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
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)
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.
1. The 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.
2. The proposed development would result in a significant loss of biodiversity from the site contrary to Places for Everyone policy JP-G8.
3. The proposed development would result in an increase in flood risk in the local area contrary to Places for Everyone policy JP-S4.
Reasons for Refusal:
Loss of amenity for local residents due to the scale and siting of the building
Increased traffic and congestion from supermarket traffic in a village setting
Environmental impact concerns and reliance on cars, detracting from sustainable transport aims
Committee Chair noted: “Out‑of‑town location… customers relying on their cars… negative impact on the environment.”