Planning

Minutes HILLINGDON PLANNING COMMITTEE 5 September 2024 Meeting held at Committee Room 5 - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW Committee Members Present: Councillors Henry Higgins (Chair), Adam Bennett (Vice-Chair), Roy Chamdal, Keith Burrows, Elizabeth Garelick, Gursharan Mand, and Jagjit Singh Officers Present: Katie Crosbie (Area Planning Service Manager – North), Ed Laughton (Area Planning Service Manager – Central and South), Chris Brady (Planning Team Leader), Eoin Concanon (Planning Team Leader), Alan Corcoran (Deputy Team Leader), Dr Alan Tilly (Transport & Aviation Team Manager), Jimmy Walsh (Legal Advisor), Natalie Fairclough (Legal Advisor), and Ryan Dell (Democratic Services Officer) 22. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) There were no apologies. 23. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS COMING BEFORE THIS MEETING (Agenda Item 2) None. 24. TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3) RESOLVED: That the minutes from the meeting on 16 July 2024 be approved. 25. MATTERS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OR URGENT (Agenda Item 4) None. 26. TO CONFIRM THAT THE ITEMS OF BUSINESS MARKED PART I WILL BE CONSIDERED IN PUBLIC AND THE ITEMS MARKED PART II WILL BE CONSIDERED IN PRIVATE (Agenda Item 5) It was confirmed that all items would be heard in Part I. It was confirmed that item 7 had been withdrawn from the agenda. 27. 36 MOOR PARK ROAD, NORTHWOOD - 77170/APP/2024/1240 (Agenda Item 6) Officers introduced the application and noted the addendum, which referred to a submission made by a Ward Councillor. Offices added a verbal amendment to Condition 4, whic h related to restricted permitted development rights. There was a reference in the condition to the third floor of the building being restricted but it was clarified that the restriction would cover the entirety of the building. The lead petitioner addressed the Committee and made the following points:  The petitioner thanked the Commit tee for giving them the opportunity to explain their position  The petition reflected the concerns of a large number of petitioners, many of whom had been living in the neighbourhood for decades  The applicant had attempted to airbrush the use as comparative to a family dwelling, but this was not true  The proposal would have a significantly detrimental impact on noise both inside and outside of the property; parking; congestion ; trip generation; CO2 emissions; and disturbance to neighbours due to comings and goings during the day and also during evenings and weekends  The report stated that the property would cater for up to four children with emotional and behavioural difficulties with a staff ratio of two adults to one child. This implied up to eight carers plus managerial staff  The report assumed there would be only three car users. This overlooked the 2:1 ratio  There could be 14-16 people in the property at any one time  Further footfall from social workers, support workers, parents and friends of the children had not been accounted for  All of this would add to the noise, parking, traffic and CO2 emissions  The report’s conclusions, that were based on three careers rather than ei ght, were hence flawed  The application stated that there would be three parking spaces in front of the property and two additional spaces which were essentially a garage. However, once two cars were parked in the garage it would be difficult, if not impossible, to open a car door to get out of a vehicle. This was impractical  One of the bays was blocked by another bay  The report stated that the site can potentially accommodate in excess of half -a- dozen vehicles arranged in an informal fashion. The safety imp act of jamming cars into the driveway had not been considered. There was no consideration for emergency vehicles to access the building. Displaced on street parking was therefore inevitable  On noise, the application stated that the children would have beh avioural and emotional difficulties, and acknowledged that despite meticulous plann ing and care, the children’s behaviour may occasionally fall below acceptable standards. Staff may need to use restraint techniques. This would cause noise and disturbance  The noise control plan was merely words. It gave an email address to register a complaint which would aim to be resolved within three working days. The Council did not investigate domestic noises  In addition to the noise, there would be disturbance from th e comings and goings to the property by four children; up to 8 carers; social worke rs; health workers and four sets of friends and family.  Petitioners disagreed with paragraph 7.32 of the report. Footfall and vehicular traffic would lead to the property ha ving a feel of a commercial enterprise rather than a family dwelling. This would cause significant disturbance to the locality in increased carbon emissions  The property had a PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) score of 0 as per the transport assessment report. Public transport was not a viable or convenient alternative. Care home staff and visitors would have to rely on their own private vehicles, thereby increasing the vehicle trips  The nearest shops were 15 minutes away by foot, or a bus or car ride away  Moreover, there were no state schools for children aged 11 plus in Northwood. The nearest schools were in Northwood Hills, Pinner, or Watford. Not only would this give rise to more vehicles, but was this location even an appropriate location for a care home for 12 and 16 year olds?  There was a profound and extensive oppositio n and concern from residents to the proposal which did not comply with the Local Plan  Petitioners requested the Committee put residents’ interests first, as per the Hillingdon motto, and not the interests of a for-profit company.  This proposal would alter the fabric of the neighbourhood The applicant’s representatives addressed the Committee and made the following points:  The representatives thanked the Committee for giving them the opportunity to share their views  The directors of the children’s home had extensive experience working with children and families  Collectively they had over 35 years of experience working in various roles within social care  This experience demons trated their commitment to promoting the welfare and safeguarding of children  They also had insights and the ability to understand what contributed to positive outcomes for children looked after  They understood the journey of the child and often the trauma they had experienced before coming into care  Children looked after came from diver se cultures and backgrounds and for various reasons were unable to live with their birth families. Therefore, the applicants had made it their responsibility to ensure they had the opportunity to thrive, find happiness and lead fulfilling lives  The goal was to provide children looked after with practical and emotional support to help them map out their clear route to a prosperous, independent future  New Chapters Homes were dr iven to ensure that the children in their care feel valued and safe, and they aimed to give them a childhood where they were no longer experiencing significant harm  They had reviewed the information shared within the petition  They empathised with resident s and recognised that the unknown can be daunting  The petition referenced children looked after being linked to increases in antisocial behaviour and personal risk. In the professional capacity of the applicant, children looked after were often vulnerable and did not present a greater risk to adults or children around them  With the right support and environment, they can have the same outcomes as children who were not in care  The applicant wished to work with residents and not against them  The representatives highlighted the lived experience of a young person currently living in a children’s home, whose name had been anonymised: o My name is Lily and I'm 12 years old o I feel scared at home sometimes and don't always know how the adults in my life are going to treat me o I'm worried about being at home, but I don't want anyone to know o Every night I would lie awake, dreading the sound of my bedroom door creaking open o They told me to keep quiet, blaming me for everything, so I stayed silent at school o At school I watc hed other kids laugh, feeling like there was a wall between us o I pretended everything was OK, even though I was falling apart inside o One day, a teacher noticed how I flinched when someone touched me o She kept asking me questions, showing kindness I hadn't f elt in a long time o Eventually I broke down and told her everything. I was terrified she would blame me, but she didn't o She held my hand and told me it wasn't my fault, that I was brave for speaking up, and that's when I met my social worker o I moved in with a foster family, but they didn't understand me, and I felt uncomfortable in someone else's home o I hurt myself and ended up in hospital o My social worker told me after that it would be difficult for me to be given a placement with a foster family again o I felt like it was my fault and that I didn't deserve anything good o I was moved to a ch ildren's home and was really scared when I saw the house. I'd never been in a house this big and quiet o I didn't feel like I belonged in this home or the area, and I wanted t o run away when I first got there, but I knew I couldn't go home to my family o I was given a key worker who helped me feel a little bit more at home and I was able to have my own room and choose what colour the room would be and now things are still hard but I'm not alone anymore o I'm learning that my past doesn't define me and that I de serve to laugh and be happy too o I now have adults around me that I can trust at the home, But I miss my home and hope to go back one day Members asked about the staff numb ers and ratios presented in the application. Clarification was sought on the expected number of staff during the busiest days. The representatives explained that while the capacity was for up to four children, it was unlikely to have four children at once due to the need for matching and considering the children’s needs. It was not expec ted for there to be more than four staff members in the day, including senior management. Members replied that one of the petitioner’s concerns was the number of car journey s, especially given the PTAL rating of 0. Members asked for further clarification on numbers of staff. The representatives noted that due to the complexity of the children it was unlikely that there would be four children at one time. It would be important to ensure that from the time the first young person was received in the home, any additional young people had to be matched. If a young person had a high level of need and needed a staff ratio of 2:1 of 3:1, it was very unlikely that the home would be able to take on another child. Members asked for more clarity on the number of staff if there were four children. The representatives noted that if there were four children, it would have to be four children with low level needs where they could a 1:1 worke r or no worker. Children came with different complexities. For example, a child who struggled with sleeping at night but was able to function in the day may not require a 1:1 worker. If there were children of this nature then there could be up to four chil dren and it would only require two to three members of staff in the day. A child with more complexities may require 1:1 or 2:1 support. The work with children would involve things such as art therapy, music therapy, talking therapy and this required space. Members asked about the parking provision, noting concerns about accessing certai n bays when other bays were occupied, and the impact on local traffic. The representatives explained that any on -site parking issues could be resolved as all staff working there would know each other, similar to at a family home. Members asked how the number of staff would translate into parking and vehicle movements. The Highways officer noted that they would expect, and asked for a condition for, the parking layout to be r evised to ensure five usable spaces. Officers referred to the development plan to d etermine how many car parking spaces proposals can provide. The London Plan was silent on care homes, in which case officers had referred to the Local Plan. The Local Plan w ould require two car parking space plus one space per warden. It was taken that there would be three wardens. A minimum of two spaces plus three for wardens gave five spaces. Therefore, officers took the view that five was the maximum amount of car parking spaces that the policy would allow. If the demand for parking exceeded supply, con sideration would have to be given to parking displacement. It was noted that this would not raise highways concerns. The Chair noted that there were some parking restrictio ns on the road and it was congested during school times. The Chair noted the comments from Councillor Lewis as Ward Councillor which had been noted within the addendum. There was a need nationally and locally to look after vulnerable children. There was a need for this type of accommodation and the challenge was to ensure that it was the right development for the area and that residents’ concerns were listened to. Members asked about the possibility of conditioning the ratio of parking to the occupancy of the home and level of need of the children. Officers noted that it would be unreasonable to condition the car parking on the basis of staff numbers. There was a condition on a maximum of four children. A parking management plan could be considered. Members asked about potential noise and disturbance from the facility, particularly during staff shift changes. Officers noted that conditions related to noise and disturbance were typically covered by other legislation and may not be enforceable through planning conditions. Members further asked if conditions could be imposed on timing of staff shift changes. Conditions would need to be enforceable and precise. A condition on this would be difficult to enforce. It was highlighted that the parking scheme wa s nearby, not in the road in question. These restrictions had been provided for roa d safety purposes such as double yellow lines on the corners, the keep clear markings outside the school and the 20mph speed limit. Members noted some confusion around a nu mber of aspects including the number of staff and the parking provision. The Chair suggested that a site visit may help to ascertain the parking situation. Members queried how a site visit would clarify the numbers of staff. It was noted that if the item w as deferred in that there was not full information in front of Members, an additional benefit would be a site visit. The petitioner had noted that the Council did not investigate domestic noise complaints and Members asked if this would constitute domesti c noise. It was noted that these types of noise issues were covered by separate legislation and this would be outside of planning legislation. It was summarised that Members wanted additional information on how many staff were going to be on site, and shift times. The proposal to defer for further information and to undertake a site v isit was moved, seconded and when put to a vote, agreed. RESOLVED: That the item be deferred 28. 39 PARKFIELD ROAD, ICKENHAM - 24825/APP/2023/81 (Agenda Item 7) This item was withdrawn from the agenda. 29. 37 EDWARDS AVENUE, RUISLIP - 65680/APP/2023/2256 (Agenda Item 8) Officers introduced the application. It was important to note that the assessment of the proposal placed before Members for determination was restricted to the proposed amendments and not matters which had already been benefited from planning consent. The lead petitioner addressed the Committee and made the following points:  The petitioner noted the 2011 application (65680/APP/2011/36)  The current application reference was 65680/APP/2023/2256  It was disappointing that only the two conditions were being co nsidered and not the full application  Residents had a lot of interest in this application given the history of the site  The site was derelict and untouched  One of the key points was that the parking management scheme should not be negatively affected Councillor Steve Tuckwell addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and made the following points:  It was fully understood that the current application was on the basis of determining the variation of Condition 5 and the removal of Condition 18 from the parent planning permission that was granted in April 2011  The Committee can only determine what was presented to it  However, points needed to be raised for public record and for clarification  Residents believed that their opportunity to raise legitimate concerns using the petitions process about the overall application has been denied. For this reason, planning officers were asked to outline the following points: o What was the underpinning logic of granting the Certificate of Lawful Development on the 17 July 2024? o What weight was applied to the planning application document contained within today's application that expressly refe renced that the development of the site did not commence until the 01 May 2014, one month after the 2011 planning consent expired? o Given that this petition was submitted by residents in September 2023 expressing concern over the overall development, why was the Certificate of Lawful Development granted before the matter was brought before this Committee this evening?  Residents believed th at the original planning application had expired and that the new application with the full adherence to updated planning policies, should have been submitted for full determination  Whilst the Committee can only determine the variation and removal of conditions, not having the ability to determine the full application render this application devoid of the updated and refresh ed planning policies, such as the provision of family homes and electric charging points, air quality and the excessive size of the dropped curb Officers advised that they accepted an application for a certificate of lawfulness before determining the current application because the more robust way to address the extent of the original application was for the applicant to formalise and submit an application for officers to consider all the information. This was done and granted in July 2024. In terms of th e weight given to this current application documents, the application form did state that the dwelling had been demolished in May 2014. This was presumed to be an error and it was corrected to the date of 01 April 2014 and that was submitted on 01 July 2023. The applicant had submitted the certificate of lawfulness. Regarding the logic for granting the certificate of lawfulness, the planning permission was granted in April 2011 and that was for the demolition of the bungalow and construction of four back -to-back dwellings. All pre -commencing conditions were discharged with the exception of Condition 18, which was being considering this evening. Condition One on that planning permission required that the development would have to begin within three years of that date, which brought it up to 04 April 2014. In terms of determining whether the development with the planning permission had commenced, officers needed to evaluate, on the balance of probability, when the existing bungalow had been demolished and had it been demolished prior to 01 April 2014. This was the evidence that the applicant submitted for the certificate of lawfulness. To clarify what was assessed when looking at certificates of lawfulness, paragraph six of the MPG stated that in the cases of applications for existing use, if a local planning authority had no evidence itself, nor any from others, to contradict or otherwise make the applicant’s version of events less than probable, there was no good reason to refuse the application provided the applicant’s evidence alone was sufficiently precise and unambiguous to justify the grant of a certificate on the balance of probability . As part of the evidence that the applicant had submitted, they submitted a statutory declaration from a local estate ag ent which stated that the demolition commenced on 17 March 2014. The application form also said this. A second statutory declaration from the applicant also confirmed when the site was purchased and that the sale of the site included a demolition method st atement which confirmed that the demolition of the dwelling was programmed for the week commencing 17 March 2014. The demolition method statement itself was also submitted. In respect to the Council's own records and whether there was anything that was con trary to this, there were building control records from an e -mail received on 14 April 2014, which advised that the demolition had already commenced. While that date is slightly over, it did not contradict that the demolition had happened during the week o f 17 March 2014. It was noted that it was not standard practise for the Council to also consult residents, but officers did post letters to a significant number of residents within the street and the adjoining street to see if anyone had any other evidence that would be contrary to the applicant’s version of events. There was nothing that did contradict it. On the balance of probability, it was determined that the bungalow was demolished before 14 April 2014, and therefore the planning permission was valid. The application being considered this evening was a variation, and it was not possible to revisit things that were already considered in the determination of the original application, only the differences. Members referred to the appendix, which referenc ed a time limit deleted condition. Members asked for clarification of this. The time limit referred to the demolition having to have commenced within three years of the permission. As it had already commenced, the condition was deleted. Members asked about Condition 18, noting other recent applications where it had been specified that future occupants could not have access to parking per mits if there was a parking management scheme in the street. Members asked why this was not the case for the current appl ication. Officers noted that the parking that would be provided as part of the application was four parking spaces for the four x two bed units, so one parking space for each dwelling. This was a minor over -provision and so was considered, on balance, acce ptable. In terms of the mechanism, it would not meet the test of the condition which would ordinarily be secured through legal agreemen t, which had not been done at the time. Members referred to the history of planning, noting an application approved in September 2014. Members asked what the difference was between this and the application approved in 2011. Offices clarified that the 2014 application related to the discharge of conditions of the application that was approved in 2011. In order to demonstrate that the development had been commenced, the applicant would have to have discharged the pre-commencement conditions and this was the application which came in in 2014 and was approved. Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved 30. ATLAS LODGE - 585/APP/2024/1558 (Agenda Item 9) Officers introduced the application. Members highlighted the need for affordable housing. Members asked about the legal definiti on of primary occupants, and whether the development would be restricted to over 55s only or just be primarily for over 55s. It was noted that the previous scheme had a similar arrangement whereby the primary occupier was restricted to being a person needi ng assisted living. The current arrangement would work in a similar way. Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved 31. 3 ST MARGARETS AVENUE - 59652/APP/2024/1459 (Agenda Item 10) Officers introduced the application. Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved The meeting, which commenced at 7.00 pm, closed at 8.35 pm. These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of the resolutions ple ase contact Ryan Dell at democratic@hillingdon.gov.uk . Circulation of these minutes is to Councillors, Officers, the Press and Members of the Public.

Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Part 2 Application Report Case Officer: Rhian Thomas 17969/APP/2024/845 Date Application Valid: 02/04/2024 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 04/10/24 Application Type: Full Ward: Uxbridge Applicant: Mr Roda Site Address: 19 Beacon Close, Uxbridge Proposal: Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of two pairs of semi-detached dwellings to provide 2 x 3-bedroom dwellings and 2 x 2-bedroom dwellings plus associated hard and soft landscaping. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to section 106 legal agreement and conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 3 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Petition received) Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Planning permission is sought for the demolition of existing bungalows and the erection of two pairs of semi-detached dwellings to provide 2 x 3-bedroom dwellings and 2 x 2-bedroom dwellings, plus associated hard and soft landscaping. 1.2 Planning permission was previously refused by the Borough Planning Committee in February 2024 (application ref: 17969/APP/2023/1014) for the erection of four terraced dwellings incorporating landscaping, parking provision, waste and cycle stores following demolition of the existing dwelling. The application was refused for 4 reasons which are set out in more detail within Section 4 of this committee report. In summary concerns were raised regarding the design and its departure from the existing pattern of development and character of the area, the excessive provision of hardstanding and the lack of a legal agreement to prohibit future occupiers from joining the local parking management scheme. 1.3 The current revised scheme seeks to overcome the previous reasons for refusal by providing 4 new dwellings in the form of two pairs of semi-detached dwellings (2x3 and 2x2 bed) with revised landscaping and parking arrangements. Notably, the scale of the dwellings has been reduced and they have been set back so the front building line does not protrude beyond the front elevation of No.24 Beacon Close. During the assessment of the application the applicant submitted a landscaping drawing which demonstrates that the frontages would no longer be heavily dominated by hard surfacing. Finally, the applicant has submitted a Unilateral Undertaking (UU) which demonstrates that future occupiers of the development will not be eligible to join the local parking management scheme. It is officers opinion that the changes set out above and described in further detail within this report have satisfactorily addressed the concerns which previously formed the reasons for refusal. 1.4 During the process of the application, a petition in objection to the development was received. 1.5 The main issues which shall be addressed within this Committee Report relate to the intensification of the site and the impact on the character and appearance of the street scene. 1.6 The Committee Report seeks to provide a comprehensive assessment of the full application and supporting documentation. All material planning considerations have been considered. Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site is approximately rectangular in shape and is located at the southern end of Beacon Close, which is a cul-de-sac. It comprises a detached, single storey dwelling with a hipped roof and a detached garage with a flat roof located to the north-east of the dwelling. There is a vehicle crossover to the front of the detached garage which emerges onto Beacon Close. There is a second vehicle crossover along the north-western site frontage. Parking on Beacon Close is restricted by a single yellow line and is controlled by Car Parking Zone U8 which restricts parking to allow only permit holders to park within the street parking bays Mondays - Fridays between the hours of 9am to 5pm. 2.2 The street scene on Beacon Close is characterised by detached dwellings set-back from the highway. To the west of the site is number 24 Beacon Close, an adjacent detached bungalow that has been extended by single storey side and rear extensions and a rear dormer. To the east of the site, and sited on substantially higher grounds, are the backland developments at numbers 213B and 213C Harefield Road. 2.3 According to the Council's GIS, the site is designated within the Colne Valley Archaeological Priority Zone, Northolt RAF- 3km Buffer Zone and an Air Quality Management Area. A section of the highway to the front of the site falls within a Surface Water Flood Zone, although the application site itself does not fall within this designation. The site is in Flood Zone 1 and has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 1b (poor). Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application Property Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 The application proposes the demolition of the existing bungalow and erection of two pairs of semi-detached dwellings to provide 2 x 3-bedroom dwellings and 2 x 2-bedroom dwellings plus associated hard and soft landscaping. The existing bungalow and its associated detached garage would be demolished. 3.2 All 4 dwellings would be market sale properties. 3.3 During the process of the application revised drawings were sought and received to amend the front landscaping and parking arrangements and the applicant has provided a Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment. Figure 3: Proposed Plans (please note larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Proposed Site Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Proposed Plans Plot 1 and Plot 2 Proposed Plans Plot 3 and Plot 4 Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Street Scene Elevation 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 The most recent application at the site was refused permission under planning ref: 17969/APP/2023/1014 for the erection of four terraced dwellings incorporating landscaping, parking provision, waste and cycle stores following demolition of existing dwelling. 4.3 The application was refused at the Borough Planning Committee in February 2024 for the following reasons: 4.4 1. The proposed development, by reason of the number of dwellings being proposed, their terraced form, layout and siting, would result in an incongruous form of overdevelopment of the site that would fail to harmonise with the existing local context and prevailing pattern of development on Beacon Close. The principle of intensifying the residential use of the site as proposed, would have a detrimental impact on the street scene and character and appearance of the area as a whole. The proposal is therefore detrimental to the visual amenity and character of the surrounding area and contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (2012), Policies DMH 6, DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020), Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) and Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 4.5 2. The proposed development, by reason of its forward projection beyond the established front building line in this section of Beacon Close, plot width, depth, massing, bulk, scale and design, would fail to harmonise with the character and architectural composition of surrounding properties, appearing as an awkward, incongruous and cramped form of development which would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (2012), Policies DMH 6, DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020), Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) and Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). 4.6 3. The proposed development, by virtue of the excessive area of hard standing for the on-site parking provision, negligible soft landscaping and tree planting, removal of the existing front boundary treatment and number and site coverage of associated requirements for cycle stores and refuse bins in the front gardens, would erode and be out of keeping with the existing pleasant, spacious and suburban character of the site and the surrounding street scene on Beacon Close. The proposal would introduce an urbanising form of development that would cause harm to the open and verdant character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore have a harmful impact upon the character, appearance and visual amenities of the area, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (2012), Policies DMH 6, DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020), Policies D3, D4 and G7 of the London Plan (2021) and Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). 4.7 4. In the absence of a legal agreement to cover the required highways work to enable the proposed vehicle crossovers and on-site car parking provision and preventing the issuing of parking permits to future occupiers of the proposed dwellings which are located within a permit-controlled area, the proposed development is likely to lead to an increase in pressure for on-street parking and have a consequent adverse effect on highway safety, through inconsiderate and potential hazardous parking and a risk to road users. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020), Policies T4, T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021) and paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). 4.8 The main issue for the current application is whether these reasons for refusal have been overcome. 4.9 This current application is a re-submission of the refused scheme. The application seeks to overcome the above reasons for refusal. The main change within this application is the development has been split into two sets of semi-detached properties as opposed to one set of terraced properties with changes to the front landscaping and parking arrangements. Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 4.10 Overall, as discussed within the relevant sections of this Committee Report, the proposed development is considered to have overcome all the previous reasons for refusal. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 9 neighbouring properties and North Uxbridge Residents Association were consulted on the application by letter dated 16-04-24. The consultation period expired 08-05-24. Internal and external consultations were also sent out and a summary of the comments received are noted below in Table 2 of this Committee Report. 6.2 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response A petition of 22 valid signatures has been received against the application 1. Gross Overdevelopment of the site. Discussed at paragraph 7.6 of this report. 2. Design is not consistent with the street scene. Discussed at paragraph 7.13 of this report. 7 individual letters of objection have been received I. Disturbances due to building work. Noise and disturbance of building work are governed under separate legislation and is not a material planning consideration. As such this matter has not been discussed further. II. Loss of privacy and views. Discussed in paragraphs 7.26 to 7.30 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press III. Decrease in property values. This matter is not a material planning consideration. As such this matter has not been discussed further. IV. Increase in flooding and blocked drains. Discussed at paragraphs 7.67 and 7.68 of this report. V. Loss of suburban garden view that is out of character with the surrounding area. Discussed at paragraph 7.16 of this report. VI. Traffic and Parking Concerns. Discussed at paragraph 7.38 of this report. VII. Overdevelopment of the site. Discussed at paragraph 7.6 of this report. VIII. Impact wildlife, trees and biodiversity Discussed at paragraph 7.57 and 7.65 of this report. IX. Semi-detached properties are out of character with the detached properties in the area. Discussed at paragraph 7.16 of this report. X. There are no social, community or aesthetic benefits. The proposed development would provide two new family sized units (3 bed properties) and two additional two bed properties which would make a contribution towards the Boroughs needs for family sized housing. XI. Similar schemes have been refused by the council previously on the plot. The proposed development differs from previously refused applications in terms of its design, site layout and a Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press full assessment has been made within this report. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Statutory Consultation Ministry of Defence: No objection Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS): GLAAS were consulted on the application as the previous applications had them listed as a consultee. However, they did not consider it necessary to be consulted and left no further comment. Access Officer: This latest proposal for the erection of four terraced houses with landscaping and parking has been reviewed with reference to London Plan Policy D7. No accessibility concerns are raised subject to conditions pertaining to the submission of step free access details, and compliance with the relevant M4 standards. The comments from the access officer are noted and the relevant conditions will be added to the decision notice. Highway Officer: The application site has a PTAL ranking of 1b indicating access to public transport is poor compared to London as a whole, suggesting that few opportunities for trips to be made to and from the application site by modes other than the private car would be available. However, it should be noted that the site is located within 10 minutes walking distance the Uxbridge Metropolitan Town Centre which benefits from a PTAL rating of 6. The Town Centre accommodates a train station benefiting from access to two different train lines and a bus station which accommodates multiple bus links as well as accommodating town centre infrastructure such as retail, community space and public open space. Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Access The application site has 2no. vehicle crossovers, with 1no. single crossover serving the existing dwelling and 1no. double crossover serving the existing garage located on the eastern side of the turning head adjacent to the stepped adopted footpath that links Beacon Close to Harefield Road. Drawing 24/3551/1 titled Land At 19 Beacon Close, Uxbridge shows the proposed site layout which provides a single vehicle crossover to Plot 4, extends the existing vehicle crossover to serve Plot 2 and Plot 3 and provides vehicular access to parking spaces for Plot 1 over the existing vehicle crossover to the garage which would be removed. The shared vehicle crossover to Plot 2 and Plot 3 should concur with DVFC 4.2.2 Shared Crossover/Shared Access. Removal of the garage to provide parking for Plot 1 may undermine the structure supporting the steps to the adjacent adopted footpath which would not be acceptable. Further details would be required, and The Structural Engineer should be consulted. Pedestrian visibility splays of 2.4m x 2.4m in which there is no obstruction over 0.6m are required. Car Parking Drawing 24/3551/1 titled Land At 19 Beacon Close, Uxbridge which is the site plan illustrates a total of 6no. car parking spaces for the development which would be in accordance with the London Plan maximum standard and would be acceptable. The applicant should be advised that the Highway Authority would require that the applicant enter a legal agreement that prohibits future occupants of the proposed development from applying for a permit to join any parking management scheme in the vicinity of the application site. Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCP's) Drawing 24/3551/1 titled Land At 19 Beacon Close, Uxbridge shows 1no. EVCP for each dwelling which would be acceptable but should amended to show 1no. active 7Kw EVCP for each dwelling which should be conditioned. Noted and a condition pertaining to the submission of a structural survey to be attached to the decision notice. Noted and conditioned. Noted and a Unilateral Undertaking has been submitted to the Council for review. The UU demonstrates that the applicant agrees to prohibit future occupiers from applying to join the local PMS. Noted and conditioned Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Cycle Parking Drawing 24/3551/1 titled Land At 19 Beacon Close, Uxbridge, indicates that each of the dwellings would benefit from 2no. cycle parking spaces however, the locations are remote from the dwellings and are accessed through narrow gated pathways of approximately 0.8m wide and bound to both sides which would not be acceptable. Conclusion The Highway Authority are satisfied that the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress and would not raise any measurable highway safety concerns and would therefore offer no objection to the application subject to conditions pertaining to the delivery of EVCP provision, further cycle storage details and the submission of a legal agreement to prohibit future occupiers from joining the parking management scheme. Noted by Officers and a response is set out in paragraph 7.42 of this committee report. Environmental Specialist: It is considered that a biodiversity net gain solution is capable of being secured for the development and therefore reverting to the statutory pre-commencement condition would be acceptable. However, the solution presented remains unacceptable due to the unreasonable demands placed on a future occupier to retain a relatively high-grade habitat type within the useable private curtilage of the property. A future BNG solution will need to clearly set out how habitat will be managed to retain its distinctiveness. The higher the level of distinctiveness, the more management will be required. It is therefore advisable that any landscaping plans are not part of any subsequent conditional approval as these may change with a future approach to BNG. The comments made by the Ecology Specialist are noted and the relevant conditions have been added to the decision notice. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development New Housing and Garden Land Development Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.1 The proposed development would be built upon garden land following the demolition of the existing dwelling. As such, Policy DMH 6 of the Hillingdon Local there is a presumption against the loss of gardens due to the need to maintain local character, amenity space and biodiversity 7.2 Although located on garden land, the principle for residential use has been established through the existing dwelling. Therefore, the intensification of the site and housing mix must be assessed in accordance with Policy DMH 6. The loss of garden land for development will be strongly resisted unless applicants can demonstrate that the development proposal does not present a departure from the existing pattern of development, is designed to compliment the character and appearance of the area, would not result in significant harm to neighbour amenity or the local highway network. 7.3 The previous application included the provision of four dwellings in terraced form. This current application has amended the design to include 2 sets of semi-detached properties creating spaces between the properties to maintain the openness of the area. As set out within the character and appearance section of this committee report, the design of the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact in terms of its impact on local character and would have an appropriate area of amenity space for future occupiers. The impact on existing ecology, trees and biodiversity has been discussed in more ecology and biodiversity sections of this report. 