Planning application · Harrow
PL/2606/24.
16 Elms Road, Harrow Weald, Harrow, HA3 6BQ
Full / Other Planning at 16 Elms Road, Harrow Weald, Harrow, HA3 6BQ, received 20 Sep 2024 — refused on 23 Jul 2025 (delegated, Chris Wentworth).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHarrow profile →
Refused
Outcome
23 Jul 2025
44 wks
Decision time
36 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
25
Documents
25 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?
Demolition and redevelopment to provide three storey building comprising of 6 flats (2 x 2-bed, 2 x 1-bed, and 2 x 1-bed); associated parking, refuse storage, cycle storage and amenity
Reference
PL/2606/24
Type
Full Planning Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA3 6BQ
Ward
Council
Received
20 Sep 2024
Validated
24 Feb 2025
Target date
29 May 2025
Decision date
23 Jul 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Reference
PL/2606/24
Type
Full Planning Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA3 6BQ
Ward
Council
Received
20 Sep 2024
Validated
24 Feb 2025
Target date
29 May 2025
Decision date
23 Jul 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 23 Jul 2025, delegated decision by Chris Wentworth — 44 weeks from submission (36 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
20 Sep 2024
Application received
24 Feb 2025
Application validated
29 May 2025
Statutory target date
23 Jul 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Chris Wentworth
20 Sep 2024
Application received
24 Feb 2025
Application validated
29 May 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
23 Jul 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Chris Wentworth
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
- The proposed building by reason of its excessive depth, bulk and siting would result in an inappropriate
design and form of development that would constitute overdevelopment of the site and would be incongruous
and at odds with the character of the area and the prevailing pattern of development in the streetscene,
contrary to the high quality design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023), Policy D3 (D
1) and (D 11) of The London Plan (2021), Core Policy CS1.B of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012), policy DM 1
of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) and the adopted Supplementary
Planning Document: Residential Design Guide (2010).
2
- The proposal, by reason of excessive sub-division of the rear amenity space, the isolated nature of the
amenity space from the proposed building and its poor quality access arrangements from the main building to
the communal amenity space would be at odds with the prevailing pattern of existing development in the area,
result in a poor quality residential environment for future occupiers and would be contrary to the high quality
design aspirations of National Planning Policy Framework (2023), Policies D3 (D1) and (D11) of The London
Plan (2021), Core Policy CS1.B of The Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and Policies DM1 and DM27 of the
Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
3
- The proposal would result in a net loss of biodiversity found on site and no mitigation measures have been
submitted to either address the loss or to secure a net gain in biodiversity on site. As such, the proposal would
be detrimental to the local area and environment, contrary to Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021), Core
Policy CS1.E of The Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and Policy DM20 of the Harrow Development Management
Policies Local Plan (2013).
1
- The proposed building by reason of its excessive depth, bulk and siting would result in an inappropriate
design and form of development that would constitute overdevelopment of the site and would be incongruous
and at odds with the character of the area and the prevailing pattern of development in the streetscene,
contrary to the high quality design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023), Policy D3 (D
1) and (D 11) of The London Plan (2021), Core Policy CS1.B of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012), policy DM 1
of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) and the adopted Supplementary
Planning Document: Residential Design Guide (2010).
2
- The proposal, by reason of excessive sub-division of the rear amenity space, the isolated nature of the
amenity space from the proposed building and its poor quality access arrangements from the main building to
the communal amenity space would be at odds with the prevailing pattern of existing development in the area,
result in a poor quality residential environment for future occupiers and would be contrary to the high quality
design aspirations of National Planning Policy Framework (2023), Policies D3 (D1) and (D11) of The London
Plan (2021), Core Policy CS1.B of The Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and Policies DM1 and DM27 of the
Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
3
- The proposal would result in a net loss of biodiversity found on site and no mitigation measures have been
submitted to either address the loss or to secure a net gain in biodiversity on site. As such, the proposal would
be detrimental to the local area and environment, contrary to Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021), Core
Policy CS1.E of The Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and Policy DM20 of the Harrow Development Management
Policies Local Plan (2013).
Policies cited
DM1NPPFDM27G6DM20
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.