Appeal 6002872

The appeal is dismissed.

The Inspector notes that the Council recently adopted the Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041 (the Local Plan) in March 2026. This supersedes, amongst other matters, the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013), which the Council relied upon in its assessment. The Council have provided a list of policies from the Local Plan that it considers relevant. The main parties have had an opportunity to comment on the Local Plan, and I have proceeded on the basis of the updated plan and policies identified within it.

In determining this appeal, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Race, religion or belief and age are protected characteristics to which the PSED applies.

The main issue of this appeal is the effect of the proposal on highway safety, with particular regard to parking, access and servicing.

The appeal site is located on land to the rear of [address], a cul-de-sac which is predominantly residential in character. The site currently comprises a single-storey detached building, used until approximately 1.5 years ago as a [name] which catered for beavers, cubs and scout groups aged between 6 and 18 years old. The site is accessed via a driveway with no dedicated footway, located to the flank elevation of [address] (Nos 14-18).

The road to [address] comprises two lanes, with parking restrictions in the form of double yellow lines along its western side. Parking is unrestricted on the eastern side, and a number of properties currently have driveways with dropped kerbs. Whilst it is two lanes, only one lane was fully open at the time of my site visit due to the presence of parked cars.

Pavements on [site address] connect to the pavements on both sides of [address]. I saw that within [address], the width of the pavement on the western side was notably reduced for a significant distance and, in my mind, was capable of accommodating one pedestrian comfortably when walking in any direction.

To the south, located on [site address] , is the St. [name]. I saw that this had a car park to its front and side elevations, and holds services on weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays1. It also offers nursery to A-level schooling, with the nursery hours advertised as being between 08:00 and 17:00 on weekdays.

The proposed development would include the demolition of the existing [name] and the construction of a two-storey [name] (Temple) with two disabled spaces and cycle stands for 9 bicycles. This would comprise the relocation of an existing Temple from [name] to the appeal site.

The appeal site is in an area with a Public Transport Accessibility Level 3, signifying moderate public transport connectivity. Bus services to a range of destinations are provided from stops close by on [site address] , and [name] is approximately 600 metres west, which provides connections to Stratford and beyond. There are also additional bus stops located on [address] which the appellant contends provide a higher level of services.

The appellant has submitted a number of transport-related reports to support their case. The appellant has, however, been unable to carry out a transport survey of the activities of the [name], given its closure and has therefore relied on anticipated numbers. They contend that there were approximately 20 scouts on a typical day, with activities occurring between 18:00 and 20:00 on weekdays and Saturdays. The Temple would be open mornings and evenings on weekdays, evenings on weekends, and there would also be approximately 12 festivals per year. From the evidence before me, even if the number of attendees were similar to that of the former [name], the use of the Temple would be significantly higher and would be more intensely used than that of the [name].

Parking beat surveys (parking survey) covering an area of approximately 500 metres from the appeal site were undertaken by the appellant during one weekday and a Saturday2 at 18:00, a time which the appellant describes as representing the busiest hours of the Temple. The parking surveys indicate that while there are similar parking stress levels between the two days, there were differences between individual streets. They also show that there was an increase in parking stress on a Saturday on [address], [address], [address], [address], [address] and [address]. Moreover, while parking stress levels on [address], [address] and [address] reduced on a Saturday, levels remain high indicating that parking is likely to exceed demand in these streets.

The parking surveys also showed that there was 100% parking stress on [address] during both days. This level of parking would correspond with my 1 09:30 -11:30 on weekdays, 18:00 - 18:45 on Saturdays, and 09:30 - 12.30 Sunday 2 [name] dated 27 March 2025 – Survey days - Wednesday, 4 September and Saturday, 7 September. observations, where there were no available spaces during early afternoon on a weekday. I acknowledge that streets which comprise relatively short sections of road and which contain sections of parking restrictions limit the ability for cars to park. However, where parking enforcement is in effect, the road may still have some capacity. From my observations and from the evidence before me, which includes representations from nearby occupants, [address] currently experiences a high level of parking stress throughout the day and has frequently little to no spare capacity.

