Planning application · Harrow
PL/2309/25.
38 Sequoia Park, Hatch End, Pinner, Harrow, HA5 4DG
Householder at 38 Sequoia Park, Hatch End, Pinner, Harrow, HA5 4DG, received 4 Sep 2025 — refused on 1 Jun 2026 by committee.
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHarrow profile →
Refused
Outcome
1 Jun 2026
39 wks
Decision time
31 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
21
Documents
21 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 and two storey front, side and rear extensions; installation of 4 rooflights to each front and rear roofslopes; front porch (demolition of garage)
Reference
PL/2309/25
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA5 4DG
Ward
Council
Received
4 Sep 2025
Validated
16 Sep 2025
Target date
1 Jun 2026
Decision date
1 Jun 2026
Decision route
Planning committee
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Reference
PL/2309/25
Type
Householder
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA5 4DG
Ward
Council
Received
4 Sep 2025
Validated
16 Sep 2025
Target date
1 Jun 2026
Decision date
1 Jun 2026
Decision route
Planning committee
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 1 Jun 2026, determined by the planning committee — 39 weeks from submission (31 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
4 Sep 2025
Application received
16 Sep 2025
Application validated
1 Jun 2026
Statutory target date
1 Jun 2026
Committee decision: Refused
4 Sep 2025
Application received
16 Sep 2025
Application validated
1 Jun 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
1 Jun 2026
Committee decision: Refused
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
- The proposed two storey side and rear extensions by reason of the rearward siting in close proximity to the
shared boundary with no 40 Sequoia Park and the change in levels between the two sites, with no 40 Sequoia
Park being on a lower level, would result in an overbearing and obtrusive form of development, which would
have an unacceptable impact on the neighbouring amenities of the occupiers at no 40 Sequoia Park with
regard to loss of outlook. In addition, the added height and massing of the roof in conjunction with the site
levels would have an unacceptable impact upon the appearance of the host dwelling and the immediate
streetscene resulting in an incongruous development that would appear at odds with the scale and heights of
houses on either side. Overall, the proposed development is contrary to the National Planning Policy
Framework (2024), Policy D3, D(7) of The London Plan (2021), policy GR1 of the Harrow Local Plan (2021-
2041) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guide (2010).
1
- The proposed two storey side and rear extensions by reason of the rearward siting in close proximity to the
shared boundary with no 40 Sequoia Park and the change in levels between the two sites, with no 40 Sequoia
Park being on a lower level, would result in an overbearing and obtrusive form of development, which would
have an unacceptable impact on the neighbouring amenities of the occupiers at no 40 Sequoia Park with
regard to loss of outlook. In addition, the added height and massing of the roof in conjunction with the site
levels would have an unacceptable impact upon the appearance of the host dwelling and the immediate
streetscene resulting in an incongruous development that would appear at odds with the scale and heights of
houses on either side. Overall, the proposed development is contrary to the National Planning Policy
Framework (2024), Policy D3, D(7) of The London Plan (2021), policy GR1 of the Harrow Local Plan (2021-
2041) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guide (2010).
Policies cited
GR1NPPF
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 (report to committee)
Determined at committee
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer (report to committee)
Show all 4 rows
Determined at committee
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.