Planning application · Harrow
PL/3329/25.
3 Reynolds Drive, Edgware, Harrow, HA8 5PU
Householder at 3 Reynolds Drive, Edgware, Harrow, HA8 5PU, received 22 Dec 2025 — refused on 2 Apr 2026 (delegated, Marcus Boddy).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHarrow profile →
Refused
Outcome
2 Apr 2026
14 wks
Decision time
6 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
15
Documents
15 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 storey side to rear extension; front porch (retrospective)
Reference
PL/3329/25
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA8 5PU
Ward
Council
Received
22 Dec 2025
Validated
9 Feb 2026
Target date
6 Apr 2026
Decision date
2 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Reference
PL/3329/25
Type
Householder
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA8 5PU
Ward
Council
Received
22 Dec 2025
Validated
9 Feb 2026
Target date
6 Apr 2026
Decision date
2 Apr 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 Apr 2026, delegated decision by Marcus Boddy — 14 weeks from submission (6 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
22 Dec 2025
Application received
9 Feb 2026
Application validated
6 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
2 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Marcus Boddy
22 Dec 2025
Application received
9 Feb 2026
Application validated
6 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
2 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Marcus Boddy
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
- The front porch, side and rear extension as built, does not resemble the submitted plans. Furthermore, the
submitted floor and roof plans show differing depths of the single storey rear extension. Therefore, the local
planning authority is unable to fully and accurately assess the development. In the absence of which the
proposal could give rise to detrimental harm, 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).
2
- The development is located within surface water flood risk medium and high in the absence of a
satisfactory Flood Risk Assessment, it has not been demonstrated that the development would not exacerbate
the risk of flooding within the site or increase the risk and consequences of flooding elsewhere, contrary to
National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy SI 12 of The London Plan (2021), Policy CN4 of the
Harrow Local Plan (2021-2041).
1
- The front porch, side and rear extension as built, does not resemble the submitted plans. Furthermore, the
submitted floor and roof plans show differing depths of the single storey rear extension. Therefore, the local
planning authority is unable to fully and accurately assess the development. In the absence of which the
proposal could give rise to detrimental harm, 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).
2
- The development is located within surface water flood risk medium and high in the absence of a
satisfactory Flood Risk Assessment, it has not been demonstrated that the development would not exacerbate
the risk of flooding within the site or increase the risk and consequences of flooding elsewhere, contrary to
National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy SI 12 of The London Plan (2021), Policy CN4 of the
Harrow Local Plan (2021-2041).
Policies cited
GR1NPPFSI12CN4
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.