Planning application · Harrow
PL/0279/26.
GLENGARIFF, 59 Moss Lane, Pinner, Harrow
Full / Other Planning at GLENGARIFF, 59 Moss Lane, Pinner, Harrow, received 2 Feb 2026 — refused on 29 May 2026 (delegated, Lee Connor).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHarrow profile →
Refused
Outcome
29 May 2026
17 wks
Decision time
9 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
16
Documents
16 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?
External alterations including rendering, timber framing and replacement windows (part retrospective)
Reference
PL/0279/26
Type
Full Planning Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Ward
Council
Received
2 Feb 2026
Validated
1 Apr 2026
Target date
27 May 2026
Decision date
29 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Reference
PL/0279/26
Type
Full Planning Application
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Ward
Council
Received
2 Feb 2026
Validated
1 Apr 2026
Target date
27 May 2026
Decision date
29 May 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 29 May 2026, delegated decision by Lee Connor — 17 weeks from submission (9 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
2 Feb 2026
Application received
1 Apr 2026
Application validated
27 May 2026
Statutory target date
29 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Lee Connor
2 Feb 2026
Application received
1 Apr 2026
Application validated
27 May 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
29 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Lee Connor
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
- The replacement windows and associated external alterations to the façade of the building by reason of
inappropriate scale, proportions, detailing, and design, together with the removal of original architectural
features has resulted in an unsympathetic and visually harmful alteration to the host building. The
development fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding Moss Lane
Conservation Area and causes harm to the architectural integrity and proportions of the building. As such, the
development is contrary to the statutory duty under Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990, section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy HC1 of
the London Plan (2021), Policies GR1 and HE1 of the Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041 (2026), and guidance in
the Moss Lane Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy (2009).
1
- The replacement windows and associated external alterations to the façade of the building by reason of
inappropriate scale, proportions, detailing, and design, together with the removal of original architectural
features has resulted in an unsympathetic and visually harmful alteration to the host building. The
development fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding Moss Lane
Conservation Area and causes harm to the architectural integrity and proportions of the building. As such, the
development is contrary to the statutory duty under Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990, section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy HC1 of
the London Plan (2021), Policies GR1 and HE1 of the Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041 (2026), and guidance in
the Moss Lane Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy (2009).
Policies cited
National Planning Policy Framework 16HC1GR1HE1NPPF
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.