The officer report presented to Harrow’s Planning Committee on 25 September 2025 recommending approval of application PL/0378/25 – redevelopment of the Travellers Rest, 134 Kenton Road, into 109 residential units, 103 co-living units and 62 Build-to-Rent units – is marked by two striking ambiguities.
Silence on Sociocultural Implications of Co-living
The report records compliance with the London Plan’s technical requirements for large-scale co-living, noting minimum space standards, kitchen ratios, laundry facilities, and common areas such as gyms, lounges, and co-working spaces.
Yet it fails to consider how shared facilities might function in Harrow’s highly diverse sociocultural context, where communal living intersects with differing norms on food preparation, gendered space, intergenerational living, and religious practices.
Demographic realities ignored: Harrow’s 2021 Census shows 63.5% of residents are non-White, including 45.2% of Asian heritage, while 92% of pupils in Harrow schools are non-White as of 2023. The borough’s housing list reflects these patterns.
Planning blind spot: Co-living assumes a Westernised model of flexible, individualised living with shared kitchens and lounges. In Harrow, where extended families, culturally distinct diets, and privacy expectations dominate, such arrangements risk conflict, underuse of shared areas, or over-reliance on inadequate private space.
Policy vacuum: The report provides no framework for how management will mitigate cultural frictions, ensure fair service provision, or adapt communal spaces to diverse lifestyles. Nor does it address the absence of clear national or local policy guidance on how co-living interacts with multicultural housing needs.
By reducing “community impact” to tick-box compliance with space standards, the report abdicates its responsibility to assess whether the scheme fosters genuine inclusivity in Harrow’s context.
Dubious and Possibly Unenforceable Car Ownership Ban
The Section 106 obligations demand that tenancy agreements prohibit vehicle ownership and registration by residents. Tenants “shall not register any motor vehicle in their name or under their address within the jurisdiction of the development,” with violations leading to fines or towing.
This raises significant legal and practical concerns:
Beyond landlord powers: A landlord may restrict on-site parking, but an outright ban on owning a car – even if parked off-site – is unusual, arguably unreasonable, and potentially unenforceable.
Conflict with statutory requirements: The DVLA requires vehicle registration at the keeper’s actual residence, not an address selectively approved by a landlord. The planning condition therefore sets up a direct conflict between tenancy terms and statutory obligations.
Equity and exclusion: While exemptions exist for Blue Badge holders, the blanket prohibition risks disproportionately affecting workers reliant on vehicles, particularly in service economy where shift work and cross-borough travel are common.
The report attempts to justify the ban by framing it as part of a “car-free” development supported by Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) restrictions. Yet it neglects to grapple with enforceability issues, tenant rights, or likely displacement of parking into neighbouring streets – concerns already raised by local residents.
Conclusion: A Planning Report Detached from Reality
Harrow officers recommend approval of a scheme that ticks London Plan boxes but ignores Harrow’s specific conditions. On co-living, the report reduces cultural complexity to technical compliance; on parking, it proposes an unenforceable restriction that may invite legal challenge.
Planning cannot be divorced from social context or practical enforceability. By failing to engage with either, this report represents not due diligence, but a deficient exercise in planning bureaucracy, leaving the borough vulnerable to housing disharmony and legal disputes.
Silence on Sociocultural Implications of Co-living
The report records compliance with the London Plan’s technical requirements for large-scale co-living, noting minimum space standards, kitchen ratios, laundry facilities, and common areas such as gyms, lounges, and co-working spaces.
Yet it fails to consider how shared facilities might function in Harrow’s highly diverse sociocultural context, where communal living intersects with differing norms on food preparation, gendered space, intergenerational living, and religious practices.
Demographic realities ignored: Harrow’s 2021 Census shows 63.5% of residents are non-White, including 45.2% of Asian heritage, while 92% of pupils in Harrow schools are non-White as of 2023. The borough’s housing list reflects these patterns.
Planning blind spot: Co-living assumes a Westernised model of flexible, individualised living with shared kitchens and lounges. In Harrow, where extended families, culturally distinct diets, and privacy expectations dominate, such arrangements risk conflict, underuse of shared areas, or over-reliance on inadequate private space.
Policy vacuum: The report provides no framework for how management will mitigate cultural frictions, ensure fair service provision, or adapt communal spaces to diverse lifestyles. Nor does it address the absence of clear national or local policy guidance on how co-living interacts with multicultural housing needs.
By reducing “community impact” to tick-box compliance with space standards, the report abdicates its responsibility to assess whether the scheme fosters genuine inclusivity in Harrow’s context.
Dubious and Possibly Unenforceable Car Ownership Ban
The Section 106 obligations demand that tenancy agreements prohibit vehicle ownership and registration by residents. Tenants “shall not register any motor vehicle in their name or under their address within the jurisdiction of the development,” with violations leading to fines or towing.
This raises significant legal and practical concerns:
Beyond landlord powers: A landlord may restrict on-site parking, but an outright ban on owning a car – even if parked off-site – is unusual, arguably unreasonable, and potentially unenforceable.
Conflict with statutory requirements: The DVLA requires vehicle registration at the keeper’s actual residence, not an address selectively approved by a landlord. The planning condition therefore sets up a direct conflict between tenancy terms and statutory obligations.
Equity and exclusion: While exemptions exist for Blue Badge holders, the blanket prohibition risks disproportionately affecting workers reliant on vehicles, particularly in service economy where shift work and cross-borough travel are common.
The report attempts to justify the ban by framing it as part of a “car-free” development supported by Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) restrictions. Yet it neglects to grapple with enforceability issues, tenant rights, or likely displacement of parking into neighbouring streets – concerns already raised by local residents.
Conclusion: A Planning Report Detached from Reality
Harrow officers recommend approval of a scheme that ticks London Plan boxes but ignores Harrow’s specific conditions. On co-living, the report reduces cultural complexity to technical compliance; on parking, it proposes an unenforceable restriction that may invite legal challenge.
Planning cannot be divorced from social context or practical enforceability. By failing to engage with either, this report represents not due diligence, but a deficient exercise in planning bureaucracy, leaving the borough vulnerable to housing disharmony and legal disputes.
Harrow Monitoring Group 