A travel survey of approximately 35 existing members of the congregation was also undertaken. This demonstrates that currently approximately 71% of members arrive at the Temple on foot, approximately 20% arrive by bus, and approximately 9% travel by car. While the appellant asserts that the majority of members travel with between one and three other people, the survey is not explicit with regard to the mode of transport used. Furthermore, from Figure 53 I cannot be certain what mode of transport 77% of the congregation members currently use.

I acknowledge that the percentage of members who would walk to the proposed Temple would increase and that the percentage of members who would travel by car would decrease during daily service/activities. However, there would also be approximately 12 festivals per year, with between 50 and 100 members attending. I have been told that there is limited provision for this Sect within London, and that this may draw a wider congregation beyond the immediate locality. Therefore, even if approximately 74% of the congregation who responded to the survey live within walking distance of the site, it is highly likely that this percentage would significantly reduce during these events.

Whilst the accessibility of the [name] may offer people living a distance from the site with sustainable travel options, the survey only considered approximately 35 members and omits to demonstrate what modes of transport the additional members would likely use to attend. While the survey asserts that no congregation member would have a significantly longer journey, the survey of 35 members did find that approximately 6% of journeys would be what the appellant considers slightly longer4. From the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that the survey data is representative of the wider congregation, particularly on festival days.

I acknowledge that [site address] is subject to a [name] (CPZ) on one side, which prevents parking between certain hours5 and prevents loading between similar hours in both directions6. I have also taken into consideration that the Temple would implement a number of hard and soft measures to enhance active travel and discourage members from attending by car, and that volunteers would ensure that no vehicles would travel along or park on [address], however, the Travel Plan is a management tool and not an enforcement mechanism. Given that there is currently no CPZ on [address], even if volunteers were to direct and manage parking, there is nothing which would prevent parking on this currently restricted carriageway. Moreover, preventing the use of [address] to travel along or park on would likely prejudice those less 3 Travel Plan dated 12 March 2026 4 Between 0-10 minutes 5 08:00 - 09:30 am and 4:30 - 6:30 pm Monday to Friday 6 08:00 - 09:30 am and 4:30 - 6:30 pm Monday to Friday in one direction and 07:00 - 10:00 am and 4:00 - 7:00 pm Monday to Friday in the other direction mobile members of the congregation who do not qualify for disabled parking from being able to either park on or be dropped off closer to the access point.

I acknowledge that the Travel Plan does identify a number of mitigation measures including, amongst other things, providing travel information and awareness for its members of the congregation, and having volunteers stand at key locations to direct drivers to suitable places to park. I also acknowledge that parking on [site address] can occur during times services are held at the Temple and that there would be a separate Event Traffic Management Plan for what the appellant describes as extreme circumstances, such as festival days. However, I have little evidence to persuade me that the additional attendees would travel by sustainable modes, or that they would not prejudice highway safety.

Even if there were opportunities for members of the congregation to park further from the appeal site, given the currently unrestricted nature of [address] at present, it is unclear what measures could realistically be implemented.

I note that the appellant’s historic injury accident data shows no incidents have been recorded along [address] or at the junction with [site address] in the last five years. While the appellant does not dispute the width constraints of the pavement in [address], they contend that this is suitably mitigated by the footway on the eastern side. However, a significant reduction in width would require pedestrians, particularly those who approach from the west, and with mobility issues such as those in a wheelchair or parents with pushchairs or with young children, to likely have to cross the road to continue their journey before crossing again to make their way towards the driveway of the appeal site.

The driveway would also function as a shared surface for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. [name] acknowledge that submitted plans show parking within the appeal site would be capped at two vehicles, given the above, there is little before me to demonstrate that there would be no conflict between pedestrians, cars or cycles.

