Six flats above shops at Lloyds Tsb, 1 Stanmore Hill, Stanmore
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Harrow Planning Committee on 28 May 2026.
What was proposed
The application proposed two extra floors, internal alterations and six flats above a retained commercial unit.
“Two additional floors and internal alterations to provide 5 No. one bedroom flats and 1 No. studio flat; commercial unit on ground and lower ground floor including part change of use of ground floor to residential use…”
Officer report
The site and its setting
The site was a two-storey commercial terraced building at a road junction in Stanmore Town Centre, within a mixed-use area.
“The subject site is a two storey terraced building located at the corner of the road junction between Church Road and Stanmore Hill. The relevant planning history records show that it is a building in commercial use, formerly as a bank. The site is situated within a mixed use area with a terraced buildings with commercial uses at the ground floor and residential uses on the upper floors.”
“The site is not listed and is not located within a conservation area but is within Stanmore Town Centre. The site is also located within a Primary Shopping Area and the Protected Views Setting Corridor for the Proposed Country Park at Wood Farm. The ground floor frontage of the site is also part of the Secondary Shopping Frontage in Local Centres. The site would also have a moderate Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 3.”
Officer report
Earlier applications
Earlier applications included a refused restaurant prior-approval proposal and several granted signage, office and building alteration applications.
“P/4491/19/PRIOR Change of use from Financial and Professional Services (Class A2) to Restaurant (Class A3) (Prior approval of noise, odour, storage and handling of waste, hours of opening, transport and highways impact, provision of local shopping services and sustainability of key shopping area, and siting design and external appearance of flue/extract/waste provision) Refused 11/12/2019 Reasons of Refusal: 1.”
“P/3189/10 DISPLAY OF AN INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED WINDOW DISPLAY UNIT Granted 17/01/2011 P/1724/10 NEW SIGNAGE ABOVE EXISTING ATM; DISPLAY OF TWO ILLUMINATED WINDOW SIGNS Granted 25/08/2010 P/3004/06 3 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED FASCIA SIGNS AND 2 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED PROJECTING SIGNS Granted 12/12/2006 P/618/03/DAD Internally Illuminated ATM Sign Granted 06/06/2003 EAST/595/02/FUL CHANGE OF USE: CLASS A2 TO CLASS B1 (OFFICES) ON PART OF FIRST FLOOR Granted 04/07/2002…”
Officer report
What officers recommended
Officers recommended approval subject to a legal agreement and conditions, saying the development complied with relevant policies and addressed housing need.
“2) Grant planning permission subject to authority being delegated to the Chief Planning Officer in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services for the competition of Section 106 agreement and issue of the planning permission and subject to minor amendments, deletion and addition to the conditions (set out in Appendix 1 of this report) or the legal agreement. The Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms would cover the following matters:”
“The proposed development complies with all relevant land use policies and the part conversion of the commercial unit and two additional storeys above the existing building which would contribute to the housing need in the Borough.”
Officer report
Consultation responses
The highways officer raised no objections subject to conditions, while consultees and the Stanmore Society raised waste, security, design, access, parking and amenity points.
“LPA Highways Officer No objections subject to conditions/informatives.”
“Stanmore Society Objection. The additional storeys would be disproportionately tall when compared to surrounding context. The two side doors proposed would remove architectural details of the building. The proposed is of a poor quality design, with no provision for disabled access, no parking provision, and with contrived narrow spaces with little natural light or ventilation.”
Officer report
The committee’s concern
The committee focused on the site’s constraints, the absence of amenity space, the small size of all six homes and refuse servicing.
“The Chair proposed refusal for the following reason:”
“The proposal, by reason of its constraints in terms of the size of the site, total lack of amenity space, with all the six units being small one bed or a studio flat, and the practicality of servicing the refuse collection for 6 flats and the ground floor commercial unit, represents an over redevelopment of this site by reason of the number of separate units, to the detriment of the amenities in the locality and the future occupiers, contrary to policy GR1 of the new Local…”
Minutes
The vote
The refusal proposal was seconded, agreed and recorded as unanimous.
“This was seconded by Councillor Anjana Patel, put to the vote and agreed.”
“The Committee voted and resolved to refuse officer recommendations.”
Minutes
The members' reasons
The minutes do not record the members' reasons for departing from the officers' recommendation.
Sources
- Harrow Planning Committee minutes, 28 May 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Harrow's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- Harrow Planning Committee
- Council
- Harrow
- Date
- Thursday 28 May 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Refused, against officer advice
- Vote
- Unanimous
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- View application →
- All decisions
- Harrow committee decisions →
This committee's year
32 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 5 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.