Development Intent
AtlasHarrowPolicyDM42
Planning Atlas›Harrow›DM42
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Harrow · Local Plan · Policy

DM42 — Parking Standards.

How Harrow actually applies DM42: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

DM42 is a published Harrow planning policy. This page records where it appears in the council's published planning decisions.

Cited under: Harrow Local Plan (adopted)

Harrow · DM42
Where DM42 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~11
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
108
times cited
in parsed decision notices
75%
appeal survival
21 dismissed · 7 allowed at appeal
20 of 39
officer reach
51% of officers recorded in this period
Stanmore
top hotspot ward
11 citations
What this policy is about

Policy DM42: Parking Standards. On-site parking provision is required for developments, with standards based on the London Plan. The council will support proposals that meet these standards, but resist those that create parking problems or compromise safety.

Plain-English summary of the adopted policy text below. The full text is the rule; this is the gist.

The policy — as adopted

Parking Standards

Policy DM 42: Parking Standards A. Proposals that make on-site provision for parking will be supported where: a. the number of vehicle parking spaces (including those with electric vehicle charging points) would have regard to the maximum London Plan standards; b. there would be 1 motorcycle/ scooter parking space(83) per 20 car parking spaces subject to all developments with more than 10 car parking spaces having a minimum of 1 space; and c. the number of cycle parking spaces would meet or exceed the minimum London Plan standards. of dimensions 2 metres x 0.8 metre. B. Proposals involving parking provision that would not be consistent with the London Plan will be assessed having regard to any exceptional operational requirements, any special safety considerations and the desirability of achieving modal shift away from private car use. C. Proposals for car-free development within town centres will be supported where it can be demonstrated that: a. there is sufficient public transport capacity to serve the trip demand generated by the development; b. there would be adequate safeguards against parking on the surrounding highway network and in public car parks; and c. the needs of blue badge holders would be met. D. Proposals that secure the delivery of car club schemes in lieu of parking provision for private vehicles will be encouraged. E. The design and layout of parking areas (including those for scooters, motorcycles and bicycles) should be safe, secure and fit for purpose. Access to and from the public highway should maintain and, where necessary, improve safety and give priority to the convenience of pedestrians and cyclists. F. Proposals that would result in inappropriate on-site parking provision, having regard to the criteria in this policy, and those which would create significant on-street parking problems, prejudice highway safety or diminish the convenience of pedestrians and cyclists, will be resisted.

Verbatim from the adopted Harrow plan · source document. The council's published plan is the authoritative version.

How it lands
58% in approvals · 42% in refusals
108 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Stanmore11
Edgware10
Roxeth10
What cites it — application types
all years on record · click a slice to filter
What it means in practice

Not filled in yet. This will hold how officers actually argue DM42 case by case, classified from their decision reports — the classification pass hasn't run. Nothing is paraphrased in its place.

What the published record shows

DM42 appears most often in Stanmore, Edgware, Roxeth. It appears across 20 of 39 officers recorded in this period. The map shows the pattern for the selected period.

Who cites it — case-officer spreadfrom parsed decision notices · click an officer
Who leans on this policy — and how often — is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Why it is cited — and what follows
58%
in approvals
63 citations
42%
in refusals
45 citations

This shows the decision reports in which DM42 appears. It does not yet claim that the policy caused those outcomes.

Reason · role · consequence

Not filled in yet — the classification pass over the citing passages hasn't run. When it has, this shows why DM42 was used, whether it supported approval or refusal, and what changed as a result. No conclusion is shown until that classification has been checked.

Why this policy is cited, and what follows, is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Does it hold up? — appeal performance
75% survival
21 dismissed · 7 allowed — 28 PINS appeal decisions cite DM42

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite DM42. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing DM42 traced to their specific appeals — is still to come.

Related — follow the thread
Harrow
Back to the borough policy record
Open →
Committee record
What reaches members, and what they do with it
Open →
Case officers
Harrow's decision-makers
Open →
Citations, officer spread, ward and application-type counts parsed from published Harrow decision notices (high-confidence parses, approvals and refusals), joined to the canonical application record. One citation = one decision citing the policy. See the policy overview for every policy cited.

Atlas intelligence summarises patterns and observations from published planning records. Past decisions do not indicate how any future application will be determined. Every application is assessed on its own merits, having regard to the proposal, site, evidence and policies applying at the time. This information is provided for general information only and is not planning, legal, financial or professional advice.