Planning application · Harrow
P/2409/23.
220 Byron Road, Wealdstone, Harrow
Full / Other Planning at 220 Byron Road, Wealdstone, Harrow, received 21 Aug 2023 — refused on 23 Oct 2023 (delegated, Nicola Rankin).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHarrow profile →
Refused
Outcome
23 Oct 2023
9 wks
Decision time
1 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
7
Documents
7 linked
—
Objections
not captured
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Harrow 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?
First floor side extension; two rear dormers; installation of two rooflights in front roofslope
Reference
P/2409/23
Type
Full Planning Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Ward
Council
Received
21 Aug 2023
Validated
29 Aug 2023
Target date
24 Oct 2023
Decision date
23 Oct 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Premises record
Council register
Reference
P/2409/23
Type
Full Planning Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Ward
Council
Received
21 Aug 2023
Validated
29 Aug 2023
Target date
24 Oct 2023
Decision date
23 Oct 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Premises record
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Harrow portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 23 Oct 2023, delegated decision by Nicola Rankin — 9 weeks from submission (1 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
21 Aug 2023
Application received
29 Aug 2023
Application validated
24 Oct 2023
Statutory target date
23 Oct 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Nicola Rankin
21 Aug 2023
Application received
29 Aug 2023
Application validated
24 Oct 2023
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
23 Oct 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Nicola Rankin
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
- The proposed first floor side extension and northern rear dormer in conjunction with the existing first floor side
extension and proposed roof alterations, by reason of their prominent siting, excessive width and unsympathetic and
contrived design, would introduce a visually dominant, obtrusive, and incongruous form of development that would fail
to respect the character and appearance of the subject dwellinghouse and the pattern of development in the locality,
contrary to the high quality design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023), Policy D3 D.1 and
D.11 of the London Plan (2021), Core Policy CS1 B of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012), policy DM 1 of the Harrow
Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document:
Residential Design Guide (2010).
2
- The proposed bedrooms for flats 4 and 5 within the roof, by reason of failure to demonstrate appropriate floor to
ceiling height, would give rise to cramped and poor quality living conditions for the existing and future occupiers of the
flats, contrary to the high quality design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023), Policy D3. D(7)
and D6 of The London Plan (2021), Policies DM 1 and DM 26 of the Harrow Development Management Plan Local
Policies (2013) and the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guide (2010).
3
- The proposal, by reason of failure to demonstrate appropriate stacking relationship between first floor living kitchen
/dining rooms and ground floor flats, would give rise to unacceptable noise and general disturbance to the existing
and future occupiers of the ground floor flats, to the detriment of their residential amenity, contrary to the high quality
design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023), Policy D3 D(7) and D6 of The London Plan
(2021), Policies DM 1 and DM 26 of the Harrow Development Management Plan Local Policies (2013) and the
Adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guide (2010).
1
- The proposed first floor side extension and northern rear dormer in conjunction with the existing first floor side
extension and proposed roof alterations, by reason of their prominent siting, excessive width and unsympathetic and
contrived design, would introduce a visually dominant, obtrusive, and incongruous form of development that would fail
to respect the character and appearance of the subject dwellinghouse and the pattern of development in the locality,
contrary to the high quality design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023), Policy D3 D.1 and
D.11 of the London Plan (2021), Core Policy CS1 B of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012), policy DM 1 of the Harrow
Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document:
Residential Design Guide (2010).
2
- The proposed bedrooms for flats 4 and 5 within the roof, by reason of failure to demonstrate appropriate floor to
ceiling height, would give rise to cramped and poor quality living conditions for the existing and future occupiers of the
flats, contrary to the high quality design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023), Policy D3. D(7)
and D6 of The London Plan (2021), Policies DM 1 and DM 26 of the Harrow Development Management Plan Local
Policies (2013) and the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guide (2010).
3
- The proposal, by reason of failure to demonstrate appropriate stacking relationship between first floor living kitchen
/dining rooms and ground floor flats, would give rise to unacceptable noise and general disturbance to the existing
and future occupiers of the ground floor flats, to the detriment of their residential amenity, contrary to the high quality
design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023), Policy D3 D(7) and D6 of The London Plan
(2021), Policies DM 1 and DM 26 of the Harrow Development Management Plan Local Policies (2013) and the
Adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guide (2010).
Policies cited
London Plan 11DM1NPPFD6DM26
Public response
Comment counts were not captured for this application.
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.