Former National Grid Site, Marsh Lane, Stanmore (Aldi)

Decision

dismissed, 30 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: John Longmuir

Authority

Harrow (London)

Appeal reference

6005822

Application reference

PL/1370/25

Procedure

inquiry

Development

Food retail store (Class E(a)) with warehouse, 94 car parking spaces, cycle parking, access and landscaping

Site context

inside settlement, PDL

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

TC3, S4

Development plan policies

Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041 (adopted 24 Mar 2026) LE1, LE3, M1, M2, O1, GR1, allocation O21 Anmer Lodge, London Plan 2021 D3, E4, T1, T2, T4, T6, T6.3

Main issues

retail sequential test; economy and industrial land; car parking; efficient use of land

Summary

An Aldi food store on a vacant former gas-holder site in Stanmore, decided after an inquiry. The inspector found for the appellant on parking, efficient use of land and industrial land, but dismissed on the retail sequential test: an allocated town-centre site (Anmer Lodge) could not be discounted. The recently adopted plan's town-centre policy LE1 governed, and significant benefits did not justify a departure.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "Both parties were given the opportunity to comment on the significance or otherwise to the amendments of the 17 August published edition" (DL ¶6). "Both parties agree that the sequential test is materially unchanged from the previous Framework" (DL ¶10).
• TC3 sequential test: FAIL. "the evidence before the Inquiry is conflicting and taken overall, is not sufficiently clear to demonstrate that the potential for food retail at the Anmer Lodge site can be discounted and the sequential test has not been fully explored" (DL ¶27).
• Parking: mixed. 94 spaces exceed the London Plan maximum, but "the level of parking is necessary to allow safe functioning, and the proposal would not conflict" with T2 and M2 (DL ¶52).
• Efficient use: PASS. "this is reuse of a seemingly vacant, but definitely much under used, brownfield site which in itself is positive" (DL ¶67).
• Economy: PASS. "I therefore find no overriding need for the industrial use of the site" (DL ¶77).

Planning balance

Plan-led. "when taken as a whole I find that the proposal would be in conflict and the Development Plan warrants substantial weight" (DL ¶96). S4 is cited, and of the S4(2) allocation limb the letter says "This supports my conclusion above" (DL ¶97). Benefits "collectively would be significant" (DL ¶98) but "do not warrant a decision other than that in accordance with the Development Plan" (DL ¶99). The letter does not state an S4 "substantially outweighed" conclusion in terms, and applies the S4(2)(a)(i) allocation idea to the alternative site rather than the appeal site (recorded as drafting-slip).

What made the difference

Anmer Lodge. A recent pre-application approach, an allocation confirmed by the local plan inspector as suitable for a supermarket, and the council's flexibility argument meant the alternative could not be ruled out, despite its shrunken site and a long history of non-delivery. Evidence that the allocated site was genuinely unavailable or unsuitable for food retail (e.g. market testing) was what the appellant needed.

Transferable points

• The TC3 sequential test requires flexibility on format and scale; an allocated town-centre site with recent developer interest cannot be discounted on non-delivery history alone (DL ¶14, ¶18, ¶27).
• Parking above a London Plan maximum can be justified where fewer spaces would cause queuing onto the highway and residential overspill (DL ¶42–43, ¶52).
• A retail scheme's jobs can outweigh an argued need for industrial reuse where the plan meets industrial need on existing sites (DL ¶75–77).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Inquiry 4-11 Aug 2026; parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug Framework (DL 6)
• Site underused since 2012 after gas holders demolished; 0.9 ha, 0.4 ha developable because of easements (DL 56, 65, 73)
• Anmer Lodge (allocation O21, mixed use incl. food store) has an extant, barely commenced 2014 permission; recent Gracie Group pre-application interest; Aldi's offer rejected (DL 12-19)
• Council did no market testing of Anmer Lodge retail potential (DL 22)
• 94 spaces proposed v 38 under London Plan T6.3; TfL demand 85, appellant 89; council highways supported the level (DL 36-49)
• PTAL 2; Aldi catchment 5-minute drive time (DL 26, 44)
• Benefits (brownfield reuse, 40 jobs, BNG, energy-efficient building, bus stops) "collectively would be significant" (DL 98)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.