Development Intent
AtlasHarrowPolicyDM16
Planning Atlas›Harrow›DM16
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Harrow · Local Plan · Policy

DM16 — Maintaining the Openness of the Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land.

How Harrow actually applies DM16: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

DM16 is a published Harrow planning policy. This page records where it appears in the council's published planning decisions.

Cited under: Harrow Local Plan (adopted)

Harrow · DM16
Where DM16 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~6
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
15
times cited
in parsed decision notices
71%
appeal survival
5 dismissed · 2 allowed at appeal
11 of 39
officer reach
28% of officers recorded in this period
Stanmore
top hotspot ward
6 citations
What this policy is about

Policy DM16 restricts redevelopment or infilling of previously-developed sites in the Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land, requiring comprehensive long-term plans and refusing harmful development without very special circumstances.

Plain-English summary of the adopted policy text below. The full text is the rule; this is the gist.

The policy — as adopted

Maintaining the Openness of the Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land

Policy DM 16: Maintaining the Openness of the Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land B. Proposals for the redevelopment or infilling of previously-developed sites in the Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land will also be required to have regard to the visual amenity and character of the Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land. Partial Infilling or Redevelopment of Previously Developed Sites within the Green Belt C. In addition to (A) and (B) above, proposals for partial infilling or redevelopment of previouslydeveloped sites within the Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land should be put forward in the context of a comprehensive, long term plan(s) for the site(39) as a whole. Inappropriate and Harmful Development in the Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land D. Proposals for inappropriate redevelopment or which, for other reasons, would harm the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land will be refused in the absence of clearly demonstrated very special circumstances.

Verbatim from the adopted Harrow plan · source document. The council's published plan is the authoritative version.

How it lands
13% in approvals · 87% in refusals
15 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Stanmore6
Harrow Weald4
Pinner4
What cites it — application types
all years on record · click a slice to filter
What it means in practice

Not filled in yet. This will hold how officers actually argue DM16 case by case, classified from their decision reports — the classification pass hasn't run. Nothing is paraphrased in its place.

What the published record shows

DM16 appears most often in Stanmore, Harrow Weald, Pinner. It appears across 11 of 39 officers recorded in this period. The map shows the pattern for the selected period.

Who cites it — case-officer spreadfrom parsed decision notices · click an officer
Who leans on this policy — and how often — is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Why it is cited — and what follows
13%
in approvals
2 citations
87%
in refusals
13 citations

This shows the decision reports in which DM16 appears. It does not yet claim that the policy caused those outcomes.

Reason · role · consequence

Not filled in yet — the classification pass over the citing passages hasn't run. When it has, this shows why DM16 was used, whether it supported approval or refusal, and what changed as a result. No conclusion is shown until that classification has been checked.

Why this policy is cited, and what follows, is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Does it hold up? — appeal performance
71% survival
5 dismissed · 2 allowed — 7 PINS appeal decisions cite DM16

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite DM16. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing DM16 traced to their specific appeals — is still to come.

Related — follow the thread
Harrow
Back to the borough policy record
Open →
Committee record
What reaches members, and what they do with it
Open →
Case officers
Harrow's decision-makers
Open →
Citations, officer spread, ward and application-type counts parsed from published Harrow decision notices (high-confidence parses, approvals and refusals), joined to the canonical application record. One citation = one decision citing the policy. See the policy overview for every policy cited.

Atlas intelligence summarises patterns and observations from published planning records. Past decisions do not indicate how any future application will be determined. Every application is assessed on its own merits, having regard to the proposal, site, evidence and policies applying at the time. This information is provided for general information only and is not planning, legal, financial or professional advice.