Planning application · Harrow
PL/2902/25.
61 West End Avenue, Pinner, Harrow, HA5 1BN
Householder at 61 West End Avenue, Pinner, Harrow, HA5 1BN, received 7 Nov 2025 — refused on 2 Jan 2026 (delegated, Kanchan Sharma).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHarrow profile →
Refused
Outcome
2 Jan 2026
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
17
Documents
17 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 story rear extension (Demolition of ground floor rear bay windows)
Reference
PL/2902/25
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA5 1BN
Ward
Council
Received
7 Nov 2025
Target date
2 Jan 2026
Decision date
2 Jan 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Reference
PL/2902/25
Type
Householder
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA5 1BN
Ward
Council
Received
7 Nov 2025
Target date
2 Jan 2026
Decision date
2 Jan 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 2 Jan 2026, delegated decision by Kanchan Sharma — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
7 Nov 2025
Application received
2 Jan 2026
Statutory target date
2 Jan 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Kanchan Sharma
7 Nov 2025
Application received
2 Jan 2026
Statutory target date
2 Jan 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Kanchan Sharma
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
- The proposed development due to its excessive scale and bulk and unsympathetic design would give rise
to an unduly obtrusive and incongruous extension which would fail to respect the scale of the subject dwelling
and would not preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the locally listed building, to the
detriment of the character and appearance of the host building, locality and the visual amenities of the
neighbouring occupiers, contrary to the high quality design aspirations of the National Planning Policy
Framework (2024), Policies D3 D.1, D.11,D.12 and D.7 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021), Core Policy CS1
(B) and D of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012, policies DM 1 and DM 7 of the Harrow Development
Management Policies Local Plan (2013) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Residential
Design Guide (2010).
Date of Decision: 02-01-2026
1
- The proposed development due to its excessive scale and bulk and unsympathetic design would give rise
to an unduly obtrusive and incongruous extension which would fail to respect the scale of the subject dwelling
and would not preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the locally listed building, to the
detriment of the character and appearance of the host building, locality and the visual amenities of the
neighbouring occupiers, contrary to the high quality design aspirations of the National Planning Policy
Framework (2024), Policies D3 D.1, D.11,D.12 and D.7 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021), Core Policy CS1
(B) and D of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012, policies DM 1 and DM 7 of the Harrow Development
Management Policies Local Plan (2013) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Residential
Design Guide (2010).
Date of Decision: 02-01-2026
Policies cited
London Plan 7HC1DM1DM7NPPF
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.