7.4 Policy H10 on the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMH2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020) relate to housing mix and the need for family sized housing. The proposed development would provide four new dwellings (2 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed) with a net gain of three dwellings. The development would provide 2 family sized dwellings (a net increase of 1) which would make a contribution towards the Boroughs needs for family sized housing. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal would consist of appropriate mix. 7.5 Overall, the principle of the proposed development is accepted and complies with the relevant planning policies. These policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix. Density 7.6 Numerical densities are more appropriate to larger sites and what is considered of greater significance to the determination of this application is the local contextual factors. The key consideration is therefore whether the development would acceptably integrate with the character and appearance of the area, and would respect residential amenity considerations, rather than the consideration of the numerical density of the proposal. Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.7 Policies D1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) require development proposals to be of high quality and to enhance the local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness 7.8 Policies BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 Strategic Policies (2012), DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020) in summary seek to secure a high quality of design that enhances and contributes to the area in terms of form, scale and materials, is appropriate to the identity and context of the townscape and would improve the quality of the public realm and respect local character. These aims are also supported by Chapter 12 of the NPPF (2023). 7.9 Beacon Close is comprised of wide detached properties set-back from the highway by front drives and front gardens. In terms of architectural style, the properties along Beacon Close are characterised with gable end roofs, externally finished mostly with brickwork on ground level and cladding at first floor level. The site frontages of the existing properties are typically characterised with low level boundary treatment with a mixture of hard and soft landscaping with space for off-street car parking. 7.10 At the turning head of Beacon Close, are two bungalows at numbers 19 Beacon Close (the application site) and 24 Beacon Close. Directly east of the application site lies numbers 213B and 213C Harefield Road, a pair of semi-detached properties approved under application reference 59140/APP/2011/1113. 7.11 At present, the application site is characterised by a bungalow property with a low-level brick wall and soft landscaped front garden. There is an area of hard surfacing along the western boundary of the application site for a single-width driveway served by an existing crossover. In the northeastern corner of the plot lies an existing garage structure served by a vehicle crossover. 7.12 Beacon Close is a cul-de-sac which features a reasonably uniformed front building line despite the curved nature of the road and comprises of mainly two storey detached dwellings. Whilst the front buildings lines are reasonably aligned, the rear buildings line have become distorted which is mainly due to the construction of residential extensions. Whilst not specifically within Beacon Close, there is an examples of back land development constructed on a site immediately adjacent to the application site which benefitted from permission to construct semi-detached dwellings accessed off Harefield Road. Furthermore No.2F Beacon Close was subject to a planning application for the construction of an attached 3-bedroom house thus forming a semi-detached pair of dwellings. As such it is considered that developments consisting of semi-detached dwellings do contribute to the character and appearance of the area. 7.13 This application has been submitted in response to the previous refusal of application reference 17969/APP/2023/1014 and involves the demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection of two sets of semi-detached properties comprising 2 x 2bed and 2 x 3 bed dwellings. In forming reasons for refusal 1 and 2 which relate to the design of the development, concerns were raised with Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press regards to the provision of a block of 4 dwellings which formed a terrace. As terraces are uncommon within the immediate context it was considered that the development would result in a departure from the character and appearance of the area and that the design was led by a desire to over intensify the use of the property rather than a development which complimented and enhanced the local character. 7.14 In seeking to respond to the concerns raised regarding the proposal of a terraced block, the revised proposal seeks consent for two pairs of semis. The dwellings have been reduced in scale, bulk and mass to create additional space around each pair and would be set apart by a separation distance of 2 metres. 7.15 In determining the previous application Officers raised concern with the location of the proposed block as it stepped forward of the front building line at No.21 Beacon Close. The application site is located at the end of the cul-de-sac meaning that the established building line is formed by the two adjacent properties only which are No.24 Beacon Close and No.213c and 213b Harefield Road which a set of semis constructed on a backland development site. The existing dwelling is similar in scale bulk and mass to No.24 Beacon Close and features a small front projection towards the western elevation. The proposed site plan illustrates that the dwellings would be set back further so that they do not protrude beyond the front elevation of No.21 Beacon Close and would be set behind the front elevation . As such Officers consider that the revised proposal would not result in a departure from the existing pattern of development as shown in figure 3. Furthermore it should be noted that the front building line of No.22 sits well behind the front building line of No.20 Beacon Close meaning that the established building lines within this part of the cul-de-sac are restricted to the to adjacent sites only and in the event that the set back of the front elevation of plots 1 and 2 behind 213c and 213b Harefield Road is no different to the relationship between No.22 and No.20 Beacon Close. As such Officers consider that the revised design responds to the concerns raised when refusing the previous applications. 7.16 This proposal is revised in terms of the bulk, scale, mass and general appearance of the proposed dwellings. Although the properties along Beacon Close are detached in nature, they appear very wide as many have benefitted from large extensions and have the appearance of being semi-detached. The proposed dwellings would appear similar in size and design to the surrounding properties and as such would integrate with the character and appearance of the street scene. Furthermore, the elevations indicated that design features from the surrounding properties have been adopted when designing the proposed dwellings. Notably most of the dwellings which form the street scene are two storeys in height characterised by gable ended and tiled roofs, a mixture of brick and tile hung front facades and generous sized front and rear gardens. As referred to earlier in this report, most properties also benefit from various side and rear additions as well as porches some of which are reasonably large in scale. The proposed elevations illustrated the dwellings are of a similar scale, bulk and mass to the surrounding properties, they have been designed with gable ended, tiled roofs, would feature centralise canopies over the front entrance doors and Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press additional soft landscaping is proposed to the front which is a similar design feature to the other properties within the street scene. Although there would be an uplift of 3 new residential units on the site, the plot is large and reduction in the scale bulk and mass would result in a development which fits comfortably within its context. The unit sizes (number of occupiers) have decreased from the previous application, the design has been improved and the landscaping has been altered. As such, it is not considered that the proposed development would be an overdevelopment of the site 7.17 The proposed development would maintain adequate separation distances to the surrounding properties. The dwellings would be set in from the side boundaries by 1m and the two sets of semi-detached properties would have a separation gap of approx. 2m. Given the site levels, the building ridge heights would be staggered, forming a bridge between number 213C Harefield Road and 24 Beacon Close allowing views beyond the dwellings to the south. The building lines of the development would not break the building line of Beacon Close. It is considered that the proposed development would fit comfortably within the plot. 7.18 During the process of the application, revised drawings were sought to reduce the width of the front canopy features. It is now considered that the proposed design of the properties would fit in with the character and appearance of the street scene. A condition has been added to the decision notice requiring the sample of materials. 7.19 In terms of landscaping, the previous application included a refusal reason due to removal of the existing front boundary treatment and number and site coverage of cycle slandscaping with the relocation of the cycle stores to the rear gardens to maintain the local character. The level of tree planting, hedges and planting beds has been increased with the introduction of front lawns to break up the parking areas. It is considered that the proposed front landscaping would fit in with the character and appearance of the street scene given the surrounding properties have a mixture of hard and soft landscaping. The application is supported by an Arboricultural Implications Report which confirms that no trees of high landscape or biodiversity value are to be removed as part of the development. The proposed removal of individuals and groups of trees will represent no alteration to the main arboricultural features of the site, only a minor alteration to the overall character of the site and will not have an adverse impact on the arboricultural character and appearance of the local landscape. 7.20 Overall, the proposed design of the development would fit in with the character and appearance of the street scene. The proposed massing and layout is comparable to the majority of dwellings along Beacon Close and retains space and views around the development. The proposed front landscaping has been improved; however, the provision of a detailed landscape plan has been conditioned. It is considered that the proposed development has sufficiently overcome refusal reasons 1, 2 and 3 of the previous refused application reference 17969/APP/2023/1014. Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.21 It is considered that the proposed development would comply with the overarching aims of Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (2012), Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020), Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) and the NPPF (2023). Heritage 7.22 The site lies in the Colne Valley Archaeological Priority Area which contains archaeological remains dating from the prehistoric to post-medieval periods. The Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service were consulted on the application and acknowledged receipt of the consultation request. No further response has been received and the consultation period has now expired. 7.23 On this basis, it is considered that the proposed development would not cause harm to heritage assets of archaeological interest. The proposal would therefore accord with Policy DMHB 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020), Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and the NPPF (2023), in this respect. Impact on the Green Belt 7.24 The application site does not lie within the Green Belt. Residential Amenity 7.25 The previously refused scheme was not considered to have a significant harmful impact on the neighbouring properties through a loss of light and outlook (reference 17969/APP/2023/1014) This remains the case with this current scheme. An assessment of the potential impact on neighbouring residential amenity is discussed as follows. 7.26 Number 24 Beacon Close is a detached bungalow located to the west of the application site. Plot 4 would be the closest of the proposed properties to this neighbour. It would be sited approx. 1m from the side boundary and be two stories in nature. The dwelling would contain no ground or first floor flank windows which would face this neighbour and as such there would be no harmful level of overlooking or loss of privacy. The proposed ground floor would extend marginally beyond the single storey rear extension at No.24; however, it is not considered that this would cause any harmful loss of light or overshadowing. 7.27 It is acknowledged that the proposed first floor rear windows would provide oblique views into the rear gardens of No.24 Beacon Close and Nos. 213B and 213C Harefield Road and long views towards the end of the rear gardens of the properties fronting Harefield Road. However, a mutual degree of overlooking between first floor windows and rear gardens of neighbouring properties already exists, which is not uncommon in suburban locations such as this. It is therefore considered that the proposed first floor rear windows would not result in such a material loss of privacy as to warrant a reasonable ground for refusal on this basis. Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.28 Numbers 213B and 213C Harefield Road are two-storey properties located to the east of the application site. These neighbouring properties sit on substantially higher ground than the application site. The rear building line of the proposed dwelling on Plot 1 would not breach the 45-degree line of sight taken from the nearest first floor rear habitable window at No. 213C Harefield Road. There would be ground and first floor flank windows within the dwelling at plot 1, however due to the high ground position of no.213C, there would be no level of overlooking or loss of privacy. Taking these factors into account, and the south facing aspect of Nos. 213B and 213C, it is considered that the proposal would not result in an unreasonable loss of light, outlook or sense of enclosure for these neighbouring occupiers and their associated private amenity space. 7.29 Plot two would include the provision of two ground floor flank windows and one upper floor flank window facing Plot 3. However, as Plot 3 does not contain any flank windows there would be no level of overlooking or loss of privacy. 7.30 Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. It would therefore comply with Policy DMHB 11 part B) of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Quality of Residential Accommodation (Internal and External) 7.31 Regarding internal accommodation, Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) sets out the requirements for the gross internal floor area of new dwellings at a defined level of occupancy. Table 3.1 of the London Plan (2021) set outs the same gross internal area space standards set out in the technical housing standards - nationally described space standard (2015). Policy DMHB 16 of the Local Plan (2020) Aligns with this policy. 7.32 The proposed development comprises 4 new dwellings (2x2 bed and 2x3 bed) The proposed 3bed semi-detached properties would have a GIA of approx. 102.5sqm and would house up to 5 people. 7.33 The proposed 2bed semi-detached properties would have a GIA of approx. 79sqm and would house up to 4 people. All properties would meet the internal space standards of the London Plan (2021). It is considered that all habitable rooms would have an adequate source of light and outlook. As such the proposed development complies with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMHD 16 of the Local Plan (2020). 7.34 With regard to external amenity space, Policy DMHB 18 of Local Plan (2020) states that all new residential development and conversions will be required to provide good quality and usable private outdoor amenity space. Amenity space should be provided in accordance with the standards set out in Table 5.3, which requires houses with two and three bedrooms to provide a minimum of 60 square metres of private genuinely usable amenity space. Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.35 Plots 1 and 2 would have approx. 70sqm of rear garden space each and plots 3 and 4 would have approx. 64sqm each complying with Policy DMHB 18. The proposal would provide the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings with external private amenity space provision that is of a sufficient size, usability and functionality, in accordance with Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020). Highways and Parking 7.36 The application site is located at the end of the turning head on Beacon Close, a residential cul-de-ac with 30mph speed limit which is subject to a single yellow line parking restrictions Monday-Saturday between 8am and 6:30pm. An adopted stepped footpath runs from the northeastern corned of the turning head to Harefield Road. Access 7.37 The application site has 2no. existing vehicle crossovers with one serving the existing dwelling and one serving the existing detached garage located on the astern side of the turning head adjacent to the stepped footpath. Drawing no 24/3551/1 Rev A shows the proposed site layout which shows an additional crossover to serve Plots 2 and 3. Upon review of the proposal the Local Highway Authority requested that the crossover to the front of x be located at least 1 metre away from the existing lamppost column. In response to this drawing reference 24/3551/1 Rev A illustrates that the crossover is located 1 metre away from the lamp column which complies with The London Borough of Hillingdon Domestic Vehicle Footway Crossover policy (DVFC) 2022 4.9 Street Furniture and Traffic Calming document. Subject to the submission of a plan indicating pedestrian visibility splays of 2.4m x 2.4m in which no obstruction over 0.6m can be implemented which will be secured by way of condition, no objections are raised to the provision of new crossovers to serve the proposed development. Parking 7.38 The London plan table 10.3-Maximum Residential Parking Standards allows dwellings in outer London with a PTAL of 1b to have a maximum of 1.5 spaces per dwelling. The proposed development would provide 2no car parking spaces each for the 3-bedroom dwellings and 1no car parking spaces each for the 2-bedroom dwellings which would be in accordance with the London plan maximum standards. Plot 2 would benefit from a tandem parking space, whilst this is not the ideal parking situation, the property would be for one single family, and it is considered that the need for 2 parking spaces for the 3-bed dwelling in a PTAL ranking area of 1b outweighs the negatives of the tandem parking space. On balance the layout of car parking spaces is considered acceptable. 