Latest Updates & News on Aldi Marsh Lane Development

2nd July 2025: A FOML team member discovered that none of the 15 homes on Green Verges—directly opposite the development site—received consultation letters from Harrow Planning. The department has acknowledged this as an error. If you live nearby and did not receive a letter, please contact us immediately.

21st June 2025: Harrow Planning Department has confirmed to FOML that given that this is a major planning application, people will be given 12 weeks to comment rather than the statutory 3 weeks (as conveyed in the letters to the local residents). However, they have requested that comments are submitted well in advance to give the case officer time to consider the comments for inclusion in their report.

21st June 2025: Online Objection form issued, following approval by Harrow Planning Dept, to enable Friends of Marsh Lane to submit objections by email on behalf of the public. This will enable folks to raise quick objections and get around ocassional issues with the Harrow Planning portal

23 June 2025: Consolidation of Aldi Store Catchment Area?

There is some concern that Aldi’s proposed new store in Stanmore (Marsh Lane) could eventually serve a much wider area than currently suggested, especially if nearby stores are closed in the future. A recent example includes the planned closure of Aldi’s Tooting branch, with shoppers being redirected to other locations. While no specific reason was given for that closure, it highlights a broader strategy that may also affect North West London.

• Aldi appears to be shifting towards larger, company-owned sites positioned on major roads, designed to accommodate high customer volumes and large car parks—typically catering to areas with populations of 15,000 or more.

• If the Marsh Lane store goes ahead, it is likely to attract customers from beyond Stanmore, particularly if other local branches such as Colindale or Kingsbury are eventually closed. This could significantly increase traffic in and around Marsh Lane, putting pressure on local roads and infrastructure.

• The concern is that Aldi's business model increasingly favours fewer, larger stores serving broader areas, making this development potentially far more impactful than it may initially seem.

 (shared by local resident based upon news article)

12/3/2025: Aldi supermarket plan for Lampeter (Ref: A211186 ) rejected by Ceredigion council

A planning report said there is no “quantitative or qualitative need for the proposed foodstore in Lampeter,” and would have a “major detrimental impact” on other stores. 

14/11/2024: Bolton Council refused Aldi's planning application for the following reasons:

• 1The proposed retail store will generate additional traffic on a network already operating at capacity, increasing congestion in the local area to the detriment of road safety, contrary to policy C5 of Places for Everyone.

• The proposed development would result in a significant loss of biodiversity from the site contrary to Places for Everyone policy JP-G8.

• The proposed development would result in an increase in flood risk in the local area contrary to Places for Everyone policy JP-S4.

25/9/2024: Aldi and Lidl are cannibalising themselves, new data shows.

According to UBS analysis, many new Aldi locations are competing with their own existing stores—87% of Aldi’s stores in the UK face internal competition, suggesting over-saturation and diminishing returns on new openings

12/7/2024: Epsom Aldi store rejected.

Plans for a proposed Aldi store were originally rejected twice over road safety concerns. While planning permission was eventually granted on appeal, it came with strict conditions to mitigate traffic risks

5/7/2023: Thames Ditton residents' fight against Aldi appeal.

Residents raised nearly £8,000 to contest an Aldi plan, calling the proposed building an “alien spaceship”. Objections cited increased traffic, pollution, loss of local shops, and visual intrusion to the conservation area.

9/3/2022: Bromley Farnborough Way Aldi planning application (DC/23/00848/FULL1)

Reasons for Refusal:

1. Loss of amenity for local residents due to the scale and siting of the building

2. Increased traffic and congestion from supermarket traffic in a village setting

3. Environmental impact concerns and reliance on cars, detracting from sustainable transport aims 

4. Committee Chair noted: “Out‑of‑town location… customers relying on their cars… negative impact on the environment.”