Replacement rear outbuilding at 6 Mead Close, Harrow Weald

“The application site comprises a two-storey semi-detached building on the western side of Mead Close which has been recently converted into a children’s home (C2). The host property has been extended in ways of a 6m rear extension, side extension, roof alterations for form end gable and rear dormer with Juliette balcony and two roof lights in the front roof slope. The site is not listed nor located within a Conservation area.”

“The application site currently has an existing outbuilding which was built without planning which was refused under reference: PL/1988/25 and currently an enforcement notice has been served reference: EN/0511/24. This application has been submitted to demolish the existing outbuilding and construct a new one to the south boundary shared with No.7 Mead Close.”

“PL/1988/25 Outbuilding to rear for use as office / sensory room (retrospective) Refused 24-10-2025 Reasons for Refusal: The outbuilding, by virtue of its siting directly over and adversely affecting a piped watercourse, fails to comply with Policy DM 11 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).”

“The proposed development is considered to be a modest and sympathetic addition which would not result in a detrimental impact to the character and appearance of the original building and the surrounding area, nor would it result in a detrimental impact to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.”

“Accordingly, weighing up the development plan policies and proposals along with other material considerations including comments received in response to notification and consultation as set out below, Officers consider and conclude that, subject to planning conditions, the proposed development is acceptable and worthy of support.”

“A total of 5 consultation letters were sent to neighbouring properties regarding this application. In addition, a site notice was posted. The overall public consultation period expired on the 26 th April 2026.”

“A summary of the consultation responses received along with the Officer comments are set out in the Table below.”

“Chair proposed refusal for the following reason:”

“The proposal, by reason of its location, and proximity to the side boundary of the neighbouring property at 7 Mead Close, will be visible from the garden thereof, and could give rise to undue noise and disturbance to the detriment of their residential amenities, contrary to policy GR1 of the new Local Plan (2021-2041), policy D3 London Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).”

“This was seconded by Councillor Salim Chowdhury, put to the vote and agreed.”

“Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Anjana Patel, Mike Raven, Salim Chowdhury and Zak Wagman voted to Refuse the application.”