Planning application · Brent
26/0661.
72A High Street, London, NW10 4SJ
Full / Other Planning at 72A High Street, London, NW10 4SJ, received 16 Mar 2026 — refused on 18 May 2026 (delegated, Curtis Thompson).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBrent profile →
Refused
Outcome
18 May 2026
9 wks
Decision time
1 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
3
Documents
3 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?
Proposed conversion of first and second floor flat into 2x separate self-contained flats.
Reference
26/0661
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
NW10 4SJ
Council
Received
16 Mar 2026
Validated
23 Mar 2026
Target date
18 May 2026
Decision date
18 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
26/0661
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
NW10 4SJ
Council
Received
16 Mar 2026
Validated
23 Mar 2026
Target date
18 May 2026
Decision date
18 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
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 18 May 2026, delegated decision by Curtis Thompson — 9 weeks from submission (1 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
16 Mar 2026
Application received
23 Mar 2026
Application validated
18 May 2026
Statutory target date
18 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Curtis Thompson
16 Mar 2026
Application received
23 Mar 2026
Application validated
18 May 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
18 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Curtis Thompson
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed loss of retail is unacceptable. More specifically, given the sites location in a
Primary Shopping Frontage within a town centre location, and given the lack of information
regarding the operation of this retail space and what it is used for, the proposal has failed to
demonstrate that the loss of this retail space would not have an adverse impact on the vitality and
viability of the retail uses within the site. Therefore the proposal fails to comply with policy BE4 of
the Brent Local Plan.
2
The proposed quality of accommodation would be unacceptable. More specifically, given the
conflict between the residential uses proposed and the existing commercial retail unit at
ground-floor, the proposed enclosed front access arrangement would not provide sufficient privacy
for future occupiers of the residential units proposed. Therefore this proposed access arrangement
would fail to provide a high quality access arrangement for future occupiers, in conflict with policy
DMP1 of the Brent Local Plan.
3
The application has not been accompanied with a fire statement or a Reasonable Exception
Statement. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that proposal has been designed to be fire
safe and the application fails to comply with policy D12a of the London Plan.
1
The proposed loss of retail is unacceptable. More specifically, given the sites location in a
Primary Shopping Frontage within a town centre location, and given the lack of information
regarding the operation of this retail space and what it is used for, the proposal has failed to
demonstrate that the loss of this retail space would not have an adverse impact on the vitality and
viability of the retail uses within the site. Therefore the proposal fails to comply with policy BE4 of
the Brent Local Plan.
2
The proposed quality of accommodation would be unacceptable. More specifically, given the
conflict between the residential uses proposed and the existing commercial retail unit at
ground-floor, the proposed enclosed front access arrangement would not provide sufficient privacy
for future occupiers of the residential units proposed. Therefore this proposed access arrangement
would fail to provide a high quality access arrangement for future occupiers, in conflict with policy
DMP1 of the Brent Local Plan.
3
The application has not been accompanied with a fire statement or a Reasonable Exception
Statement. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that proposal has been designed to be fire
safe and the application fails to comply with policy D12a of the London Plan.
Policies cited
BE4DMP1D12a
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.