7.39 As per the Local Highway Authority comments, due to the limited provision of off-street parking and prevention of parking stress in the local area it is necessary to restrict future occupiers of the dwellings entering parking permit schemes. A Unilateral Undertaking has been drafted and will be reviewed by the Councils Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Legal Team. The Unilateral Undertaking will need to be submitted and reviewed before the decision of the application is released. Although yet to be signed, the provision of the agreement in draft form is adequate demonstration that the applicant will agree to a restriction on future occupants joining the parking management schemes in the local area. Electric Vehicle Charging Points 7.40 The published London Plan (2021) required that 20% of car parking spaces have active Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCP) and 80% of spaces have passive EVCPs. Drawing 24/3551/1 Rev A shows 1no. EVCP for each dwelling which would be acceptable, however this should be amended to show 1no active 7Kw EVCP. This is to be secured by condition. Cycle Parking 7.41 The Published London Plan (2021) Table 10.2 Maximum Cycle Paring Standards requires dwellings with two or more bedrooms to have a minimum of 2no. cycle parking spaces which are shown on Drawing 24/3551/1 Rev A. The cycle storage is located within the rear gardens accessed by individual paths. It is considered that the number of cycle storage is acceptable for the development. 7.42 It is noted that the Highway Authority has concerns regarding the location of the cycle storge to the rear of the properties due to the 0.9m wide footpaths. However, from reviewing the revised block plan showing revised landscaping and parking arrangements it is considered that the cycle storage located in the rear gardens of the dwellings form a better design compared to a front garden position. If the cycle storage were to be located to the front of the dwellings it would require additional hard surfacing which was raised as a design concern when refusing the previous application and cycle storage in front gardens is not a common feature within the street scene. In fact, the location of cycle parking within rear gardens is a common arrangement for residential properties. Therefore, it is considered on balance an acceptable arrangement. A condition has been added to the decision requiring the details of the cycle storage including their dimensions, materials and location. Other Matters 7.43 The application is bounded by a public right of way which adjoins the western boundary. As there is a land level change which slopes away as you travel east, steps are located towards the bottom of the footpath. In assessing the proposals, the Local Highway Authority have suggested that a structural survey is undertaken to ensure the structural integrity of the wall is not compromised during the construction of the development. A condition pertaining to the submission of a structural survey is to be attached to the decision notice. Conclusion Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.44 The Highway Authority have been consulted on the application and are satisfied that the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress and would not raise any measurable highway safety concerns and officer no objection to the application subject to certain conditions. Noise 7.45 Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021) requires that proposals minimise noise pollution and Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (2012) promotes the maximum possible reduction in noise levels and seeks to ensure that noise impacts can be adequately controlled and mitigated. 7.46 The site would be used in an exclusively residential capacity. As such, in terms of the operational phase of the proposed development, no significant issues are considered to be raised by the proposal, in respect to noise. A condition has been added requiring the submission of a Construction Management Plan to minimise noise and other emissions caused during the construction phase as far as practicable. Air Quality 7.47 Local Plan Policy DMEI 14 states: Policies SI 1 of the London Plan (2021), EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) and DMEI 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) are all directly relevant to the proposal. These policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix, and in summary, seek to safeguard and improve air quality to protect existing and new sensitive receptors. These aims are also supported by the NPPF (2023) at Chapter 15. 7.48 The development site is located within an Air Quality Management Area. The proposal would result in 3 additional homes at the site, their occupiers would have access to 6 car parking spaces with 4 being served with active vehicle charging points (covered by way of a condition). Whilst the development would result in a net increase in trip generation, the number of trips would be de minimis and therefore it would not be justifiable to require mitigation be secured by way of condition. Notwithstanding this point given the constraints of the site and its located within a cul-de-sac; the applicant will need to submit a Construction Management Plan to minimise air and other emissions caused during the construction phase. This condition is recommended to be added to the decision notice. Accessibility 7.49 Policy D5 of the London Plan (2021) seeks to ensure development proposals achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design. Policy D7 of the London Plan (2021) requires at least ten percent of dwellings to meet Building Regulation requirement M4(3) 'wheelchair user dwellings', with all other dwellings meeting Category M4(2) 'accessible and adaptable dwellings'. Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.50 The Councils Access Officer has been consulted on the application and has no objection to the proposed development in terms of accessibility subject to conditions pertaining to step free access which have been added to the decision notice. Trees and Landscaping 7.51 An Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been submitted with the proposed development. The submitted Arboricultural Report indicates that five trees would be felled, all being 'Category C' specimens. In principle, the loss of these low value trees is acceptable. However, consideration also needs to be given to the proposed landscape scheme, and replacement tree planting. 7.52 The proposed development would include landscaping works to the front of the site to include new areas of hardstanding for vehicle parking and soft the proposal would still introduce an urbanising form of development that would not integrate well with its surroundings. The proposed replacement trees and landscaping would not mitigate the harm caused to the character and appearance of the area. 7.53 The current application seeks to overcome the previous refusal reason by a revised front landscaping scheme. As discussed within the Character and Appearance section of the report, the proposed design of the development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the street scene and would integrate within the surrounding properties. The level of hard surfacing has been reduced with the introduction of front lawn areas and trees to integrate with the surrounding properties. Subject to a comprehensive landscape plan which has been conditioned it is considered that the proposed development would comply with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020) and has sufficiently overcome refusal reason 3 of planning reference 17969/APP/2023/1014. Ecology 7.54 The site is in proximity to The Alderglade Nature Reserve and Frays Farm, which is a designated Nature Conservation Site of Local Importance. It is therefore considered that the site is located within habitat that matches that where bat roosts have previously been found in the Borough. 7.55 A Preliminary Ecology Appraisal and Preliminary Roast Assessment has been submitted with this application. The report methodology includes a desk top survey and walkover survey to determine the potential presence of protected and notable species. This concluded that the site was not suitable for, or no evidence was documented of, a number of notable species. 7.56 In respect to bats, due to the small size of the site, small number of trees and better-quality habitats at Alderglade Nature Reserve and Frays Farm, the site was determined to be of limited value to foraging and commuting bats. In respect to opportunities for bat roosts, the main dwelling was concluded to be of low potential with limited entry points into the loft (for example lifted roof tiles) and no Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press evidence of bat activity found in the loft space (for example droppings, feeding remains or urine staining). The garage and shed on site were considered to have negligible potential for roosting bats due to the roofing felt on these structures being in good condition and tightly sealed. 7.57 The proposal satisfactorily demonstrates that there would be no harm to protected species and their habitats. The paragraphs below discuss issues relating to biodiversity. Biodiversity Net Gain 7.58 In England, Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is mandatory under Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021). It became mandatory for major developments on 12 February 2024 and small sites on 2 April 2024. Developers must deliver a BNG of at least 10%. This means a development will result in more or better-quality natural habitat than there was before development. The landowner is legally responsible for creating or enhancing the habitat and managing that habitat for at least 30 years to achieve the target condition. 7.59 Policy 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity. 7.60 Paragraph 8.6.6 of Policy G6 of The London Plan (2021) states that biodiversity net gain is an approach to development that leaves biodiversity in a better state than before. Losses should be avoided, and biodiversity offsetting is the option of last resort. 7.61 Policy EM7 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part One Strategic Policies (2012) states that Hillingdon's biodiversity and geological conservation will be preserved and enhanced, with particular attention given to improving biodiversity from all development. 7.62 Paragraph 6.28 of Policy DMEI 7 (Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement) of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part Two Development Management Policies (2020) states it is important that planning decisions are appropriately informed by the right level of survey and information on ecology features. The Council will apply Natural England's standing advice at the validation stage. Applications will only be validated if they have the appropriate information. Where initial assessments recommend further surveys, these will be expected to be provided as part of a planning submission. All ecological reports or information submitted should adhere to nationally accepted best practice survey standards and be consistent with the British Standard BS 42020: 2013 Biodiversity - Code of Practice for Planning and Development or an updated variation. Where appropriate, the Council will require the use of the approved DEFRA biodiversity impact calculator (as updated) to inform decisions on no net loss and net gain. Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.63 During the process of the application a Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment was requested and provided. The Councils Environmental Specialist has reviewed the documents and concluded that the habitat proposed to be provided is not appropriate for an urban setting and consequently has artificially raised the adjacent to parking spaces and around the access tracks and will not therefore operate in a manner that is captured by this habitat requirement. It is not appropriate to select a higher scoring habitat type to artificially raise the BNG assessment levels. 7.64 Notwithstanding the above paragraph, the Environmental Specialist believes that a biodiversity net gain solution is capable of being secured for the development and therefore reverting to the statutory pre-commencement condition would be acceptable. However, the solution presented remains unacceptable due to the unreasonable demands placed on a future occupier to retain a relatively high-grade habitat type within the useable private curtilage of the property. A future BNG solution will need to clearly set out how habitat will be managed to retain its distinctiveness. The higher the level of distinctiveness, the more management will be required. 7.65 As such, the application would be able to provide a 10% increase in biodiversity, therefore the statutory condition has been added to the decision notice. However, a comprehensive landscape plan would need to be provided to ascertain how the 10% increase is met. No landscaping plans will be approved within this application. Flooding and Drainage 7.66 Policy SI12 and SI13 of the London Plan (2021) require, in summary, that flood risk is minimised and mitigated, and that surface water runoff is managed close to source. 7.67 The site lies within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Risk Map. This means the site is classified as being at low risk and defined as having a less than 1 in 1,000 probability of fluvial and tidal flooding. As such, there are no restrictions on development, including more vulnerable uses such as Use Class C3 (dwellinghouses), in this location, in terms of fluvial and tidal flood risk. 7.68 A section of the highway to the front of the application site is designated within a Surface Water Flooding Zone. A condition requiring the submission of a sustainable water management scheme, that incorporates sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDs) has been added to the decision notice. Waste Management 7.69 Policy DMHB 11 part (d) of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020) states that development proposals should make sufficient provision for well-designed internal and external storage space for general, recycling and organic waste, Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press with suitable access for collection. External bins should be located and screened to avoid nuisance and adverse visual impacts to occupiers and neighbours. 7.70 The proposed landscape plan does not show any provision for refuse and recycling storage. To conform with the Council's 'waste-collection' distance parameter of 10 metres, refuse, recycling and food waste would need to be deposited kerbside on collection day. It is assumed that the proposed dwellings could store waste to the rear of the properties in individual gardens due to their semi-detached design. A suitable condition has been added to the decision notice requiring the provision and details of refuge storage to be provided. Sustainability 7.71 Policy DMEI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020) requires all developments to make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the London Plan targets. 7.72 The proposed development is of a minor scale therefore whilst the principle of SI 2 (carbon reduction) is applicable, the London Plan Policy applies more specifically to major scale applications. The applicant is therefore not required to submit an energy statement with the application or demonstrate a policy level of on-site savings. Notwithstanding this point, the modern construction of the development would be considered as providing sufficient energy savings itself and therefore the development would comply with the principles of the carbon saving development plan policies. 7.73 A condition will be secured requiring the proposed development to achieve as a minimum, a water efficiency standard of no more than 110 litres per person per day maximum water consumption (to include a fixed factor of water for outdoor use of 5 litres per person per day in accordance with the option requirement defined within Approved Document G of the Building Regulations). 7.74 The proposal would therefore be compliant with Policy SI 2 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMEI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Airport Safeguarding 7.75 Policy DMAV 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020) states that the Council will ensure that uses such as housing, education and hospitals are not located in areas significantly affected by aircraft noise without acceptable mitigation measures. 7.76 The application site is within 3km of the RAF Northolt Zone. However, as the site is within an established residential area within this zone, it is considered that visibility and audibility of aircraft operations associated with RAF Northolt would not be of significant harm to the living conditions of future occupiers. It is therefore considered that it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on the ground of harm to the residential amenity of the future occupiers, in respect Hillingdon Planning Committee 5th September 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press to aircraft noise associated with RAF Northolt. The Ministry of Defence were also consulted on the application and have no objection to the proposed development. Land Contamination 7.77 Policy DMEI 12 of the Local Plan (2020) states that for sites which are identified as being

Hillingdon Planning Committee 2nd October 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Application Report Case Officer: Emilie Bateman 24825/APP/2023/81 Date Application Valid: 10-01-23 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 04-10-24 Application Type: Full Ward: Ickenham & South Harefield Applicant: Mr L Chira Site Address: 39 Parkfield Road, Ickenham Proposal: Erection of a replacement dwelling Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 3 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Petition received) Hillingdon Planning Committee 2nd October 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Section 2 of the following committee report. 1 Deferred at Planning Committee on 13th March 2024 1.1 This application was deferred at the Planning Committee on 13th March 2024 for members to visit the site and for an independent review of the submitted sunlight and daylight report. Member Site Visit 1.2 A member site visit was carried out on 27th April 2023. This included viewing other properties within the street from the footpath, to gain an appreciation of the character and visual amenity of the street scene. 1.3 The key matters looked at on the site visit were: The relationship between the proposal and adjacent properties and the impact on neighbouring amenity. Impact on the character and appearance of the street scene. Sunlight & Daylight Report Review 1.4 The applicant submitted a (dated February 2024) by Stinton Jones Consulting Engineers, in support of the application. This report concluded that the impact of the proposal would comply with BRE (Building Research Establishment) recommendations and was considered . 1.5 Following the deferral at Planning Committee, this report has been independently reviewed by LSH (Lambert Smith Hampton). LSH have confirmed that the tested windows meet the target values for daylight and pass sunlight testing. LSH have also confirmed that they are satisfied with the methodology undertaken and the report conclusions. 1.6 Consequently, the committee report remains unchanged in its recommendation. For transparency the committee report is attached in its original form considered by members on 13th March 2024. 2 Consultation Update 2.1 Since the deferral of this application, a new petition has been received with 20 valid signatures. The outcome sought by the petition is refusal or reduction in scale and height with conditions.

Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Part 2 Application Report Case Officer: Chris Brady 4482/APP/2022/213 Date Application Valid: 24-01-22 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 12/08/24 Application Type: Full Ward: Belmore Applicant: Sivakumaran,Yoganathan & Jeyakumar Site Address: 152-154 Uxbridge Road, Hayes, UB4 OJH Proposal: Erection of three storey mixed use retail and 9 residential apartments with ancillary parking, amendments to dropped kerbs, refuse and bicycle storage, following the demolition of existing buildings. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to section 106 legal agreement and conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 3 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Petition received) Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. That delegated powers be given to the Director for Planning, Regeneration and Public Realm to GRANT planning permission subject to the following: A) That the Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or any other legislation to secure the following: 1. Restriction upon future residents preventing them from obtaining an on-street parking permit within the existing adjoining Parking Management Scheme and any future expanded Scheme. 2. Air Quality Offsetting Contribution of £28,088. 3. Amendment to the traffic order to facilitate servicing and delivery to be undertaken on street funded by the applicant. 4. Project Management & Monitoring Fee: A financial contribution equal to 5% of the total cash contributions. B) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in the review and preparation of the legal agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed. C) That Officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreement and conditions of approval. D) If the Legal Agreements have not been finalised within 6 months of 02/10/24, delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning, Regeneration and Public Realm to refuse the application for the following reason: 'The applicant has failed to provide measures to mitigate the impacts of the development in relation to the highway network and air quality as a consequence of demands created by the proposed development. The proposal therefore conflicts with the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, Policies DMEI 7, DMEI 14, DMT 6 and of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020), the Council's Planning Obligations SPD and the Hillingdon Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (November 2012), the London Plan (2021) and the NPPF.' E) That if the application is approved, the following conditions be imposed subject to changes negotiated by the Director of Planning, Regeneration and Public Realm prior to issuing the decision. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Planning permission has been sought for the erection of a three-storey mixed use building following the demolition of existing buildings on the site. The proposed building would comprise a retail unit at ground floor with 9 residential apartments above. The proposal also includes ancillary parking, amendments to dropped kerbs and the provision of refuse and bicycle storage. 1.2 In terms of the principle of the development, the proposal includes a net increase of 8 additional dwellings on the site, 4 of which would be family sized units therefore contributing towards addressing an identified need within the Borough. The provision of additional housing at the site is therefore supported. The development would also include an enlarged retail space at ground floor. The enlarged space would cater for a broader range of occupiers and would provide them with a contemporary shop, with private service yard. The enlarged and improved retail space would support the local economy as well as the vitality and viability of the local shopping parade. 1.3 Turning to design, during the processing of the application, concerns were raised regarding the design of the proposed new building. To address the design concerns revised plans have been submitting which illustrate detailing has been added to the gable ends and the external finishes of the building have been altered to break up the bulk of its side elevation and to simplify its design. The design of the building is now considered to be acceptable. The building has also been carefully designed to imitate the existing building's appearance when viewed from Uxbridge Road, it would therefore have an acceptable impact on the appearance of the terrace in which it is sited. Furthermore, the building would replace the unsightly rear service yard, fencing and signage that currently exist at the site, cluttering and harming the areas appearance. The development is therefore considered to enhance the appearance of the area. 1.4 Conditions (requiring obscure glazing and privacy screens in appropriate locations) are recommended to ensure that the development causes no harm to neighbouring amenities and that future occupiers of the building have acceptable levels of privacy. 1.5 Adequate parking would be provided for the development and conditions are recommended to ensure that the new and altered accesses meet the councils standards. 1.6 In the event, that the application is approved a legal agreement will be secured securing air quality contributions and parking restrictions for future residents. Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 1.7 Overall, it is considered that subject to the recommended conditions the proposed development would cause no harm to the character and appearance of the area or the host building, nor would it cause significant harm to neighbouring amenities or the local highways network. Residents of the new flats would be provided with an acceptable standard of internal and external living accommodation. Additionally, the development would provide family sized housing on previously developed land, which is supported by the Local Plan and London Plan. 1.8 The planning application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The development site is located on the corner of Uxbridge Road and Brookside Road. 2.2 At present the site comprises a three-storey end of terrace building. The ground floor of the building is in retail use and its upper floors are in residential use as 1 x 5-bedroom apartment. The building is finished in a mixture of brick and tiling and has high level gabled features. It is set back from Brookside Road and Uxbridge Road and forms part of small parade of three storey buildings ( 124 -154 Uxbridge Road) which are of similar use, size and design. The development site projects beyond the side elevation of the parade to the back edge of Brookside Road and along this road frontage forms a yard area. 2.3 The area surrounding the development site is of mixed use. To the north are pairs of two storey semi-detached dwellings. To the south is Uxbridge Road and beyond that Hyatt Place Hotel and Springfield Road Retail Park. To the west of the site are two storey semi-detached properties and terraces and to the east (beyond the parade) are two storey terraces. 2.4 The site forms part of the 124 - 152 Uxbridge Road Local Parade, as designated in the Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). It also forms part of Hillingdon's Air Quality Management Area and is located within an Air Quality Focus Area. The site is within a 250-metre buffer zone of a former landfill site and a gas pipeline runs along Brookside Road. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application Property Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission has been sought for the erection of a three-storey mixed use building following the demolition of existing buildings on the site. The proposed building would comprise a retail unit at ground floor with 9 residential apartments above. The proposal also includes ancillary parking, amendments to dropped kerbs and the provision of refuse and bicycle storage. 3.2 The proposed building mix is as follows: 5 x 2-bedroom units 4 x 3-bedroom units Figure 3: Proposed Plan (please note larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Proposed Ground Floor Plan Proposed First Floor Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Proposed Second Floor Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Proposed Roof Plan Proposed Ground Floor Landscaping Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Proposed Front and Side Elevation Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Proposed Rear and Side Elevation 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 There is no relevant planning history for the development site. Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 19 neighbouring properties were directly notified of the proposal on 09/02/22. 6.2 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response A petition of 28 signatures from a total of 16 different households has been received against the application 1. Traffic/congestion Discussed in section 7 paragraph 7.72 2. Noise pollution Discussed in section paragraphs 7.52 and 7.53 3. Late night disturbances and nearby hotel Disturbances from other properties are not material to the assessment of this application 8 Individual letters of objection have been received. I. Traffic Discussed in section 7 paragraph 7.72 II. Noise Discussed in section paragraphs 7.52 and 7.53 III. Out of character Discussed in section 7 paragraphs 7.17 to 7.26 Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Statutory Consultation Thames Water: No objection subject to a standard informative to ensure that the developer applies for a permit should any ground water or surface water be proposed to be discharged into the public sewer network and a Noted Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press condition pertaining to the submission of a pilling method statement. Cadent Gas: No objection Noted Scottish Southern Electric: No comments received Internal Consultation Highway Officer: The Highway Authority is aware that this planning application has generated several objections, with regards highway matters this concerns traffic congestion and vehicular noise. The Highway Authority anticipates that the amount of road traffic generated by the proposal would not be insignificant and not have any noticeable impact upon the free flow of traffic or road noise. A total of 9 parking spaces, including 2 disabled accessible spaces are proposed which is below the maximum standards set out within the London Plan. The parking proposed is therefore acceptable. The proposal would include the carrying out of alterations to a vehicular access. On page 12 of the Design and Access Statement plan Ref: 5005_DAS V1.0 (Design + Access Statement) shows that the vehicle crossover would extend across the entrance to the residents parking. The initial proposal included a new servicing and delivery bay within the site boundary which would have required the construction of an additional access. This has now been removed and deliveries will take place on street. The applicant will be required to apply to the Local Highway Authority for an amendment to the traffic order to permit deliveries to take place on street. The Highway Authority requires a planning condition that prohibits the occupiers of the new dwellings from applying to join any car parking management scheme in operation within the vicinity of the site. The proposal provides a minimum of 2no. long-stay cycle parking spaces per dwelling or 18no. in total as well as 2no. short-stay cycle parking spaces. The The relevant conditions have been added Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 10no. proposed is significantly below this standard and as submitted is unacceptable. However, the Highway Authority considers that there is scope to increase cycle parking provision thereby allowing this issue to be resolved by way of a planning condition. The long-stay cycle parking spaces should be provided in accordance with the London Cycle Design Standards for the short-stay parking Sheffield stands are considered suitable. Access Officer: No objection subject to conditions pertaining to the requirements to conform to the relevant M4(2) and the provision of an evacuation lift in order to accord with D5, D7 and D12 of the London Plan (2021). The relevant conditions have been added Tree Officer: There are no TPO's or Conservation Area designations affecting the site. No trees or landscape features of merit will be affected by the proposal. The proposals include a hard and soft landscape strategy and layout plans by Bradford-Smith Landscape Consultants. The scheme introduces planting at ground level and on green roofs - including an intensive green roof providing amenity space for residents and an extensive roof with wildflower meadow. No objection subject to a condition to secure more comprehensive landscaping details. The relevant conditions have been added Noise Officer: The noise assessment report ref Rep: 112421 / 152 - 154 Uxbridge Road, Hayes by Sonic Element dated 24 Nov 2021 has been reviewed. This characterises the existing noise environment that would likely affect the proposed development, in particular the residential use. Existing noise levels during the night/day periods are reported as around 60/63 dB(A) respectively and have been adjusted upwards using the BS4142 approach. An attempt was made to consider the noise from the existing electricity sub-station, but this was not apparent, indicating that its enclosure has been effective in mitigating any noise it produces. This is a relatively noisy area affected by traffic on the main roads, it is adjacent to a busy road junction, and local commercial activity. The report recommends a corresponding noise insulation and ventilation design to mitigate the effects of noise within the residential units to levels consistent with Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press relevant guidance following recognised methods. No objection subject to a condition to restrict noise levels to a specific level above background noise levels. The relevant conditions have been added Air Quality Officer: The proposed development is located within the LBH Air Quality Management area (AQMA), and within the Ossie Garvin LBH Focus Area (FA), bringing additional traffic emissions which will add to current poor air quality. Developments in these areas need to be neutral as minimum and positive in Focus Areas, contributing to the reduction of air pollutant emissions in these sensitive locations. The application is supported by an Air Quality Assessment which has been reviewed. In this case the level of mitigation does not result in an Air Quality positive development, as such a damage contribution of £28,088 will need to be secured by way of a s106 legal agreement. Subject to the agreement of the damage cost and conditions to secure an exposure reduction strategy, implementation of a mechanical ventilation system and submission of a low emissions plan, no objection is raised. The relevant conditions have been added and heads of term proposed for approval by committee. Urban Design Officer: The design is now accepted; however, I am against the demolition of the existing building. Demolition runs contrary to sustainability principles. The existing building is not considered to be of any architectural merit and whilst the demolition of the existing building may be regrettable it is not a listed heritage asset. 7 Planning Assessment 7.1 Principle of Development 7.2 Retail Impact 7.3 Policy SD7 and E9 of the London Plan and Policy DMTC 3 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020) recognise the contribution that retail properties make to local communities and infrastructure. Furthermore, that seek to safeguard retail floor space within designated areas such as town centres and local shopping parades. The policies require new retail space to be designed to be flexible to enhance long term occupation. Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.4 The application site is not located within a local town centre, or a local shopping parade designated within the local plan. However, the site does form part of a non-designated parade which fronts the Uxbridge Road and comprises of ground floor commercial uses with residential above. As such the retention of the commercial a benefit which weighs in favour of the proposal. 7.5 At present the site comprises approximately 180m2 of retail space at ground floor. The application proposes 226m2 of retail space at ground floor level therefore resulting in a net increase of 46m2. The existing frontage comprises of an unattractive shop front which extends around the corner junction between Uxbridge Road and Brookside Road. The existing retail unit occupies the entire frontage with what appears to be storage to the rear in the form of a white painted brick building which would have been active in terms of views across the service yard at some point, but the windows have been boarded up adding to the poorly maintained and decayed elevations which front Brookside Road. 7.6 In comparison, the proposal would result in an enlarged retail space with a consistent fascia for signage, increased glazing thus making a more attractive and active shop frontage. As referred to above the development would also replace unsightly advertisements and an open service yard which is used for storage. Above the enlarged retail space would be new residential units bringing new customers to the local shopping parade. It is therefore considered that the proposal would enhance and support the viability and attractiveness of the local parade. Policy SD7 and E9 of the London Plan (2021) support the redevelopment of out of centre retail space for mixed uses and the proposal would achieve this. 7.7 Housing Provision 7.8 The site comprises a building in mixed use (retail at ground floor with 1x 5 bed maisonette above). The site would remain in mixed used post development but would be of higher density, comprising a larger retail unit and 9 dwellings (resulting in a net increase of 8 dwellings at the site). Mixed used development is supported in this location as mentioned in the retail impact assessment above. Furthermore, new residential development is supported, subject to compliance with other material planning considerations. 7.9 Housing Mix 7.10 The proposed residential mix is as follows: - 1 x 2 bed, 4 person apartment at ground floor - 2 x 2 bed, 4 person apartments and 2 x 3 bed, 5 person apartments at first floor - 2 x 2 bed, 4 person and 2 x 3 bed, 5 person apartments at second floor 7.11 The Councils Strategic Housing Marketing Assessment states there to be an underlying need for family sized units which are 3-bed units and above in accordance with the London Plan 2021 glossary definition. Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Four of the nine proposed dwellings would be family sized (3 bedrooms or more), therefore, not only would the proposal conform with DMH 1 and DMH 2 in terms of providing a broad mix of unit sizes, but it would also contribute towards addressing the identified need for family sized units within Hillingdon. As such the proposed housing mix is therefore considered to be acceptable. 