Planning application · Harrow
PL/2112/24.
85 Albury Drive, Pinner, Harrow, HA5 3RL
Full / Other Planning at 85 Albury Drive, Pinner, Harrow, HA5 3RL, received 30 Jul 2024 — refused on 10 Apr 2025 (delegated, Kimry Schlacter).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHarrow profile →
Refused
Outcome
10 Apr 2025
36 wks
Decision time
28 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?
Conversion of dwelling into three flats (2 X 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed); single storey front extension; single and two storey rear extension; alterations to roof; rear dormer; rooflight in rear roofslope; conversion of garage to habitable room; external alterations; parking; landscaping; separate and shar
Reference
PL/2112/24
Type
Full Planning Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA5 3RL
Ward
Council
Received
30 Jul 2024
Validated
17 Oct 2024
Target date
12 Dec 2024
Decision date
10 Apr 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Reference
PL/2112/24
Type
Full Planning Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA5 3RL
Ward
Council
Received
30 Jul 2024
Validated
17 Oct 2024
Target date
12 Dec 2024
Decision date
10 Apr 2025
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 10 Apr 2025, delegated decision by Kimry Schlacter — 36 weeks from submission (28 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
30 Jul 2024
Application received
17 Oct 2024
Application validated
12 Dec 2024
Statutory target date
10 Apr 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Kimry Schlacter
30 Jul 2024
Application received
17 Oct 2024
Application validated
12 Dec 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
10 Apr 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Kimry Schlacter
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
- The proposed development, by reason of the excessive number of occupiers that it accommodates
together with cramped and poor internal layout, lack of defensive space and privacy for the ground floor front
windows, lack of private amenity space provision for Flat C, and the inadequate, cramped access to the rear
garden arising from the construction of the single storey side extension and the resulting loss of the existing
access along the western flank of the building, represents an overly intensive use of the site which would be
likely to give rise to undue levels of disturbance and noise to adjoining occupiers, as well as a cramped and
poor standard of living accommodation for future occupiers, which would not be practical or functional, be
accessible, and would not have appropriate and satisfactory privacy and amenity, to the detriment of the living
conditions of the future and neighbouring occupiers of this development. The development is therefore
contrary to the high design standards of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies D3.D(5),(7)
and (9), D5.B, D6, D11 and D14 of The London Plan (2021), Policy CS1.K of the Harrow and policies DM1,
DM2.A(d), DM26 and DM27 of the Development Management Policies, the London Planning Guidance:
Housing Design Standards (2023), and the Supplemental Planning Document: Residential Design Guide
(2010).
2
- The proposal, by reason of the inadequate access between the front and rear curtilage arising from the
construction of the single storey side extension and the resulting loss of the existing access along the western
flank of the building, would fail to adequately serve the functionality of the proposed development and would
fail to provide satisfactory cycle storage and waste storage for the development, and for that reason would not
accord with policies DM42 and DM45 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan.
3
-The proposed development, by reason of its siting in local surface water flood zone 3a and a critical
drainage area, in the absence of an adequate Flood Risk Assessment to assess the future impacts and
provide adequate mitigation measures, would be likely to result in the displacement of water onto adjacent
land and fail to provide resilience to flooding, to the detriment of the safety of future occupiers of the
application site and adjacent sites, contrary to policy CS1.U of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012), policy SI 12
of the London Plan (2021) and policies DM9 and DM10 of the Harrow Development Management Policies
Local Plan (2013).
4
- The proposed development, by reason of its siting and proximity to the designated Site of Importance for
Conservation (SINC), and in the absence of an appropriate ecological and Biodiversity Net Gain assessment
and mitigation measures to off-set the impacts of the proposed development, would be likely to result in harm
to the SINC and its flora and fauna, contrary to Policy G6 of The London Plan (2021) and Policies DM20 and
DM21 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
1
- The proposed development, by reason of the excessive number of occupiers that it accommodates
together with cramped and poor internal layout, lack of defensive space and privacy for the ground floor front
windows, lack of private amenity space provision for Flat C, and the inadequate, cramped access to the rear
garden arising from the construction of the single storey side extension and the resulting loss of the existing
access along the western flank of the building, represents an overly intensive use of the site which would be
likely to give rise to undue levels of disturbance and noise to adjoining occupiers, as well as a cramped and
poor standard of living accommodation for future occupiers, which would not be practical or functional, be
accessible, and would not have appropriate and satisfactory privacy and amenity, to the detriment of the living
conditions of the future and neighbouring occupiers of this development. The development is therefore
contrary to the high design standards of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies D3.D(5),(7)
and (9), D5.B, D6, D11 and D14 of The London Plan (2021), Policy CS1.K of the Harrow and policies DM1,
DM2.A(d), DM26 and DM27 of the Development Management Policies, the London Planning Guidance:
Housing Design Standards (2023), and the Supplemental Planning Document: Residential Design Guide
(2010).
2
- The proposal, by reason of the inadequate access between the front and rear curtilage arising from the
construction of the single storey side extension and the resulting loss of the existing access along the western
flank of the building, would fail to adequately serve the functionality of the proposed development and would
fail to provide satisfactory cycle storage and waste storage for the development, and for that reason would not
accord with policies DM42 and DM45 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan.
3
-The proposed development, by reason of its siting in local surface water flood zone 3a and a critical
drainage area, in the absence of an adequate Flood Risk Assessment to assess the future impacts and
provide adequate mitigation measures, would be likely to result in the displacement of water onto adjacent
land and fail to provide resilience to flooding, to the detriment of the safety of future occupiers of the
application site and adjacent sites, contrary to policy CS1.U of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012), policy SI 12
of the London Plan (2021) and policies DM9 and DM10 of the Harrow Development Management Policies
Local Plan (2013).
Show all 4 rows
4
- The proposed development, by reason of its siting and proximity to the designated Site of Importance for
Conservation (SINC), and in the absence of an appropriate ecological and Biodiversity Net Gain assessment
and mitigation measures to off-set the impacts of the proposed development, would be likely to result in harm
to the SINC and its flora and fauna, contrary to Policy G6 of The London Plan (2021) and Policies DM20 and
DM21 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
Policies cited
D6D11D14A(d)DM26DM27NPPFDM42DM45SI12DM9DM10G6DM20DM21
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.