Development Intent
AtlasHarrowPolicyDM7
Planning AtlasHarrowDM7
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Harrow · Local Plan · Policy

DM7 — Heritage Assets.

How Harrow actually applies DM7: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

DM7 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 · DM7
Where DM7 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~20
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
77
times cited
in parsed decision notices
62%
appeal survival
16 dismissed · 10 allowed at appeal
22 of 39
officer reach
56% of officers recorded in this period
Harrow on the Hill
top hotspot ward
20 citations
What this policy is about

Policy DM7: Heritage Assets. This policy requires the conservation and enhancement of heritage assets, including locally listed buildings, parks, and gardens, and scheduled ancient monuments. The council will support proposals that preserve, conserve, or enhance heritage assets and their settings, and will resist proposals that harm them. It applies to all heritage assets in Harrow, and the council will use planning conditions and obligations to secure sustainable public access and management of these assets.

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

The policy — as adopted

Heritage Assets

Policy DM 7: Heritage Assets • over 700 locally listed buildings • 2 locally listed parks and gardens • 9 archaeological priority areas The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) integrates the protection and enhancement of the historic environment within the meaning of sustainable development and seeks the conservation of heritage assets as one of the Framework’s twelve core planning principles. To this end it requires local planning authorities to set out a positive framework for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. The NPPF sets out national policy on the consideration of impacts arising from development proposals upon the significance of heritage assets, and key terms used in that policy(7) are Managing Heritage Assets A. When assessing proposals affecting heritage assets, including non designated heritage assets, priority over other policies in the DPD will be afforded to the conservation of the assets affected and their setting as appropriate to the significance of the assets. Proposals that secure the preservation, conservation or enhancement of a heritage asset and its setting, or which secure opportunities for sustainable enjoyment of the historic environment, will be approved. B. The impact of proposals affecting heritage assets will be assessed having regard to: Such as ‘designated heritage asset’, ‘heritage asset’, ‘setting of a heritage asset’ and ‘significance’. Published jointly by the Communities and Local Government department, English Heritage and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. F. In addition to (A) and (B) above, when considering proposals affecting scheduled ancient monuments, the Council will have regard to: b. the condition and management of the monument; and c. the preference to be afforded to proposals that both conserve and sustain heritage assets and their setting; d. any sustainable economic benefits; e. the need to mitigate climate change and to ensure that heritage assets are resilient to the effects of climate change; and f. the desirability of increasing understanding and interpretation of heritage assets; and g. the reversibility of any change. C. The Council will use planning conditions and planning obligations where necessary to secure the exploitation of opportunities for sustainable public access to the historic environment. c. the existing and future security of the monument. G. Major development and change of use proposals affecting a scheduled ancient monument will be required to provide and implement an action plan for the management of the monument. Archaeology H. In addition to (A) and (B) above, when considering proposals affecting an archaeological priority area, the Council will have regard to: a. the known or anticipated significance of the archaeology; b. the likely implications of the proposal upon the archaeology; and Conservation Areas D. In addition to (A) and (B) above, when considering proposals within conservation areas, the Council will: c. the need to preserve the archaeology in situ; or d. the adequacy of arrangements for the investigation, recording, archiving and (where appropriate) curation of archaeology not requiring preservation in situ. a. support the redevelopment of sites that detract from the character or appearance of the conservation area; and b. exploit opportunities to restore lost features or introduce new ones that would enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

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

How it lands
52% in approvals · 48% in refusals
77 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Harrow on the Hill20
Pinner16
Stanmore11
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 DM7 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

DM7 appears most often in Harrow on the Hill, Pinner, Stanmore. 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
52%
in approvals
40 citations
48%
in refusals
37 citations

This shows the decision reports in which DM7 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 DM7 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
62% survival
16 dismissed · 10 allowed26 PINS appeal decisions cite DM7

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite DM7. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing DM7 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.