Planning application · Harrow
PL/0143/26.
Full / Other Planning at 89 Hide Road, Harrow, HA1 4SE, received 19 Jan 2026 — refused on 16 Mar 2026 (delegated, Lee Connor).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHarrow profile →
Refused
Outcome
16 Mar 2026
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
22
Documents
22 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?
Conversion of dwelling into two flats (1 x 1 bed & 1 x 2 beds); single and two storey rear extension; external alterations; parking; separate amenity space; bin storage
Reference
PL/0143/26
Type
Full Planning Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA1 4SE
Ward
Council
Received
19 Jan 2026
Target date
16 Mar 2026
Decision date
16 Mar 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Reference
PL/0143/26
Type
Full Planning Application
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA1 4SE
Ward
Council
Received
19 Jan 2026
Target date
16 Mar 2026
Decision date
16 Mar 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
Documents open on the Harrow portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 16 Mar 2026, delegated decision by Lee Connor — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
19 Jan 2026
Application received
16 Mar 2026
Statutory target date
16 Mar 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Lee Connor
19 Jan 2026
Application received
16 Mar 2026
Statutory target date
16 Mar 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Lee Connor
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
for the following reason(s):
Site Map:
Refusal Reasons:
1 - The proposal development, by reason of the failure to provide a 3-bedroom, 4 person or larger family-size
unit as part of the scheme would have a detrimental impact on the boroughs existing and future housing
needs and ability to deliver additional family sized dwellings households to replace loss of existing stock. As
such, the failure to provide an complementary three (3) bed residential unit is contrary to Policy H10(8)
(Housing size mix) of the London Plan (2021) and policy H02 (conversion and redevelopment of dwellings) of
the Harrow emerging Local plan (2021-2041).
2 - The proposal by reason of the low PTAL (2) level and access concerns from the adopted highways are
considered to result in a development with poor sustainable transport options to the detriment of future
occupiers and parking capacity. As such, the development is contrary to policy DM1 of the development
Management policies (2013) and policy H02 (conversion and redevelopment of dwellings) of the Harrow
emerging Local plan (2021-2041).
1
for the following reason(s):
Site Map:
Refusal Reasons:
1 - The proposal development, by reason of the failure to provide a 3-bedroom, 4 person or larger family-size
unit as part of the scheme would have a detrimental impact on the boroughs existing and future housing
needs and ability to deliver additional family sized dwellings households to replace loss of existing stock. As
such, the failure to provide an complementary three (3) bed residential unit is contrary to Policy H10(8)
(Housing size mix) of the London Plan (2021) and policy H02 (conversion and redevelopment of dwellings) of
the Harrow emerging Local plan (2021-2041).
2 - The proposal by reason of the low PTAL (2) level and access concerns from the adopted highways are
considered to result in a development with poor sustainable transport options to the detriment of future
occupiers and parking capacity. As such, the development is contrary to policy DM1 of the development
Management policies (2013) and policy H02 (conversion and redevelopment of dwellings) of the Harrow
emerging Local plan (2021-2041).
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.