Planning application · Brent
26/0574.
54B & 54C Craven Park, London, NW10 8QL
Full / Other Planning at 54B & 54C Craven Park, London, NW10 8QL, received 6 Mar 2026 — refused on 4 Jun 2026 (delegated, Parag Dhanani).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBrent profile →
Refused
Outcome
4 Jun 2026
13 wks
Decision time
5 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
6
Documents
6 linked
1
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?
Demolition of existing rear dormer and proposed first-floor rear extension and rear dormer extension to flats
Reference
26/0574
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
NW10 8QL
Ward
Council
Received
6 Mar 2026
Validated
9 Apr 2026
Target date
4 Jun 2026
Decision date
4 Jun 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
26/0574
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
NW10 8QL
Ward
Council
Received
6 Mar 2026
Validated
9 Apr 2026
Target date
4 Jun 2026
Decision date
4 Jun 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 4 Jun 2026, delegated decision by Parag Dhanani — 13 weeks from submission (5 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
6 Mar 2026
Application received
9 Apr 2026
Application validated
4 Jun 2026
Statutory target date
4 Jun 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Parag Dhanani
6 Mar 2026
Application received
9 Apr 2026
Application validated
4 Jun 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
4 Jun 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Parag Dhanani
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The application is supported by inaccurate and insufficient drawings and information, which fail to
clearly represent the existing site, including its roof form, internal layout and existing use. As a
result, the Local Planning Authority cannot undertake a full and robust assessment of the
proposal or its impacts on character, appearance, and neighbouring amenity. The proposal
therefore fails to demonstrate compliance with Policy DMP1 of the Brent Local Plan (2019–2041).
2
The rear dormer and associated roof alterations (as shown on the submitted plans), by reason of
their siting, excessive scale and prominence, would create an incongruous and visually intrusive
roof form, resulting in an overly dominant, cluttered and uncharacteristic roofscape. This would
harm the character and appearance of the host property and wider area, contrary to Policies
DMP1 and BD1 of the Brent Local Plan (2019–2041) and Brent’s Residential Extensions and
Alterations SPD (2025).
DocFDN
Ref: 26/0574 Page 2 of 3
1
The application is supported by inaccurate and insufficient drawings and information, which fail to
clearly represent the existing site, including its roof form, internal layout and existing use. As a
result, the Local Planning Authority cannot undertake a full and robust assessment of the
proposal or its impacts on character, appearance, and neighbouring amenity. The proposal
therefore fails to demonstrate compliance with Policy DMP1 of the Brent Local Plan (2019–2041).
2
The rear dormer and associated roof alterations (as shown on the submitted plans), by reason of
their siting, excessive scale and prominence, would create an incongruous and visually intrusive
roof form, resulting in an overly dominant, cluttered and uncharacteristic roofscape. This would
harm the character and appearance of the host property and wider area, contrary to Policies
DMP1 and BD1 of the Brent Local Plan (2019–2041) and Brent’s Residential Extensions and
Alterations SPD (2025).
DocFDN
Ref: 26/0574 Page 2 of 3
Policies cited
DMP1BD1
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
1
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
1
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.