Planning application · Brent
26/0188.
Flat 1, 80 Brondesbury Villas, London, NW6 6AD
Full / Other Planning at Flat 1, 80 Brondesbury Villas, London, NW6 6AD, received 26 Jan 2026 — refused on 7 May 2026 (delegated, Hebe Leung).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBrent profile →
Refused
Outcome
7 May 2026
14 wks
Decision time
6 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
28
Documents
28 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?
Proposed single-storey side-to-rear extension, alteration to rear ground level, erection of a single-storey outbuilding for use as garden office and replacement of UPVC windows to front and rear and replacement of rear UPVC door to basement flat
Reference
26/0188
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
NW6 6AD
Ward
Council
Received
26 Jan 2026
Validated
12 Mar 2026
Target date
7 May 2026
Decision date
7 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
26/0188
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
NW6 6AD
Ward
Council
Received
26 Jan 2026
Validated
12 Mar 2026
Target date
7 May 2026
Decision date
7 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
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 7 May 2026, delegated decision by Hebe Leung — 14 weeks from submission (6 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
26 Jan 2026
Application received
12 Mar 2026
Application validated
7 May 2026
Statutory target date
7 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Hebe Leung
26 Jan 2026
Application received
12 Mar 2026
Application validated
7 May 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
7 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Hebe Leung
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed rear extension, by reason of its design, scale and siting, would create an inner
room served by an inadequate lightwell, resulting in insufficient levels of daylight and sunlight. This
would lead to an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupiers, contrary to Policy
DMP1 of the Brent Local Plan.
2
The proposed rear garden outbuilding, by reason of its design, size and siting, would appear
overly prominent and would result in an excessive increase in built form within the rear garden. As
a result, the development would have an unacceptably harmful impact on the character and
appearance of the host dwelling, the surrounding locality, and the Kilburn Conservation Area,
failing to preserve or enhance its character and appearance. The proposal is therefore contrary to
Policies DMP1 and BHC1 of the Brent Local Plan and the guidance set out in the Buildings in
Gardens within Conservation Areas SPG20.
3
In the absence of sufficient information relating to surface water drainage, flood risk mitigation and
biodiversity impacts, it is unable to conclude that the proposal would not increase flood risk or
result in harm to biodiversity. The development therefore fails to demonstrate compliance with
Policy BSUI4 of the Brent Local Plan.
1
The proposed rear extension, by reason of its design, scale and siting, would create an inner
room served by an inadequate lightwell, resulting in insufficient levels of daylight and sunlight. This
would lead to an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupiers, contrary to Policy
DMP1 of the Brent Local Plan.
2
The proposed rear garden outbuilding, by reason of its design, size and siting, would appear
overly prominent and would result in an excessive increase in built form within the rear garden. As
a result, the development would have an unacceptably harmful impact on the character and
appearance of the host dwelling, the surrounding locality, and the Kilburn Conservation Area,
failing to preserve or enhance its character and appearance. The proposal is therefore contrary to
Policies DMP1 and BHC1 of the Brent Local Plan and the guidance set out in the Buildings in
Gardens within Conservation Areas SPG20.
3
In the absence of sufficient information relating to surface water drainage, flood risk mitigation and
biodiversity impacts, it is unable to conclude that the proposal would not increase flood risk or
result in harm to biodiversity. The development therefore fails to demonstrate compliance with
Policy BSUI4 of the Brent Local Plan.
Policies cited
DMP1BHC1BSUI4
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.