# 28A Ridley Road, London NW10 (external rear staircase to first-floor flat)

- **Decision:** allowed, 1 October 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Perrins
- **Authority:** Brent (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6011602
- **Application reference:** 26/0191
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** New rear external staircase leading to a new side door to a first-floor flat
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** DP3
- **Development plan policies:** Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 DMP1
- **Main issues:** character and appearance
- **Tags:** tier-2, limited-nppf-engagement, old-wording-slip, transitional-no-consultation

## Summary
An external metal staircase giving a first-floor flat access to the rear garden of a Victorian terrace in Brent was allowed. The inspector found it narrow, lightweight and discreetly sited against the outrigger, so it would not harm the host property or the area, and it accorded with local Policy DMP1 and the design policies of the Framework.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "I am satisfied, however, that the relevant policy position for this appeal is not materially different and that its publication has not prejudiced any party" (DL ¶2).
- **Design: accord.** "The Framework seeks development that is sympathetic to local character, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change" (DL ¶6). This is the December 2024 wording; the slip is incidental, as no harm was found.
- **No harm.** "the absence of similar features in the vicinity does not in itself mean that a proposal would cause harm" (DL ¶9).

## What made the difference
The staircase could not be seen from the street, sat below the eaves in a side passage, and would be read against rear elevations that already vary.

## Transferable points
- Novelty is not harm: a feature absent from neighbouring properties is assessed on its own effect (DL ¶9).
- Precedent arguments carry little weight where acceptability turns on site-specific siting (DL ¶13).

## Policy findings
- **DP3: accord.** accords with "the design policies of the Framework", no policy number given; narrow, lightweight black steel stair tucked into the side passage of the outrigger, below the eaves (DL 6-10)
- **L2(1)(d)(ii): pass.** mapped: Framework not cited; no unacceptable overlooking of the ground-floor flat; garden rights are a private matter (DL 12)

## Key facts
- Staircase about 0.85 m wide with a 4.5 m main flight (DL 5)
- Absence of similar staircases nearby "does not in itself mean that a proposal would cause harm" (DL 9)
- Framework design aim paraphrased in December 2024 wording, "sympathetic to local character, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change" (DL 6)
- Parties not consulted; policy position "not materially different" (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011602
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1fdf8b73-210a-4c4a-8810-48cd7a3db66e

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011602.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.