7.12 Density of Development 7.13 Numerical densities are more appropriate to larger sites and what is considered of greater significance to the determination of this application is the local contextual factors. The key consideration is therefore whether the development would acceptably integrate with the character and appearance of the area, and would respect residential amenity considerations, rather than the consideration of the numerical density of the proposal. 7.14 Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.15 Policies D1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) require development proposals to be of high quality and to enhance the local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness. 7.16 Policies BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 Strategic Policies (2012), DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020) in summary seek to secure a high quality of design that enhances and contributes to the area in terms of form, scale and materials, is appropriate to the identity and context of the townscape and would improve the quality of the public realm and respect local character. These aims are also supported by Chapter 12 of the NPPF (2023). 7.17 At present the site comprises a three-storey end of terrace building with associated yard to the rear fronting Brookside Road. The ground floor of the building is in retail use and its upper floors are in residential use as 1 x 5-bedroom apartment. The building is finished in a mixture of brick and tiling and has high level gabled features. It is set back from Brookside Road and Uxbridge Road and forms part of small parade of three storey buildings (Nos. 124 -154 Uxbridge Road) which are of similar use, size and design. The development site projects beyond the side elevation of the parade to the back edge of Brookside Road and along this road frontage forms a yard area. 7.18 The area surrounding the development site is of mixed use. To the north are pairs of two storey semi-detached dwellings. To the south is Uxbridge Road and beyond that Hyatt Place Hotel and Springfield Road Retail Park. To the west of the site are two storey semi-detached properties and terraces and to the east (beyond the parade) are two storey terraces. 7.19 The proposal seeks to demolish the existing building and to rebuild a sympathetic more contemporary replacement building. The ridge height of the replacement building would be of similar height to the existing building and to Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press other properties in the terrace where it would be sited. Its height is therefore considered to be acceptable. 7.20 The frontage of the replacement building (facing Uxbridge Road) would comprise a large gable end and dormer at roof level with a balanced first floor fenestration below, finished with shopfront at ground floor. The new building would not extend beyond the frontages of its neighbours; thus, retaining the areas building line. Front elevation dormers are common features within the terrace, as such those proposed would be in keeping with the appearance of the terrace and neighbouring buildings. Furthermore, large gables exist on the existing building and at either end of the terrace, the replacement building would have a similar feature, retaining the visual symmetry of the terrace. The larger shop frontage would be somewhat out of character with other shops in the terrace, however the existing shopfront is out of character as it wraps around the building, unlike others in the terrace. The new shopfront is therefore not considered to be significantly harmful when compared with the existing situation at the site and in fact any potential harm would be outweighed by the contribution the new building would make to removing the existing shop front which is cluttered with signage, some of which is no longer relevant to the use of the site and the poorly maintained structure. The limited visual impact of the replacement building on Uxbridge Road and the neighbouring terraces is therefore considered to be acceptable. 7.21 The side and rear elevation of the building (facing Brookside Road) would be of more contemporary design. The ridge height of the side and rear would be consistent with the rest of the terrace and existing building. The lift shafts would extend above the height of the terrace; however, they would be well set back to reduce their visual impact from the street. The height and scale of the building's side elevation is therefore considered to be acceptable. 7.22 During the processing of the application concerns were raised regarding the complex material pallete of the buildings side elevation. To address these concerns the zinc cladding window surrounds have been omitted and replaced with glazed bricks, which are present within the upper floor feature panels of the proposed building. This would bring continuity to the material palette of the building, whilst also breaking up the visual bulk of the buildings side elevation by having bricks of different colours. Mock Tudor beaming and render detailing have been added to the side and front gable ends of the building to ensure that it better matches the existing building and terrace. 7.23 A more active frontage would be introduced along Brookside due to the new ground floor residential development and shopfront, improving the buildings relationship with the road. Although the side elevation which would be prominently viewed within Brookside Road particularly when travelling towards the Uxbridge Road, the high-level windows would provide a reasonable degree of articulation. The material pallet is indicated on the submitted drawings and the external brick finish is welcomed. It is considered that this elevation is broadly acceptable and a condition to secure high quality materials is to be attached to the decision notice and this will include further improvements to this elevation. Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.24 Furthermore, the existing site comprises no meaningful soft landscaping and is dominated by hardstanding. Due to its set back along Brookside Road, the proposed development allows for improved soft landscaping at the site, which would be secured via condition, improving the areas appearance. 7.25 Additionally, the development would result in the removal of the unsightly raised signage, including that which advertised services which are not relevant to the uses of the actual site, the cages to the front of the commercial unit and exposed service yard which are visible from Uxbridge Road and Brookside Road, further improving the appearance of the area. 7.26 Overall and for the reasons outlined above, the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on the visual amenities of the area and would therefore comply with Policies D1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies (2012) Policy BE1, Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) and Paragraph 135 of the NPPF (2023). 7.27 Residential Amenity 7.28 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) seeks to ensure a satisfactory relationship with adjacent dwellings with no unacceptable loss of outlook, amenity, daylight and sunlight to neighbouring occupiers. 7.29 Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021) requires that proposals minimise noise pollution and Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (2012) promotes the maximum possible reduction in noise levels and seeks to ensure that noise impacts can be adequately controlled and mitigated. 7.30 Paragraph 135 of the NPPF (2023) states 'Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.' 7.31 Privacy 7.32 Due to their separation distance from the properties on the other side of Uxbridge Road, the south facing windows of the proposed development would cause no loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. 7.33 The site is bounded by 156 Uxbridge Road, which is in use as a business referred to as DHOOT HGV LGV Training London. Although it has a residential appearance, it is unclear whether the property is in use as a form of floorspace to support a commercial operation or a residential property. Notwithstanding this point, the first and second floor windows proposed would provide views into the side facing windows of this property at a distance of approximately 19.5m. As set Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press out above, Policy DMHB 11 and the pre-text to the policy set a guideline of 21 metres as an adequate separation distance between habitable neighbouring windows. The proposal would fall 1.5 metres short of this separation distance, however it is important to note that existing windows of the building look toward the neighbouring property and that the second-floor windows would look downward, toward the mentioned windows therefore increasing their distance from the proposed second floor windows. Taking this into consideration and the minor shortfall when measures as the crow flies, it is not considered that a reason for refusal on this basis would be upheld at appeal. 7.34 The remaining west facing windows would look toward other properties on Brookside Road at a distance well over 21m where they would cause no harmful overlooking or adverse privacy impacts. 7.35 The proposed development includes north facing windows which would look toward the side elevation windows of No.2 Brookside Road at approximately 5.5m. It is important to note that the principles of DMHB 11 which refer to retaining adequate levels of privacy between new and existing residential properties, applies to habitable room windows. Photos of the site, as well as evidence submitted by the applicant suggest that the 3 side windows serve a hallway, bathroom and toilet, with the latter two being obscure glazed. Nevertheless, all north facing windows proposed are secondary windows which are recommended to be conditioned to be obscure glazed, therefore preventing any overlooking. The development is therefore considered to have an acceptable impact on the privacy of No.2 Brookside Road. 7.36 The proposed east facing windows (serving the bedroom and living rooms of Flat 01_02 at first floor and Flat 02_02 at second floor) would face toward the rear service yard areas and would provide some views toward the rear elevations of the flats above the shopping parade. Notably, the nearest habitable room window (of the proposed development) would be 17m away from the rear habitable room windows of No.148-150 Uxbridge Road. However the angle of the windows is such that any overlooking would be very minimal. Therefore due to the separation distance and fact that the habitable room windows do not directly face each other the development would cause no loss of privacy to its occupiers. The east facing windows of the development would therefore cause no unacceptable loss of privacy to the flats above the shopping parade. 7.37 Furthermore, many of the first-floor windows of the shopping parade already have limited privacy, as a roof garden exists at the development site, providing existing views into these windows. 7.38 Conditions would be added to ensure that privacy screening is installed around upper floor walkways and the terraces of Flats 1.04 and 2.04, to protect the amenities of the flats above the shopping parade. 7.39 The roof level gardens would provide similar views and would therefore cause no harmful loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. Revised plans have been submitted which include a wildflower area are roof level which will be secured and Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press inaccessible in order to provide a set back from the roof margins to reduce the potential impacts from overlooking from the roof garden. Therefore the overlooking of any gardens would be no different to the general overlooking of gardens which most residential properties which have a direct neighbour to the east and or west would experience. 7.40 Taking into consideration these points the development would cause no harmful loss of privacy to neighbours. 7.41 Light and Outlook 7.42 A Day and Sunlight Assessment has been submitted in support of the proposal (215516DAY-Rev1). The specialist report assesses the daylight and sunlight impact of the proposed development on No.2 Brookside Rd, No.156 Brookside Rd, and 148-150 Uxbridge Road, which are the nearest neighbours and therefore would be the most likely to be affected. 7.43 The report provides an assessment in accordance with the most recent BRE Guidance which was adopted in 2022. It should be noted that in terms of Vertical Sky Component (VSC) which is a key indicator in the assessment of daylight and sunlight impact, a proposed development should retain at least 80% of the existing pre-development light values. 7.44 The assessment reviews 17 neighbouring windows across the properties mentioned above and refers to them as receptors. Receptors 1-5 are windows located within the rear elevation of No.156, the report concludes that the windows tested would retain at least 80% of the existing light values therefore this property would not be unduly affected by the development. 7.45 Receptors 6-10 are located at the front of No.1 Brookside Road; these would also retain at least 80% of the existing light values therefore would not be unduly affected by the proposed development. 7.46 Turning to receptors 11-13 these are located to the side elevation of No.2 Brookside Road; these windows would be subject to a reduction in light levels below 80% (68-75%) therefore these windows would be subject to a negligible to minor impact in terms of daylight. 7.47 Finally, receptors 14-17 are located to the rear of 148-150 Uxbridge Road which adjoins the existing building on the site. These windows would retain at least 80% of the existing light values therefore would not be unduly affected by the proposed development. 7.48 Whilst the proposal would result in a minor loss of light below the guideline set out in the BRE guidance 2022, the window which is subject to the minor loss is in the side elevation of No.2 Brookside. Having considered the location of the window, it is likely to serve either as a secondary window or a stairwell therefore would not result in a detrimental loss of outlook or daylight/sunlight such as to warrant a recommendation for refusal. Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.49 In terms of outlook, the upper floors of the building would be set away from the upper floor windows of No.148-50 Uxbridge Road (nearest flat above shopping parade), by approximately 5m. Due to the separation distance as well as the fact that the upper floor flats windows would still have direct views, north and east. The ground floor west facing windows of No.148-150 Uxbridge Road are obscure glazed and receive limited light. They would be unaffected by the development and still openable into the sites new parking area. The development would cause no harmful loss of outlook to its nearest neighbour. 7.50 The habitable windows of No.156 and No.2 Brookside Rd (other nearest neighbours) are a considerable distance from the new building and would therefore not be subjected to any adverse loss of outlook. 7.51 Noise, Activity and Disturbance 7.52 The development site is located within a dense, busy, mixed-use area next to a busy road where activity and noise levels within the area are high. The addition of 9 additional dwellings and a larger retail unit is therefore unlikely to cause any significant increase in activity or noise at the site which would be harmful to neighbouring amenities. The opening hours of the commercial unit would be secured via condition. In terms of noise mitigation, a condition relating to materials will be imposed however the detailed design stage which will be submitted for building regulations review will include details to ensure the units appropriately noise insulated. Additionally, a construction management plan will be secured via condition to minimise construction disturbance. 7.53 Overall, when considering the proposal, it is clear the scheme has been designed to fit the constraints of the site. The proposal would not lead to a significant loss of outlook, daylight, or sunlight to neighbouring habitable rooms. Furthermore, the development would not involve a significant increase in noise disturbance in an area which is bounded by a busy road and a large retail/commercial park on the opposite side of the road that generate significant levels of background noise. Taking into consideration the above and subject to conditions the development would have an acceptable impact on neighbouring amenities. 7.54 Quality of Residential Accommodation (Internal and External) 7.55 Internal 7.56 Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) requires that all housing should be of high-quality design and provide adequately sized rooms with comfortable and functional layouts which are fit for purpose and meet the needs of all Londoners without differentiating between tenures. 7.57 Policy DMHB 16 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Development Management Policies (2020) requires that all housing developments should have an adequate provision of internal space in order to provide an appropriate living environment. Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.58 The proposed development comprises the following internal accommodation: Ground Level: Plot 00_01 (2b4p) 70m2 First Level: Plot 01_01 (2b4p) 70m2 Plot 01_02 (3b5p) 87m2 Plot 01_03 (2b4p) 70m2 Plot 01_04 (3b5p) 91m2 Second Level: Plot 02_01 (2b4p) 70m2 Plot 02_02 (3b5p) 87m2 Plot 02_03 (2b4p) 70m2 Plot 02_04 (3b5p) 86m2 7.59 The dwellings would therefore comply with or exceed required internal floor space standards. 7.60 The ground floor flat would be set back from the street, creating a privacy buffer for its future residents. Its northern windows would be obscure glazed, again ensuring privacy. The habitable rooms within the ground floor flat that will have obscure glazed windows, will have other windows providing light and outlook for future residents. The development would provide future residents of the ground floor flat with acceptable living conditions. The other new dwellings would also have habitable rooms with good access to light and privacy. 7.61 In reviewing the internal spaces, it is noted that there are two bedrooms out of the 20 to be provided across the entire development which would feature partially obstructed primary windows. The windows of bedrooms 2 of Flats 02_03 and 01_03 would be partially obscured by a privacy screen which is located 2m from the window and would obscure views of the bedrooms from the external walkway which runs along the outer wall of the unit. The principle of DMHB 11 which refers to separation distances and DMHB 16 is to ensure that adequate levels of privacy are reflected in the design. When assessing privacy officers consider the overlooking which could potentially occur between habitable room windows. This is due to the fact that these areas would be subject to longer timeframes of occupation than an external non habitable area such as an external walkway which provides access to a unit. Taking this into consideration it would not be necessary to place a privacy screen to obscure views from the walkway into the bedrooms. However, given that they are proposed and would only partially obscure the views out of the windows and users of the flats would not be confined to their rooms, but would have the entirety of the flat, where access to light and outlook would be gained from numerous windows, the level of overall outlook to these bedrooms is acceptable. 