Aug 2020 (delegated, Sarah Dilley).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBrent profile →
Refused
Outcome
21 Aug 2020
9 wks
Decision time
1 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
20
Documents
20 linked
0
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Brent planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Alterations to internal layout of the main building to provide 2 self-contained residential units at basement and ground floor level with 6 units of HMO accommodation at levels 1 and 2, retention of the existing self-contained unit in the rear garden and minor works of alteration to the external appearance of the building
Reference
20/1803
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
NW2 4NT
Council
Received
22 Jun 2020
Validated
23 Jun 2020
Target date
18 Aug 2020
Decision date
21 Aug 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Appeal decided
Council register
Reference
20/1803
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
NW2 4NT
Council
Received
22 Jun 2020
Validated
23 Jun 2020
Target date
18 Aug 2020
Decision date
21 Aug 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Appeal decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
Documents open on the Brent portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 21 Aug 2020, delegated decision by Sarah Dilley — 9 weeks from submission (1 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
22 Jun 2020
Application received
23 Jun 2020
Application validated
18 Aug 2020
Statutory target date
21 Aug 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Sarah Dilley
22 Jun 2020
Application received
23 Jun 2020
Application validated
18 Aug 2020
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
21 Aug 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Sarah Dilley
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposal by reason of insufficient evidence and information regarding identified need, use,
operation and management of the development fails to demonstrate that it is an identified need in
Brent, it is appropriate in the proposed location and would be managed appropriately. The
development is therefore inconsistent with CP 21 of the Brent Core Strategy (2010) , DMP 1 and
Criterion C and D of DMP 20 of the Brent Development Management Policies Plan (2016).
2
The proposed development with reference to ‘Units 1-6’ by reason of limited communal facilities
including no external amenity provision would result in overcrowding and poor living
accommodation for future users. The development is therefore inconsistent with DMP 1, DMP18
and DMP19 as well as Criterion B of DMP 20 of the Brent Development Management Policies
Plan (2016).
3
The proposed three bedroom property located to the rear at lower and ground floor levels would,
by reason on poor light, outlook as well as overlooking from use of the communal side alley would
result in substandard living accommodation for future occupants. The development is therefore
inconsistent with DMP 1, of the Brent Development Management Policies Plan (2016).
1
The proposal by reason of insufficient evidence and information regarding identified need, use,
operation and management of the development fails to demonstrate that it is an identified need in
Brent, it is appropriate in the proposed location and would be managed appropriately. The
development is therefore inconsistent with CP 21 of the Brent Core Strategy (2010) , DMP 1 and
Criterion C and D of DMP 20 of the Brent Development Management Policies Plan (2016).
2
The proposed development with reference to ‘Units 1-6’ by reason of limited communal facilities
including no external amenity provision would result in overcrowding and poor living
accommodation for future users. The development is therefore inconsistent with DMP 1, DMP18
and DMP19 as well as Criterion B of DMP 20 of the Brent Development Management Policies
Plan (2016).
3
The proposed three bedroom property located to the rear at lower and ground floor levels would,
by reason on poor light, outlook as well as overlooking from use of the communal side alley would
result in substandard living accommodation for future occupants. The development is therefore
inconsistent with DMP 1, of the Brent Development Management Policies Plan (2016).
Policies cited
CP21DMP20
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.