A detailed letter sent on 26 January to Harrow Council’s senior officers, raising substantive concerns about the treatment of built heritage in the Local Plan, has received no response despite reminders and escalation to the Managing Director.
Built heritage refers to human-made structures, sites, and landscapes that represent significant historical, cultural, or architectural value.
While Marilyn Ashton, Deputy Leader and portfolio holder for Planning and Regeneration, has provided a political explanation citing national policy constraints and housing targets, the absence of any officer engagement leaves critical technical and governance issues unanswered.
The issues include the failure to treat built heritage as strategic infrastructure, weak handling of non-designated heritage assets, and the lack of a credible delivery framework. The silence raises questions about accountability, professional responsiveness, and whether the Council is willing to engage with evidence-based critique. At the same time, the Council promotes civic pride through public messaging, creating a growing gap between rhetoric and the stewardship of Harrow’s historic environment. This disconnect carries reputational risk and undermines confidence in the Council’s ability to manage growth while sustaining the character and identity of the borough.
There is still an opportunity to correct course. Officer engagement, even at this stage, could reset the conversation, acknowledging the issues raised, clarifying the Council’s position, and outlining how the identified gaps might be addressed within existing constraints. Such a response would not require abandoning the Local Plan or denying the realities of national policy; it would require demonstrating that within those realities, the Council is willing to think rigorously and act strategically about the assets that define Harrow as a place.
Full article, including the letter to the senior directors, here
Built heritage refers to human-made structures, sites, and landscapes that represent significant historical, cultural, or architectural value.
While Marilyn Ashton, Deputy Leader and portfolio holder for Planning and Regeneration, has provided a political explanation citing national policy constraints and housing targets, the absence of any officer engagement leaves critical technical and governance issues unanswered.
The issues include the failure to treat built heritage as strategic infrastructure, weak handling of non-designated heritage assets, and the lack of a credible delivery framework. The silence raises questions about accountability, professional responsiveness, and whether the Council is willing to engage with evidence-based critique. At the same time, the Council promotes civic pride through public messaging, creating a growing gap between rhetoric and the stewardship of Harrow’s historic environment. This disconnect carries reputational risk and undermines confidence in the Council’s ability to manage growth while sustaining the character and identity of the borough.
There is still an opportunity to correct course. Officer engagement, even at this stage, could reset the conversation, acknowledging the issues raised, clarifying the Council’s position, and outlining how the identified gaps might be addressed within existing constraints. Such a response would not require abandoning the Local Plan or denying the realities of national policy; it would require demonstrating that within those realities, the Council is willing to think rigorously and act strategically about the assets that define Harrow as a place.
Full article, including the letter to the senior directors, here
Harrow Monitoring Group 