Planning appeal decision
Pinn Cottage, Pinner Hill, Pinner, HA5 3XX
Planning appeal 3269752 at Pinn Cottage, Pinner Hill, Pinner, HA5 3XX (London Borough of Harrow) was dismissed on 11 June 2021 by Inspector Johnson W, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
a two-storey side and rear extensions including an increase in roof height and including a front porch
- Authority
- London Borough of Harrow
- Appeal type
- householder · Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Householder developments
- Inspector
- Johnson W
- Postcode
- HA5 3XX
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt
- the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt
- the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the Pinner Hill Estate Conservation Area (PHECA), and the Harrow Weald Ridge Area of Special Character (HWRASC)
- if the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development
What decided it
The substantial weight given to Green Belt harm from inappropriateness and loss of openness, combined with less than substantial heritage harm with no public benefits to outweigh it, and the absence of very special circumstances, meant the development could not be justified.
The harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and loss of openness, to which substantial weight must be given, and the less than substantial harm to the heritage asset with no public benefits to outweigh it, were not outweighed by the private benefits of additional accommodation or any other material considerations.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- CS Policy CS1.FCS Policy CS1.BCS Policy CS1.DCS Policy CS6.ADMP Policy DM16DMP Policy DM7DMP Policy DM6DMP Policy DM1LonP Policy G2LonP Policy D1LonP Policy D3LonP Policy D4LonP Policy HC1
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 143Paragraph 144Paragraph 145Paragraph 133Paragraph 192Paragraph 196
- Judgments
- R (Heath and Hampstead Society) v Vlachos [2008] EWCA Civ 193; [2008] 3 All ER 80; Euro Garages Limited v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Cheshire West and Chester Council [2018] EWHC 1753 (Admin); Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) (An Unlimited Company), Oxton Farm (An Unlimited Company) v North Yorkshire County Council [2018] EWCA Civ 489
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in London Borough of Harrow
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2021
- Dismissed27 May 2026337627043 Glanleam Road, Stanmore, HA7 4NW
- Split Decision29 April 2026332575716 Brookshill Avenue, Harrow, HA3 6RZ
- Dismissed11 December 20253365209St. Davids Pinner Hill, Pinner, HA5 3XU
- Dismissed15 October 20253369650Pinnerwood Cottage , Woodhall Road, Pinner, HA5 4UA
- Dismissed8 October 202533661464, Mansion House Drive, Stanmore, Middlesex, HA7 3GA
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®