Planning application · Harrow
PL/0493/26.
84 George V Avenue, Pinner, Harrow, HA5 5SW
Full / Other Planning at 84 George V Avenue, Pinner, Harrow, HA5 5SW, received 25 Feb 2026 — refused on 27 Apr 2026 (delegated, Germaine Asabere).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHarrow profile →
Refused
Outcome
27 Apr 2026
9 wks
Decision time
1 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
11
Documents
11 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?
Redevelopment to provide single-storey self-contained studio dwelling to the rear of 84 George V Avenue (demolition of outbuilding); parking; landscaping; separate amenity space; new access; bin and cycle stores
Reference
PL/0493/26
Type
Full Planning Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA5 5SW
Ward
Council
Received
25 Feb 2026
Validated
2 Mar 2026
Target date
27 Apr 2026
Decision date
27 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Reference
PL/0493/26
Type
Full Planning Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA5 5SW
Ward
Council
Received
25 Feb 2026
Validated
2 Mar 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 Germaine Asabere — 9 weeks from submission (1 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
25 Feb 2026
Application received
2 Mar 2026
Application validated
27 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
27 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Germaine Asabere
25 Feb 2026
Application received
2 Mar 2026
Application validated
27 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
27 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Germaine Asabere
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
- The proposed new dwelling, by reason of its poor design, size, scale, proportions and siting would appear
contrived, cramped and out of keeping with the wider pattern of development to the detriment of the character
and appearance of the streetscene, and the pattern of development within the surrounding area. The proposal
would therefore be contrary to the high-quality design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework
(2024), Policies D3 and D6 of The London Plan (2021), Policies GR1 and GR10 of Harrow Local Plan 2021 –
2041 and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guide (2010).
2
- The proposed dwelling, by reason of its constrained site characteristics, layout and proximity to site
boundaries, would result in a substandard form of accommodation for future occupiers, and detrimental
impact on neighbouring residents. As a result, the proposal would fail to provide an acceptable living
environment for all and would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies D3 and
D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policy GR1 of Harrow Local Plan (2021 – 2041) and the adopted Residential
Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2010).
3
- Car parking cannot be satisfactorily provided within the curtilage of the site to meet the Council's
requirements in respect of the development, and the likely increase in on- street parking on the neighbouring
highways would be detrimental to the free flow and safety on the neighbouring highways and the amenity of
neighbouring residents, contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy T6 of The London Plan
(2021), Policies GR1 and M2 of Harrow Local Plan (2021 - 2041) and the adopted Supplementary Planning
Document: Residential Design Guide (2010).
4
- Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have
any adverse impact on the protected species, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2024),
policy G6 of the London Plan (2021) and GI3 of the Harrow Local Plan (2021-2041).
5
- In the absence of a Section 106 agreement, the proposal fails to demonstrate how it would achieve the
statutory minimum 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), as required by the Environment Act 2021. In the
absence of this information, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the development would not
result in a net loss of biodiversity or that it would deliver the required net gain. The proposal is therefore
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 proposed new dwelling, by reason of its poor design, size, scale, proportions and siting would appear
contrived, cramped and out of keeping with the wider pattern of development to the detriment of the character
and appearance of the streetscene, and the pattern of development within the surrounding area. The proposal
would therefore be contrary to the high-quality design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework
(2024), Policies D3 and D6 of The London Plan (2021), Policies GR1 and GR10 of Harrow Local Plan 2021 –
2041 and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guide (2010).
2
- The proposed dwelling, by reason of its constrained site characteristics, layout and proximity to site
boundaries, would result in a substandard form of accommodation for future occupiers, and detrimental
impact on neighbouring residents. As a result, the proposal would fail to provide an acceptable living
environment for all and would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies D3 and
D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policy GR1 of Harrow Local Plan (2021 – 2041) and the adopted Residential
Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2010).
3
- Car parking cannot be satisfactorily provided within the curtilage of the site to meet the Council's
requirements in respect of the development, and the likely increase in on- street parking on the neighbouring
highways would be detrimental to the free flow and safety on the neighbouring highways and the amenity of
neighbouring residents, contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy T6 of The London Plan
(2021), Policies GR1 and M2 of Harrow Local Plan (2021 - 2041) and the adopted Supplementary Planning
Document: Residential Design Guide (2010).
Show all 5 rows
4
- Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have
any adverse impact on the protected species, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2024),
policy G6 of the London Plan (2021) and GI3 of the Harrow Local Plan (2021-2041).
5
- In the absence of a Section 106 agreement, the proposal fails to demonstrate how it would achieve the
statutory minimum 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), as required by the Environment Act 2021. In the
absence of this information, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the development would not
result in a net loss of biodiversity or that it would deliver the required net gain. The proposal is therefore
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
D3D6GR1GR10NPPFT6M2G6GI3
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.