A Brent paving appeal has been allowed after a Planning Inspector found that a modest rear-garden scheme could deal with surface water safely if porous paving was secured by condition. The decision concerns a maisonette on Brondesbury Road in north-west London and was issued on 30th October 2026.
The applicant, Louise Mendoza, proposed a bicycle shed and replacement of part of the grassed garden with paving slabs, while keeping planted borders. Inspector R Standfield accepted the amended scheme despite the council’s drainage concerns, with conditions requiring details of porous paving and a biodiversity enhancement plan.
The Brent paving appeal matters because the same property had previously lost an appeal over a more extensive paving proposal. This time the reduced paved area, retained planting and enforceable drainage condition made the difference. It also shows why a statutory biodiversity net gain exemption does not necessarily prevent local biodiversity improvements being secured by planning condition.
Why the Brent paving appeal succeeded
The scheme involved a rear garden wrapping around a lightwell at a flat on Brondesbury Road. Parts of the garden were already paved, while other areas were grassed and planted. Roof drainage reached an existing open gully. The main question was not the design of the bicycle shed, which the council accepted, but whether replacing more grass with paving would manage rainfall adequately.
At a site visit in reasonably wet weather, Inspector Standfield observed no standing water. That did not mean drainage was irrelevant: the proposed hard surfacing would still remove some land capable of absorbing rainfall and potentially send more water into the public sewerage system. Policy BSU14 of the Brent Local Plan requires sustainable drainage measures wherever feasible.
The Brent paving appeal was therefore decided on the details of water management rather than a broad right to pave a garden. The applicant’s revised drawings showed a shallow fall to a concrete channel feeding the existing gully, while leaving planted borders. The Inspector considered that additional measures, especially porous surfacing, could be made a condition of permission.
Porous paving was central to the Inspector’s decision
The Inspector explained: The use of porous paving could control and reduce surface water run-off
. The applicant accepted that condition. The approved scheme requires details of porous paving to be submitted to the council before paving starts, then the development must follow those approved details and retain them.
That wording matters. An applicant cannot assume ordinary impermeable concrete slabs would satisfy the permission simply because an approved layout shows paved areas. The actual construction and drainage specification are part of what the condition will control. The difference between impermeable and permeable hard surfacing can change both planning impacts and the final scope of authorised works.
For context, our guide to hard surfaces and driveway drainage explains the distinct permitted development rules that can apply around a dwellinghouse. This appeal involved a maisonette and an express planning application, so it should not be read as confirming that every flat garden has the same householder permitted development rights.
Why an earlier refusal did not determine the new scheme
A previous appeal at the property, reference APP/T5150/W/23/3326154, had been dismissed because of inadequate surface-water arrangements for a larger paved area. The October proposal reduced the extent of paving and retained more landscaped ground. It also offered an engineered fall and channel leading to the existing drain, with porous paving secured by condition.
The Brent paving appeal shows how useful a careful response to an earlier Inspector’s reasons can be. The earlier refusal was material but did not prohibit every future proposal. A materially improved design and conditions capable of dealing with the remaining harm allowed the new Inspector to reach a different outcome without contradicting the earlier assessment.
The earlier appeal was an Inspector decision, not a court judgment creating a rule for every London garden. What matters for future applications is the evidence of surface permeability, where rainwater will go, whether any sewer connection is appropriate and whether the relevant conditions meet the normal planning tests.
Biodiversity conditions despite a statutory exemption
The Inspector recorded that the nature and scale of the proposal meant it was exempt from the statutory biodiversity net gain regime. However, Brent Local Plan Policy BGI1 seeks a biodiversity improvement from development. The decision therefore still requires a biodiversity enhancement plan to be submitted and approved before works begin.
The statutory scheme and local planning policies should not be conflated. Statutory biodiversity net gain normally involves a specified percentage and prescribed legal process where applicable; a local policy may separately support proportionate habitat or planting enhancements. Our biodiversity net gain guide explains the exemptions and how they differ from other environmental requirements.
The Brent paving appeal did not impose a blanket ten per cent statutory gain requirement. It imposed a specific condition for enhancement details, with planting replacement obligations if approved planting is lost within five years. Applicants should read the condition actually imposed rather than assume an exemption removes all ecological responsibilities under the development plan.
Which planning conditions were imposed?
The permission contains four conditions. Alongside the standard three-year commencement period and approved-plan reference, the applicant must obtain approval of a biodiversity enhancement plan before commencing development. Details of porous paving must be agreed before paving begins and that surface must be retained as approved.
The council also suggested that the bike shed materials be subject to separate approval, but the Inspector did not consider that necessary given the nature, size and position of the structure. The paving was already to be agreed under the drainage condition. Our planning conditions guide explains why a useful condition must also be necessary, precise and enforceable.
Another point in the Brent paving appeal concerns objections that additional paving might cause localised warming in hot weather. The Inspector found the limited area, retained planting and constrained direct sunlight meant there was no substantive evidence that such harm would occur. The issue was considered but did not change the planning balance.
Lessons for garden paving proposals
The practical lesson is to assess drainage before finalising the landscaping layout. Keeping planted borders, reducing the hard-surfaced area and specifying how water will be managed can make a material difference. A condition may resolve a limited technical issue, but it will not necessarily rescue a proposal where the fundamental effect is unacceptable.
The Brent paving appeal also shows why an application should distinguish the bike store from the groundworks around it. Here the shed itself was not contentious; the potential loss of infiltration was. Applicants with flats or maisonettes should check the extent of their permitted development rights carefully rather than relying on advice written solely for dwellinghouses.
Official decision and sources
Inspector R Standfield allowed Planning Inspectorate appeal 6011735 on 30th October 2026, concerning London Borough of Brent application 26/0500. The short Inspector quotation is reproduced from the official decision under the Open Government Licence v3.0. National guidance on biodiversity net gain exemptions provides the wider statutory context. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments