Development Intent
AtlasHarrowPolicyDM26
Planning Atlas›Harrow›DM26
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Harrow · Local Plan · Policy

DM26 — Conversion of Houses and other Residential Premises.

How Harrow actually applies DM26: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

DM26 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 · DM26
Where DM26 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~10
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
91
times cited
in parsed decision notices
77%
appeal survival
34 dismissed · 10 allowed at appeal
22 of 39
officer reach
56% of officers recorded in this period
Wealdstone North
top hotspot ward
10 citations
What this policy is about

Policy DM26 requires conversions of houses and other residential premises to comply with London Plan space standards, be dual aspect, and maintain separation between homes. It also requires retention of a single front door, adequate parking, and not to detract from the streetscene. Proposals will be supported if they meet these criteria, but refused if they lead to overintensive conversion or compromise any component of this policy.

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

The policy — as adopted

Conversion of Houses and other Residential Premises

Policy DM 26: Conversion of Houses and other Residential Premises a. comply with the London Plan minimum space standards; b. wherever possible, ensure that homes are dual aspect (see Mayor of London’s Housing SPG) and that the arrangement of rooms secures the separation of bedrooms and other room uses between homes within the development and neighbouring dwellings having regard to the adequacy of any measures to prevent noise transference; g. ensure that the design of any external alterations does not detract from the appearance of the property or the streetscene and, wherever possible, retain a single door to the front elevation of dwellings in residential areas; h. ensure that the balance of hard and soft landscaping on the forecourt (including forecourts that are already substantially hardsurfaced) does not detract from the appearance of the property or the streetscene; i. make adequate provision for parking and safe access to and within the site and not lead to any material increase in substandard vehicular access; and j. ensure that levels of external activity would not be detrimental to residential amenity and character. B. Where an existing garden is available, proposals must make this available for all future occupiers of the development, preferably through subdivision to form private amenity spaces for each home and accessible within the site boundary. Where, exceptionally, amenity space is to be provided communally, the Council will wish to be satisfied that there would be adequate privacy safeguards for the ground floor occupiers and that there will be robust, sustainable arrangements in place for managing the on-going maintenance responsibilities. D. Proposals for extensions and alterations to converted houses and other residential premises will be supported having regard to the above criteria. E. Proposals that would lead to an overintensive conversion, or which would compromise any component of this policy, will be refused.

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

How it lands
18% in approvals · 82% in refusals
91 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Wealdstone North10
Kenton East10
Marlborough9
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 DM26 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

DM26 appears most often in Wealdstone North, Kenton East, Marlborough. It appears across 22 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
18%
in approvals
16 citations
82%
in refusals
75 citations

This shows the decision reports in which DM26 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 DM26 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
77% survival
34 dismissed · 10 allowed — 44 PINS appeal decisions cite DM26

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite DM26. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing DM26 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.