With regard to emergency vehicles, there is no dispute that an ambulance would over-sail the hatched area surrounding one disabled bay. However, Figure 3.17 shows that this oversailing would unlikely conflict with a vehicle parked inside the allocated bay. Given the number of instances ambulances would likely attend, I do not consider that such a level of oversailing would result in conflict with the road user or would prejudice highway safety.

With regard to servicing and deliveries, the appellant contends that an appropriate waste holding area would be identified at the end of the access road. This is shown on the submitted plans, and that collections, if required, would occur outside peak service times. From the evidence before me, I am satisfied that this matter could be addressed by a suitably worded condition if I were minded to allow the appeal. Subject to the imposition of such a condition, I am satisfied that servicing and deliveries associated with the Temple would not be harmful to highway safety.

For the reasons given, the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and is therefore contrary to Policies GR3A, SI1, M2 and Strategic Policy 10 of the Local Plan, insofar as they require development not to 7 [name] dated 11 December 2025 create significant on-street parking problems which have adverse impacts on highway safety, and which result in the built environment being used safely.

The Council contend that the following Local Plan Policies are relevant in my assessment. However, Policy GR1 criteria A and B relate to achieving a high standard of design and layout, Policy GR3 relates to Safety, Security and Resilience to Hazards, with criterion B relating to counter terrorism and secured by design measures and criterion C relating to fire safety design measures and strategies. Policy GI3 relates to biodiversity, Policy GI4 relates to urban greening, landscaping and trees, Policy CN1 relates to sustainable design and retrofitting, Strategic Policy 07 relates to green infrastructure, Policy CN4 relates to sustainable drainage, Policy CE1 relates to reducing and managing waste, Strategic Policy 08 relates to responding to the climate and nature emergency, and Strategic Policy 09 relates to managing waste and supporting the [name]. Given that the main issue relates to highway safety these policies, in my mind and without anything to the contrary, are not directly applicable. Furthermore, Strategic Policy 01 relates to high-quality growth. From my reading of this policy, there is nothing within the evidence to persuade me that the proposed development does not respond positively to the character and context of the location.

The Council also considered the proposal to be contrary to Local Plan Policy M1, however, this relates to sustainable transport and Strategic Policy 06, which relates to social infrastructure. Given my findings above and from the evidence before me, these policies are not applicable to the main issue.

Furthermore, despite my findings on the proposal, the appellant has provided a completed UU, and accordingly, there is no conflict with Policy GR11. Subject to a suitably worded condition with regard to deliveries and servicing, the proposed development would also accord with Local Plan Policy M3.

The scheme before me is a resubmission of a preceding planning application8 and follows pre-application discussions9. I appreciate the efforts the appellant has made to overcome the concerns previously raised, however the proposed development would still result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

With regard to the letter of support from a resident on [address], I have little before me to demonstrate that parking associated with the nearby church causes parking issues within the area. Even if it did, the church falls outside the scope of my assessment, which must focus on the planning merits of the appeal proposal.

My attention has been drawn to a Certificate of Lawfulness. There is no dispute that the Council considered the existing use and use as a Temple to be materially different and subsequently refused the application10. My attention has also been drawn to a previously refused planning application11. The appellant does not dispute that the Council considered that proposal to be unacceptable due to its location and potential conflict with traffic. Notwithstanding this, every appeal must be considered on its own merits. 8 PL/3161/24 9 P/0447/23/PREAPP 10 PL/2064/25 11 EAST/974/99/FUL

I acknowledge that the appeal proposal would help to meet religious, cultural and social needs within the local community, contributing to the fostering of cohesion and inclusion. However, a grant of planning permission for the Temple would result in unacceptable loss of highway safety, primarily as a result of the potential increase in demand for car parking in the locality.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole, and I attach substantial weight to this finding against the appeal. There are no material considerations which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

I therefore conclude that it is proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal.