Planning application · Harrow
PL/0226/26.
8 Trafalgar Terrace, Harrow On The Hill, Harrow, HA1 3EU
Householder at 8 Trafalgar Terrace, Harrow On The Hill, Harrow, HA1 3EU, received 27 Jan 2026 — refused on 27 Apr 2026 (delegated, Jonathan Kwok).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHarrow profile →
Refused
Outcome
27 Apr 2026
13 wks
Decision time
5 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
28
Documents
28 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?
Single storey rear extension; installation of rooflights to front and rear roofslopes; installation of fence to rear boundary
Reference
PL/0226/26
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA1 3EU
Council
Received
27 Jan 2026
Validated
2 Feb 2026
Target date
27 Apr 2026
Decision date
27 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Reference
PL/0226/26
Type
Householder
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA1 3EU
Council
Received
27 Jan 2026
Validated
2 Feb 2026
Target date
27 Apr 2026
Decision date
27 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Harrow portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 27 Apr 2026, delegated decision by Jonathan Kwok — 13 weeks from submission (5 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
27 Jan 2026
Application received
2 Feb 2026
Application validated
27 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
27 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Jonathan Kwok
27 Jan 2026
Application received
2 Feb 2026
Application validated
27 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
27 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Jonathan Kwok
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
- The proposal by reason of the excessive number and size of the front and rear rooflights on the main roof
and the bulk, design and massing of the single storey rear extension, would give rise to a visually obtrusive
and unsympathetic development which would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of
the existing dwelling and streetscene, as well as the setting of the Harrow on the Hill Village Conservation
Area. There are no public benefits identified that would overcome the less than substantial harm to the
designated heritage assets. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the relevant provisions of the
National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies D3 (D1, D11, D12) and HC1 of the London Plan (2021),
Policies GR1 and HE1 of the Harrow Local Plan (2021-2041), the adopted Supplementary Planning
Document: Residential Design Guide (2010) and the Harrow on the Hill Village Conservation Area Appraisal
and Management Strategy (2008).
2
- The proposed single storey rear extension, by reason of its siting, depth, height and massing, would result
in a form of development that is unduly dominant and visually intrusive and would give rise to an adverse
overbearing impact, sense of enclosure and loss of light and outlook for the neighbouring occupiers at 7
Trafalgar Terrace, to the detriment of their residential amenities, contrary to the National Planning Policy
Framework (2024), policies D3 (D7) of the London Plan (2021) and GR1C of the Harrow Local Plan (2021-
2041).
3
- Insufficient information has been provided to enable an assessment of the potential impacts of the
proposed loft conversion and associated rooflights on protected bat species. In the absence of an appropriate
bat survey and supporting ecological assessment, it has not been demonstrated that the development would
avoid disturbance to, or harm to, bats or their roosting, foraging, or commuting habitats. The proposal
therefore fails to adequately demonstrate that protected species would not be adversely affected, contrary to
the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021), and Policy GI3 of the
Harrow Local Plan (2021–2041),
1
- The proposal by reason of the excessive number and size of the front and rear rooflights on the main roof
and the bulk, design and massing of the single storey rear extension, would give rise to a visually obtrusive
and unsympathetic development which would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of
the existing dwelling and streetscene, as well as the setting of the Harrow on the Hill Village Conservation
Area. There are no public benefits identified that would overcome the less than substantial harm to the
designated heritage assets. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the relevant provisions of the
National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies D3 (D1, D11, D12) and HC1 of the London Plan (2021),
Policies GR1 and HE1 of the Harrow Local Plan (2021-2041), the adopted Supplementary Planning
Document: Residential Design Guide (2010) and the Harrow on the Hill Village Conservation Area Appraisal
and Management Strategy (2008).
2
- The proposed single storey rear extension, by reason of its siting, depth, height and massing, would result
in a form of development that is unduly dominant and visually intrusive and would give rise to an adverse
overbearing impact, sense of enclosure and loss of light and outlook for the neighbouring occupiers at 7
Trafalgar Terrace, to the detriment of their residential amenities, contrary to the National Planning Policy
Framework (2024), policies D3 (D7) of the London Plan (2021) and GR1C of the Harrow Local Plan (2021-
2041).
3
- Insufficient information has been provided to enable an assessment of the potential impacts of the
proposed loft conversion and associated rooflights on protected bat species. In the absence of an appropriate
bat survey and supporting ecological assessment, it has not been demonstrated that the development would
avoid disturbance to, or harm to, bats or their roosting, foraging, or commuting habitats. The proposal
therefore fails to adequately demonstrate that protected species would not be adversely affected, contrary to
the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021), and Policy GI3 of the
Harrow Local Plan (2021–2041),
Policies cited
HC1GR1HE1NPPFGR1CG6GI3
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.