Planning application · Harrow
PL/1922/24.
Clear Channel, AD RIGHT 2311-9 Station Road, Harrow, HA1 2AA
Full / Other Planning at Clear Channel, AD RIGHT 2311-9 Station Road, Harrow, HA1 2AA, received 15 Jul 2024 — refused on 19 Nov 2024 (delegated, Germaine Asabere).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHarrow profile →
Refused
Outcome
19 Nov 2024
18 wks
Decision time
10 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
31
Documents
31 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?
Change of use on ground floor from pub (Sui generis) to restaurant (Use class E(b)); change of use on first floor from storage to residential unit (1 x 2 bed); external alterations
Reference
PL/1922/24
Type
Full Planning Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA1 2AA
Ward
Council
Received
15 Jul 2024
Validated
10 Sep 2024
Target date
19 Nov 2024
Decision date
19 Nov 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Reference
PL/1922/24
Type
Full Planning Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA1 2AA
Ward
Council
Received
15 Jul 2024
Validated
10 Sep 2024
Target date
19 Nov 2024
Decision date
19 Nov 2024
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 19 Nov 2024, delegated decision by Germaine Asabere — 18 weeks from submission (10 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
15 Jul 2024
Application received
10 Sep 2024
Application validated
19 Nov 2024
Statutory target date
19 Nov 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Germaine Asabere
15 Jul 2024
Application received
10 Sep 2024
Application validated
19 Nov 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
19 Nov 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Germaine Asabere
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
- The proposal would result in the loss of the public house use which provides an important local service
and would thereby significantly reduce the range of service provision available in the locality. The applicant
has failed to clearly demonstrate that it is not possible for a public house use to continue in this location as a
viable business and in the absence of marketing evidence and robust viability of the public house use, the
loss of the public house would result in the potential harmful impact on the economic viability and vitality of the
shopping parade and the positive contribution it makes to the local area. The proposal would thereby be
contrary to Policy HC7B of the London Plan (2021), Policy DM47 of the Harrow Development Management
Policies (2013), Policy LE2 of the emerging Local Plan and the policy guidance set out in the National
Planning Policy Framework (2023).
2
- The proposal due to poor plans, detailing and lack of heritage statement would harm the special character
of the existing building and appearance of the associated group listed buildings. There is not clear and
convincing justification for, nor public benefits to outweigh the identified harm, contrary to the requirements of
the NPPF. The proposal therefore conflicts with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990, Paragraphs 200 – 214 of the NPPF (2023), Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2012), Harrow
Core Strategy Policy CS1, Development Management Policies Local Plan Policy DM 7, Policy HE1 of the
emerging Local Plan, Planning Practice Guidance on Conserving and enhancing the historic environment.
1
- The proposal would result in the loss of the public house use which provides an important local service
and would thereby significantly reduce the range of service provision available in the locality. The applicant
has failed to clearly demonstrate that it is not possible for a public house use to continue in this location as a
viable business and in the absence of marketing evidence and robust viability of the public house use, the
loss of the public house would result in the potential harmful impact on the economic viability and vitality of the
shopping parade and the positive contribution it makes to the local area. The proposal would thereby be
contrary to Policy HC7B of the London Plan (2021), Policy DM47 of the Harrow Development Management
Policies (2013), Policy LE2 of the emerging Local Plan and the policy guidance set out in the National
Planning Policy Framework (2023).
2
- The proposal due to poor plans, detailing and lack of heritage statement would harm the special character
of the existing building and appearance of the associated group listed buildings. There is not clear and
convincing justification for, nor public benefits to outweigh the identified harm, contrary to the requirements of
the NPPF. The proposal therefore conflicts with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990, Paragraphs 200 – 214 of the NPPF (2023), Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2012), Harrow
Core Strategy Policy CS1, Development Management Policies Local Plan Policy DM 7, Policy HE1 of the
emerging Local Plan, Planning Practice Guidance on Conserving and enhancing the historic environment.
Policies cited
HC7BDM47LE2NPPFHC1HE1CS1DM7
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.