House extensions and rooflights at 38 Sequoia Park, Hatch End, Pinner

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Harrow Planning Committee on 28 May 2026.

PL/2309/25Refused

What was proposed

The application proposed single- and two-storey front, side and rear extensions, rooflights and demolition of the existing garage.

“Single and two storey front, side and rear extensions (including front porch), installation of 4 rooflights to each front and rear roofslope and demolition of an existing garage.”

Officer report

The site and neighbours

The site was a detached two-storey dwelling, with neighbouring homes to the south and north, and a significant setback from the northern neighbour.

“The application site is a detached two storey dwelling located on Sequoia Park.”

“The site is neighboured to the south by No. 36 and to the north by No. Sequoia Park. Due to a change in the direction of the street, the subject site is set significantly further back than No. Sequoia Park such that the existing dwelling has a significant existing flank boundary impact to No. Sequoia Park. The neighbouring dwelling at No. Sequoia Park has a more comparable setback to the subject site.”

Officer report

Earlier approvals

Two earlier applications for single-storey extensions were approved.

“A summary of the relevant planning application history is set out below:”

“LBH/13194 ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND REAR EXTENSION TO DWELLINGHOUSE TO PROVIDE REPLACEMENT GARAGE AND KITCHEN ADDITION Status: 10 - Decision Issued (Approved) WEST/445/96/FUL SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND FRONT EXTENSIONS Status: 10 - Decision Issued (Approved)”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The arboriculture officer had no objection, while the Hatch End Association objected that the proposal was overdevelopment and overbearing.

“Hatch End Association Comments (Objection)”

Officer report

Neighbour objection

One neighbour objected over loss of light, overshadowing, privacy, outlook, design and streetscape impact.

“One neighbour objection letter was received.”

“Unacceptable impacts on neighbouring amenity in terms of loss of light / overshadowing, privacy and outlook • Design and impact on the streetscape…”

Officer report

The vote

The committee’s decision to refuse the application was unanimous.

“The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to refuse the application was unanimous.”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because the extensions would be overbearing and harm the neighbouring outlook, while the roof would harm the dwelling and streetscene.

“REFUSE the application for the following reasons;”

“The proposed two storey side and rear extensions by reason of the rearward siting in close proximity to the shared boundary with no 40 Sequoia Park and the change in levels between the two sites, with no 40 Sequoia Park being on a lower level, would result in an overbearing and obtrusive form of development, which would have an unacceptable impact on the neighbouring amenities of the occupiers at no 40 Sequoia Park with regard to loss of outlook.”

Minutes

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

Council
Harrow
Date
Thursday 28 May 2026
Recommendation
Officers recommended refusal
Committee decided
Refused
Vote
Unanimous
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)

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.

Every decision by this council's committees →