Harrow Council's Planning Committee has refused permission for the conversion of the former Lloyds Bank building at 1 Stanmore Hill into six residential flats and a commercial unit. The decision was made due to concerns over a lack of amenity space, the impracticality of refuse collection services at the busy intersection, and the overall overdevelopment of the site.
Councillor Marilyn Ashton, Chair of the committee, expressed disagreement with the officer's assessment that the development was in character with the area. She highlighted the absence of adequate amenity space and the challenges associated with servicing refuse collection for six units in such a prominent location.
The committee deemed the proposal an overdevelopment of the site, detrimental to local amenities and future occupiers. Councillor Ashton proposed refusal on the grounds of site constraints, insufficient amenity space, small unit sizes, and servicing practicality.
Overdevelopment Concerns
The committee's decision to refuse the application was significantly influenced by the assessment that the proposal constituted an overdevelopment of the site, detrimental to local amenities and future occupiers.
This conclusion was reached due to a combination of factors, including the size of the site, a total lack of amenity space, the small sizes of the proposed units, and the practicality of refuse collection for six flats and a ground-floor commercial unit. The report for this application states that the refusal was proposed by reason of its constraints in terms of the size of the site. Total lack of amenity space. With all of the six units being small one bed flats or a studio flat. And the practicality of serving the refuse collection for six flats and the ground floor commercial unit. It represents an over development on this site. By reason of the number of separate units.
While a singular definition of 'overdevelopment' is not provided, the committee's reasoning illustrates its application through concerns about site constraints, lack of amenity space, unit sizes, servicing, and the density of units relative to the site's capacity.
Amenity Space and Unit Sizes
Concerns were raised about the lack of adequate amenity space. While the meeting information does not provide a specific definition for 'adequate amenity space', the report for the application notes that the site constraints of providing private balconies... it will be difficult to provide private outdoor amenities spaces as well as providing sort of family-sized housing units.
This suggests that the absence of private outdoor amenity space was a key factor in the refusal, particularly in relation to the potential for family-sized units.
The proposed development included five one-bedroom flats and one studio flat. Councillor Ashton cited small unit sizes
as a reason for refusal. The report acknowledges that the proposed housing mix of solely studio and 1 bedroom units in a town centre location and a primary shopping area would be considered, on balance, acceptable.
However, the difficulty in providing private outdoor amenities alongside family-sized units, as mentioned in the report, likely contributed to the overall assessment of the unit sizes being too small in context.
Refuse Collection Challenges
The impracticality of refuse collection at the busy intersection was a significant concern. The report for the application highlights that the site is literally right on the corner between the roads
and is a really busy district centre.
The proposed solution included a bin stall and a cycle store for the proposed flats upstairs
with external accesses.
However, the committee ultimately refused the application based on the perceived impracticality of servicing refuse collection for six units in this high-traffic area.
For more details on the planning committee's discussions, refer to the Public reports pack Thursday 28-May-2026 18.30 Planning Committee.