Harrow Council’s Planning Committee has approved plans to demolish the former Smokey Fridays restaurant at 382–384 Station Road and replace it with a seven-storey mixed-use building containing 12 flats and commercial space. The application was approved by the five Conservative members of the committee, with the two Labour members voting against.
Committee Chair Councillor Marilyn Ashton argued there was no planning reason to refuse the application that would withstand an appeal. That contrasts with the Council’s decision to refuse the redevelopment of the former Travellers Rest Beefeater and Premier Inn site in Kenton, despite the prospect of an appeal, with permission later being granted by the Greater London Authority. Against that background, the officer’s own report raises an important question: was there genuinely no defensible planning basis for refusing this proposal when assessed against national, London and Harrow planning policy?
The officer’s report acknowledges that the site lies outside Harrow’s designated Tall Buildings zone and that the proposed seven-storey building would project above the Protected Views Corridor safeguarding views towards St Mary’s Church on Harrow-on-the-Hill. Interestingly, when serving as Chair of the Planning Committee in 2008, Councillor Ashton strongly supported refusing the nine-storey Neptune Point proposal on the former Travis Perkins site in Pinner Road because of its impact on views towards St Mary’s Church. Officers nevertheless concluded that, in this case, the departure from policy was acceptable because of the site’s town centre location, nearby taller buildings and excellent public transport accessibility. The contrast raises legitimate questions about the consistency with which planning policies on building height and protected views are being applied over time.
That conclusion appears difficult to reconcile with the purpose of the planning framework. The National Planning Policy Framework (2024) requires development to be sympathetic to local character and to create well-designed places. The London Plan (2021), particularly Policies D3 and D9, requires development to respect local context and expects tall buildings to be plan-led and located in appropriate areas. Harrow’s Local Plan (2021–2041), including Policies GR1 and GR3, similarly seeks high-quality design while directing taller buildings to suitable locations and protecting important townscape views.
The scheme also provides no affordable housing, despite London Plan Policy H5 normally seeking 35% affordable housing on private developments. Officers accepted viability evidence that none could be provided, subject to future review mechanisms.
Local businesses also warned that introducing new homes immediately beside established late-night venues could threaten Harrow’s evening economy through future noise complaints, despite the London Plan’s Agent of Change principle requiring new development to protect existing businesses. Officers concluded that planning conditions and acoustic mitigation would adequately address those concerns.
Taken together, these factors suggest there were arguable planning grounds for refusal based on the adopted policy framework and the particular circumstances of the site. Those grounds included the site’s location outside the designated Tall Buildings area, the impact on the Protected Views Corridor towards St Mary’s Church, the absence of affordable housing, and concerns over the cumulative effect on the character and townscape of the area. Such reasons could have been founded on the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), London Plan Policies D3, D9 and H5, and Harrow Local Plan Policies GR1 and GR3.
If developments that depart from several policy objectives are routinely approved because they deliver housing on sustainable brownfield sites, residents are entitled to ask whether these planning policies remain meaningful safeguards or are increasingly being treated as flexible guidance rather than the foundation of a genuinely plan-led planning system.
Committee Chair Councillor Marilyn Ashton argued there was no planning reason to refuse the application that would withstand an appeal. That contrasts with the Council’s decision to refuse the redevelopment of the former Travellers Rest Beefeater and Premier Inn site in Kenton, despite the prospect of an appeal, with permission later being granted by the Greater London Authority. Against that background, the officer’s own report raises an important question: was there genuinely no defensible planning basis for refusing this proposal when assessed against national, London and Harrow planning policy?
The officer’s report acknowledges that the site lies outside Harrow’s designated Tall Buildings zone and that the proposed seven-storey building would project above the Protected Views Corridor safeguarding views towards St Mary’s Church on Harrow-on-the-Hill. Interestingly, when serving as Chair of the Planning Committee in 2008, Councillor Ashton strongly supported refusing the nine-storey Neptune Point proposal on the former Travis Perkins site in Pinner Road because of its impact on views towards St Mary’s Church. Officers nevertheless concluded that, in this case, the departure from policy was acceptable because of the site’s town centre location, nearby taller buildings and excellent public transport accessibility. The contrast raises legitimate questions about the consistency with which planning policies on building height and protected views are being applied over time.
That conclusion appears difficult to reconcile with the purpose of the planning framework. The National Planning Policy Framework (2024) requires development to be sympathetic to local character and to create well-designed places. The London Plan (2021), particularly Policies D3 and D9, requires development to respect local context and expects tall buildings to be plan-led and located in appropriate areas. Harrow’s Local Plan (2021–2041), including Policies GR1 and GR3, similarly seeks high-quality design while directing taller buildings to suitable locations and protecting important townscape views.
The scheme also provides no affordable housing, despite London Plan Policy H5 normally seeking 35% affordable housing on private developments. Officers accepted viability evidence that none could be provided, subject to future review mechanisms.
Local businesses also warned that introducing new homes immediately beside established late-night venues could threaten Harrow’s evening economy through future noise complaints, despite the London Plan’s Agent of Change principle requiring new development to protect existing businesses. Officers concluded that planning conditions and acoustic mitigation would adequately address those concerns.
Taken together, these factors suggest there were arguable planning grounds for refusal based on the adopted policy framework and the particular circumstances of the site. Those grounds included the site’s location outside the designated Tall Buildings area, the impact on the Protected Views Corridor towards St Mary’s Church, the absence of affordable housing, and concerns over the cumulative effect on the character and townscape of the area. Such reasons could have been founded on the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), London Plan Policies D3, D9 and H5, and Harrow Local Plan Policies GR1 and GR3.
If developments that depart from several policy objectives are routinely approved because they deliver housing on sustainable brownfield sites, residents are entitled to ask whether these planning policies remain meaningful safeguards or are increasingly being treated as flexible guidance rather than the foundation of a genuinely plan-led planning system.