7.62 Overall, it is therefore considered that the new dwellings would provide future residents with an acceptable level of internal living accommodation. 7.63 External Amenity Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.64 Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2: Development Management Policies (2020) requires all new residential developments to provide good quality and usable private outdoor amenity space. 25m2 of amenity space is required for 2bed flats and 30m2 for 3 bed flats. 7.65 The proposed amenity space provisions are as follows: Ground Level: Plot 00_01 (2b4p) 16.5m2 First Level: Plot 01_01 (2b4p) 8.4m2 Plot 01_02 (3b5p) 16m2 Plot 01_03 (2b4p) 6.5m2 Plot 01_04 (3b5p) 9.4m2 Second Level: Plot 02_01 (2b4p) 8.4m2 Plot 02_02 (3b5p) 16m2 Plot 02_03 (2b4p) 5.5m2 Plot 02_04 (3b5p) 3.4m2 Third Level: Rooftop Communal Amenity Gardens - 155m2 7.66 Taking into consideration the proposed unit mix, 245sqm of amenity space is required in total. The proposal would provide approximately 245sqm which complies with Policy DMHB 18. Whilst the bulk of the amenity space is provided at roof level, the units would also be provided with modest private individual amenity areas. The proposed amenity space provisions are therefore considered to be acceptable and to provide residents with a good standard of external living accommodation. 7.67 Highways and Parking 7.68 Policies T4, T6, T6.2 of the London Plan (2021), DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) are all directly relevant to the proposed development. These policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix, and in summary, seek to deliver development which is sustainable in transport terms and safeguards highway and pedestrian safety. 7.69 These aims are also supported by the NPPF (2023) at Chapter 9, which states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. 7.70 Car Parking 7.71 The development site is located within PTAL 3, on the border of PTAL 2. 7.72 The London Plan (2021) advises that for residential development in this location the maximum amount of car parking that should be provided is 0.75 spaces per Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press two-bed unit and 1no. space per three-bed unit. A maximum of 9 parking spaces are therefore required for the proposed development. 9 parking spaces would be provided, as such the proposed parking provisions are acceptable. Each of these car parking spaces would be allocated to a specific unit which is supported. The objections which have been received during the public consultation have raised concerns regarding congestion, however the Highway Authority anticipates that the amount of road traffic generated by the proposal would not be significant and would therefore not have any noticeable impact upon the free flow of traffic or road noise. 7.73 Electrical Charging Points 7.74 Part G) of Policy T6 and part C) of Policy T6.1 of the London Plan (2021) state that all residential car parking spaces must provide infrastructure for electric or Ultra-Low Emission vehicles. A condition has been recommended to secure electric vehicle charging points for the new properties, in the event of approval. 7.75 Bicycle Parking 7.76 Appendix C, Table 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) requires the provision of cycle parking facilities for new residential units. 7.78 The London Plan (2021) would require that a minimum of 2no. long-stay cycle parking spaces be provided per dwelling.18 spaces should therefore be provided, as well as 2no. short-stay cycle parking spaces. 10 spaces are proposed, and 8 additional spaces will be secured via condition. Space exists within amenity spaces to secure these. 7.79 Refuse/Recycling Collection 7.80 Policy DMHB 11-part (d) of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that development proposals should make sufficient provision for well-designed internal and external storage space for general, recycling, and organic waste, with suitable access for collection. Waste storage for the residential building will be sited within the under-croft section of the car park. Refuse storage for the retail unit will be located within the service yard. Full details of the residential waste storage facilities will be secured through condition in the event of an approval. 7.81 Access 7.82 The existing access would be altered and repositioned to create an access for the new parking area. The works required to the public highway would be secured by a separate application made to the Local Highway Authority. In terms of servicing and deliveries for the retail unit, initially a delivery bay was proposed with a new access set to be provided to allow vehicles to pull up to the delivery bay and unload. However, this would have resulted in vehicles crossing the footway and possibly obstructing pedestrian movement. As such an amendment has been Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press made to the plans to show no new access for vehicles to the delivery bay and vehicles will now stop on street. Given the limited number of deliveries required to service the retail space, this is not considered to give rise to a significant increase in congestion and therefore subject to the applicant agreeing to fund the necessary amendment to the traffic order, the proposal is acceptable. 7.83 Construction 7.84 A condition has been recommended for inclusion requiring a Construction Management Plan. This would ensure that the development would have no significant adverse impact on traffic and pedestrian safety during construction, given the constraints of the site. 7.85 Overall, subject to the conditions, it is concluded that the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress, and would not raise any measurable highway safety concerns, in accordance with the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020), Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 and Policies T4, T5 and T6 of the London Plan (2021). 7.86 Noise 7.87 Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021) requires that proposals minimise noise pollution and Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (2012) promotes the maximum possible reduction in noise levels and seeks to ensure that noise impacts can be adequately controlled and mitigated. 7.88 The provision of 9 additional residential units is not considered to lead to such a significant change in the local noise environment as to warrant a refusal of planning permission on this ground. The necessity to comply with Building Regulation standards would ensure that the development is appropriately noise insulated. 7.89 Air Quality 7.90 Local Plan Policy DMEI 14 states: Policies SI 1 of the London Plan (2021), EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) and DMEI 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) are all directly relevant to the proposal. These policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix, and in summary, seek to safeguard and improve air quality in order to protect existing and new sensitive receptors. These aims are also supported by the NPPF (2023) at chapter 15. 7.91 The development site is located within an Air Quality Management Area and Air Quality Focus Area, as such the development should not only provide evidence to demonstrate it would be air quality neutral, but it is required to demonstrate it would be air quality positive. The applicant has submitted an Air Quality Assessment which indicates the proposal would be air quality neutral but not air quality positive in terms of onsite mitigation. The Borough's Air Quality Officer has advised that if the application is recommended for approval, conditions and a legal agreement Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press securing a £28,088 damage cost to offset the on-site mitigation. The conditions and damage cost are to ensure that the development causes no harm to its future residents and that adverse air quality impacts are mitigated for. 7.92 The applicant has confirmed agreement to pay the damage cost, and this will be secured via a legal agreement should planning permission be granted and the recommended conditions will also be added. 7.93 Accessibility 7.94 Policy D5 and Policy D7 of the London Plan (2021) aims to provide suitable and families with young children. 7.96 The proposal has been reviewed by the Council's Access Officer who has raised no objection to the principle of either uses or the overall design of the development. As such subject to conditions to secure the implementation of an evacuation lift the requirement for the units to meet the M4(2) accessible standards in accordance with Policies D7, D5 and D12 of the London Plan (2021). 7.97 Security 7.98 The proposed development is not considered to compromise the security of the application site or adjoining sites. 7.99 Trees and Landscaping 7.1.1 Policy D5 of the London Plan (2021) states that development proposals should integrate green infrastructure to contribute to urban greening, including the public realm. 7.1.2 Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Development Management Policies (2020) requires that all development retains or enhances existing landscaping, trees, and biodiversity. 7.1.3 The proposed development would result in no loss of trees and would therefore have no adverse tree impact. 7.1.4 A good mix of soft and hard landscaping is proposed in and around the site, as well as on the roof of the building. The landscaping would ensure that the proposal integrates with its surroundings. To ensure that an appropriate level of greenery is provided at the site, a landscaping condition is recommended for inclusion on the decision - if the application is approved. 7.1.5 With regards to Urban Greening as set out above, Policy G5 of the London Plan relates to developments of a major scale only. As this is a minor scale development the applicant is not required to provide an Urban Green Factor assessment or achieve the 0.4 score applicable to major developments. Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.1.6 The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable. 7.1.7 Ecology 7.1.8 Policy DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that if development is proposed on or near to a site considered to have features of ecological or geological value, applicants must submit appropriate surveys and assessments to demonstrate that the proposed development will not have unacceptable effects. The development must provide a positive contribution to the protection and enhancement of the site or feature of ecological value. 7.1.9 The site comprises buildings and hard surfacing. It does not contain any trees, ponds, open woodland, dense scrub, or shrubbery. There are no protected sites of ecological interest adjacent to or near to the site. It is therefore considered that the likelihood of protected species being present at the site is low. 7.1.10 The ecological value of the site would be enhanced by greenery on the roof off the building as well as around the periphery of the site. A condition requiring a landscaping plan would aid in ensuring that the proposed greenery is appropriate and supportive of ecology. With regards to Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), this policy was formally adopted for the development on small sites in April 2024. The submission of this application pre-dates the adoption of the BNG small sites policy therefore a BNG on this site is not required to be formally demonstrated. Notwithstanding this point, the submission of a landscaping scheme which provides an increase in soft landscaping above the existing as shown on the landscaping strategy drawing, would lead to a reasonable increase in ecological value. 7.1.11 In the event of an approval, an informative would be secured advising that should protected species be found at the site, the applicant(s) must fulfil their duties under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. 7.1.12 The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable. 7.1.13 Sustainability 7.1.14 Policy SI 2 of the London Plan (2021) states residential development should achieve at least a 10% improvement beyond Building Regulations 2013. 7.1.15 Policy DMEI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) requires all developments to make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the London Plan targets 7.1.16 The proposed development is of a minor scale therefore whilst the principle of SI 2 (carbon reduction) is applicable, the London Plan Policy applies more specifically to major scale applications. The applicant is therefore not required to Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press submit an energy statement with the application or demonstrate a policy level of on-site savings. 7.1.17 Notwithstanding this point, the modern construction of the development would be considered as providing sufficient energy savings itself and therefore the development would comply with the principles of the carbon saving development plan policies. 7.1.18 The proposal would therefore be compliant with Policy SI 2 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMEI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). 7.1.19 Flooding and Drainage 7.1.20 Policy DMEI 9 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that proposals that fail to make appropriate provision for flood risk mitigation, or which would increase the risk or consequences of flooding, will be refused. Policy DMEI 10 states that development within areas identified at risk from surface water flooding which fail to make adequate provision for the control and reduction of surface water runoff rates will be refused. 7.1.21 Policy SI12 and SI13 of the London Plan (2021) require, in summary, that flood risk is minimised and mitigated, and that surface water runoff is managed close to source. 7.1.22 The application site is located in Flood Zone 1 where there is a low probability of risk of fluvial flooding. As such, all forms of development including residential development (which is classified as a 'more vulnerable use') is acceptable in this location, in terms of fluvial flood risk. 7.1.23 In the event that the development is approved, a comprehensive drainage strategy will be secured via condition. The strategy will ensure that surface water run-off and grey water is appropriately managed in line with the drainage hierarchy set out in the London Plan. 7.1.24 The proposals are therefore considered to be in compliance with Policies DMEI 9 and DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) and Policies SI 12 and SI 13 of the London Plan (2021). 7.1.25 Airport Safeguarding 7.1.26 The development would have no impact on airport safeguarding. 7.1.27 Land Contamination 7.1.28 The is identified as being located within an area potentially at risk of land Councils Contaminated Land specialist the historical data indicates that the site is subject to a very low risk and therefore no objection has been raised subject to a Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press condition restricting the importation of soils and other materials unless they are clean and free of contamination. Subject to this condition the development is acceptable. 7.1.29 Electricity Infrastructure 7.1.30 It is noted that the development is to be constructed close to the boundary of an electricity substation located to the rear of the site. A consultation letter was issued to the electricity provider (SSE) dated 15-05-24 after undertaking a land register search to identify the owner of the asset. No comments have been received therefore it is not considered that there would be an objection to the construction of the development. 8 Other Matters 8.1 Human Rights 8.2 The development has been assessed against the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and in particular Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the Act itself. This Act gives further effect to the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to the applicant's reasonable development rights and expectations which have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance. 8.3 Equality 8.4 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the assessment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. 8.5 Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.6 The Council adopted its own Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on August 1st 2014 and the Hillingdon CIL charge for residential developments is £95 per square metre of additional floorspace. This is in addition to the Mayoral CIL charge of £60 per sq metre. 8.7 The proposal involves the creation of residential units and is CIL liable 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 Planning permission has been sought for the erection of a three-storey mixed use building following the demolition of existing buildings on the site. The proposed building would comprise a retail unit at ground floor with 9 residential apartments above. The proposal also includes ancillary parking, amendments to dropped kerbs and the provision of refuse and bicycle storage. Hillingdon Planning Committee 16th July 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 9.2 The proposed new building is considered to improve the appearance of this deteriorating corner plot. The scale bulk and mass are appropriate and from a policy perspective the optimisation of a brownfield site to provide additional housing stock is

Hillingdon Planning Committee [DATE] PART 1 Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Part 2 Application Report Case Officer: Rhian Thomas 17997/APP/2024/1610 Date Application Valid: 15-07-24 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 04/10/24 Application Type: Full Ward: Hayes Applicant: Ardesh Sarangam Site Address: Yeading Infant School, Carlyon Road, Hayes Proposal: Installation of solar panels on the school roofs. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 6 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (the Council is the Applicant) Hillingdon Planning Committee [DATE] PART 1 Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Planning permission is sought for the installation of 344 solar panels on the pitched roofs of the existing Locally Listed school building. 1.2 The proposed development complies with the relevant planning policies at Local, National and Regional level. The proposed development would not cause harm to the visual amenities of the street scene, nor would it harm the character and appearance of the Locally Listed Building. There would be no harm caused to the amenities of neighbouring properties nor the local highway network. 1.3 A full assessment of the application has been made in the below sections of this Committee report. 1.4 As such the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The development site is located on the south side of Carlyon Road. The site comprises the Yeading Infant and Nursery School Campus. The site is made up of numerous single and two storey buildings which are both Locally Listed and finished in various materials, as well as benefiting from both soft and hard landscaping. 2.2 The application building is locally listed and based on the Council's GIS system, part of development site and school grounds is located within Flood Zone 2. 2.3 The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 1b and approximately 50 metres north of the site is an area of open space which is designated as Green Belt land. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee [DATE] PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Street View Images of the Application Property Hillingdon Planning Committee [DATE] PART 1 Members, Public & Press Hillingdon Planning Committee [DATE] PART 1 Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the installation of solar panels to the roof of the school. 3.2 During the process of the application, updated drawings were sought and received to include drawing numbers to ensure that a clear and concise decision notice can be issued. 3.3 Figure 3: Proposed Plan (please note larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee [DATE] PART 1 Members, Public & Press Hillingdon Planning Committee [DATE] PART 1 Members, Public & Press Hillingdon Planning Committee [DATE] PART 1 Members, Public & Press 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. Hillingdon Planning Committee [DATE] PART 1 Members, Public & Press 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 48 neighbouring properties were consulted on the application by letter dated 05-08-24. The consultation period expired 27-08-24. No representations have been received. 6.2 Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Highways Officer Access to the application site would be unaffected, however, whilst the proposed development would be unlikely to impact upon the local highway network, concerns would be raised regarding additional vehicle movements generated by the construction works which would be likely to impact on access and parking for the school and local highway network, therefore a condition should be attached to any approval which requires the submission of a CLP to concur with Construction Logistics Planning (CLP) Guidance Version: v1.2 (April 2021) issued by Construction Logistics and Community Safety (CLOCS) which must include, but would not be restricted to, the following: Phasing of works which should occur during school holidays Site hours Vehicular access and pedestrian access during the construction phase Car parking for vehicles displaced during the construction phase Contractor parking and off-street parking facilities for all vehicles linked to the site Contractor compound including office, welfare facilities and materials storage. Wheel wash facilities and road sweep Dust suppression The consultation response from the Highways Officer has been noted. Hillingdon Planning Committee [DATE] PART 1 Members, Public & Press HGV routes to and from the site including swept path analysis for large vehicles particularly for solar panel delivery HGV routes within the site which should include on-site turning HGV delivery hours avoiding peak hours and school hours Recommendation The Highway Authority are satisfied that the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress and would not raise any measurable highway safety concerns and would therefore offer no objection to the application but would require the following conditions to be applied to any approval: Conditions No works shall commence on site until a Construction Logistics Plan to concur with Construction Logistics Planning (CLP) Guidance Version: v1.2 (April 2021) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. REASON: To be in accordance with the London Plan (2021) Policy T4 Assessing and Mitigating Transport Impacts and Policy T7 Deliveries, Servicing and Construction Conservation and Urban Design Officer This is a 1930s purpose-built School single storey with clay tiled roof and larger gabled central section. It is locally listed and makes a positive contribution to the streetscape. The solar panels are located within the courtyard and to the rear facing slopes. Whilst not visually ideal and causing a low level of harm they have been located as sensitively as possible to the rear and away from the principal elevation. Given that they would provide clean energy and tackle climate change we believe that the harm is balanced with positive benefits. As such we would not object. The comments from the Conservation and Urban Design Officer are noted. 7 Planning Assessment 7.1 Principle of Development 7.2 The application site accommodates a school therefore benefiting from education use. There is significant policy support within the development for the Hillingdon Planning Committee [DATE] PART 1 Members, Public & Press enhancement of schools and other educational facilities. Given that the application does not propose to alter the existing use of the site and would provide considerable energy efficiency benefits therefore an enhancement to an existing education facility, the principle of development is acceptable. 7.3 Residential Amenity 7.4 Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (2012) states that all new development should seek to protect the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential properties. 7.5 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that development proposals should not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. 7.6 Given the nature of the proposal and the separation from residential properties, it is considered that the proposal would not adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. 7.7 The proposed solar panels would be fitted with anti-glare technology by including a roughness to the glass panel to diffuse the light reflection. It is not considered that there would be an unacceptable level of glare created to the adjacent school building at Yeading primary School nor the residential property at number 6 Carlyon Road, given the location of the solar panels on the rear roof slopes. 7.8 Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area and Locally Listed Building 7.9 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) requires all development to be designed to the highest standards and incorporate principles of good design, either complementing or improving the character and appearance of the area. 7.10 Policy DMHB 3 of the Local Plan part 2 2020) states that: A) There is a general presumption in favour of the retention of buildings, structures and features included in the Local List. The Council will take into account the effect of a proposal on the building's significance and the scale of any harm of loss when considering planning applications, including those for major alterations and extensions. Proposals will be permitted where they retain the significance, appearance, character or setting of a Locally Listed Building. B) Applications should include a Heritage Statement that demonstrates a clear understanding of the importance of the structure and the impact of the proposals on the significance of the Locally Listed Building. 7.11 The proposed development includes the provision of 344 Solar panels to the pitched roof of the existing infant and nursery school. The school is a Locally Listed Building. The proposed panels as shown on the proposed roof plan (drawing 4) would be located on the rear (south) and side (east) roof slopes and would not be Hillingdon Planning Committee [DATE] PART 1 Members, Public & Press readily visible from the front, principal elevation, preserving its character and appearance. The panels would be set in from the external edge of the pitch roofs and would be set down from the main ridgeline of the building. 7.12 application. In summary the Conservation Officer has no objection to their siting and appearance given their location on the rear and side roof slopes. The development has been designed in a way to minimise the impact to the Locally Listed Building and street scene image as they have been positioned away from the principal elevation 7.13 It should be noted that in terms of its design, the proposed solar panels would mostly comply with permitted development under Part 14, Class J. However, as the panels would be located within one meter of the external edge of the roof, planning permission is required. As discussed in the above paragraphs, it is not considered that the proposed solar panels would cause significant harm to the character and appearance or the historic fabric of the Locally Listed Building nor the surrounding area given their location of the side and rear roof slopes away from the principal elevation. 7.14 Any potential harm would be limited and where harm is identified the development plan encourages decision makers to apply the planning balance. In this case there are significant benefits in terms of energy efficiency and carbon reduction which would clearly outweigh the limited harm identified. 7.15 Overall, it is considered that the proposed development complies with the objectives of Policies DMHB 3 and DMHB 11 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 7.16 Highways and Parking 7.17 The parking provision and traffic generation would remain unaffected by the proposal, in accordance with Policy DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2: Development Management Policies (2020). Furthermore, the Highways Officer has no objections to the proposal, subject to the submission of a Construction Logistics Plan as there are concerns over the additional vehicle movements generated by the construction works which have the potential to impact access and parking for the school and local highway network and the functionality of the school. 7.18 Noise 7.19 It is not considered that the proposed development would lead to an increase in noise generated from the site. As such no further comment is made. 7.20 Air Quality 7.21 The application site is not located within an Air Quality Focus Area. The proposed development would provide a source of renewable energy helping towards the Hillingdon Planning Committee [DATE] PART 1 Members, Public & Press zero-carbon emission scheme. As such no further information is required in respect of air quality. 7.22 Accessibility 7.23 Given the proposed development is solely for solar panels to the roof of the existing school. It is not considered that there would be any accessibility concerns generated. 7.24 Trees and Landscaping 7.25 The proposed development would not have a negative impact on any trees or landscaping within the site. Any trees are located a sufficient distance away from the proposed development as to not be impacted. The site is not located within an area covered by a tree preservation order nor is it located within a Conservation Area. A such, no further information is required. 7.26 Ecology 7.27 It is not considered the proposed development would have a negative impact on ecology in the surrounding area. As such, no further information is required. 7.28 Flooding and Drainage 7.29 Part of the application site is located within Flood Zone 2. However, as the proposed development is located on the roof of the existing school, there would be no chance of increased flooding. As such, no further information is required. 7.30 Land Contamination 7.31 The application site is not located upon contaminated land, and given the nature of the prosed development on the roof slopes of the existing school, there is no requirement for further information. 7.32 Energy 7.33 Policy DMEI 2 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020) states that: A) All developments are required to make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with London Plan targets. B) All major development7 proposals must be accompanied by an energy assessment showing how these reductions will be achieved. C) Proposals that fail to take reasonable steps to achieve the required savings will be resisted. However, where it is clearly demonstrated that the targets for carbon emissions cannot be met onsite, the Council may approve the application and seek an off-site contribution to make up for the shortfall. 7.34 Policy SI 2 and 3 of the London Plan (2021) supports the provision of renewable energy to minimis greenhouse gas emissions. Hillingdon Planning Committee [DATE] PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.35 Policy DMCI 2 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020) supports refurbishment, re-use and provision of new community infrastructure. 7.36 The proposed development is for the installation of 344 solar panels to the pitched roof of the existing school with a capacity of 155kWp. The applicant has provided a product specification sheet which shows that the proposed solar panels will provide between 420-440W of power output, include an anti-glare design. The proposed development will contribute towards a zero-carbon electricity scheme and the principle of the development will comply with the overall objectives of Policies SI 2 and 3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DMEI 2 and DMCI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 8 Other Matters 8.1 Human Rights 8.2 The development has been assessed against the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and in particular Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the Act itself. This Act gives further effect to the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to the applicant's reasonable development rights and expectations which have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance. 8.3 Equality 8.4 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the assessment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. 8.5 Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.6 Not applicable. The proposed development is not CIL liable. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 Planning permission is sought for the Installation of solar panels on the school roofs. 9.2 The proposal would not cause harm to the visual amenity of the street scene, nor would it have detrimental harm to the character and appearance of the Locally Listed Building. The proposed solar panels would provide the school with a renewable energy source and would assist in reducing carbon emissions. 9.3 The proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 (below). Hillingdon Planning Committee [DATE] PART 1 Members, Public & Press 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents taken into account in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential information) are available on the Council's website here, by entering the planning application number at the top of this report and using the search facility. Planning applications are also available to inspect electronically at the Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW upon appointment, by contacting Planning Services at planning@hillingdon.gov.uk.

Hillingdon Planning Committee 2nd October 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Part 2 Application Report Case Officer: Christos Chrysanthou 11242/APP/2024/1302 Date Application Valid: 26-07-24 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 04-10-24 Application Type: Full Ward: Pinkwell Applicant: London Borough of Hillingdon Site Address: Pinkwell Primary School, Pinkwell Lane, Hayes, Hillingdon, UB3 1PG Proposal: Replacement of the existing timber fence with 3.0m high V mesh security fencing. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 6 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (the Council is the Applicant) Hillingdon Planning Committee 2nd October 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the Replacement of the existing timber fence with 3.0m high V mesh security fencing. The proposal is minor in nature and is not considered harmful to the character and appearance of the area or the openness of the adjacent Green belt. 1.2 More importantly the proposal will facilitate an improvement to the school which is supported within the Development Plan at local and regional level and at national level through the provisions of the Framework. 1.3 The planning application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. A condition is recommended to secure the painting of the fencing along the western boundary in a dark green colour to enable the proposal to assimilate with the adjacent Green Belt. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 Pinkwell Primary School occupies an approximately 4.3 hectare irregularly shaped plot located on the southern site of Pinkwell Lane in Hayes. The main school building, a part single-storey and part two-storey building, and the playground occupy the northern part of the site and the playing fields occupy the southern part of the site. Three temporary classroom blocks are located towards the centre of the site. 2.2 The school site is bounded to the north by Pinkwell Lane, beyond which is Pinkwell Park and residential properties; to the east by Harlington Community School; and to the south and west by open land falling within the Green Belt. Residential properties fronting Pinkwell Lane abut part of the western boundary. Hillingdon Planning Committee 2nd October 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application Property Hillingdon Planning Committee 2nd October 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 The proposed scheme comprises the replacement of the existing timber fence to a section of the school with 3.0m high V mesh fencing. The proposed fencing would replace a section of timber fencing along the western boundary measuring 55metres, which is shown in the plan below, edged in green. The existing fencing to be retained is also shown in the plan below, edged in red. Figure 3: Proposed Plan (please note larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee 2nd October 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 4: Proposed Elevations (please note larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 36 neighbours were consulted by letter dated 5th August 2024. The consultation period ended on 27th August 2024. No comments were received. 6.2 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response None N/A N/A Hillingdon Planning Committee 2nd October 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Access Officer No accessibility concerns are raised. Noted. Highway Authority There are no highway objections to this proposal Noted. 7 Planning Assessment Impact on the character and appearance of the area 7.1 Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) states that: Development proposals should: D1) enhance local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness through their layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape, with due regard to existing and emerging street hierarchy, building types, forms and proportions. 7.2 Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One Strategic Policies (2012) seeks a quality of design in all new development that enhances and contributes to the area in terms of form, scale and materials; is appropriate to the identity and context of the townscape; and would improve the quality of the public realm and respect local character. 7.3 Policy DMEI 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states - New development adjacent to the Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land, Green Chains, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation, Nature Reserves, countryside, green spaces or the Blue Ribbon Network should incorporate proposals to assimilate development into the surrounding area by the use of extensive peripheral landscaping to site boundaries. 7.4 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that new development will be required to be designed to the highest standards and incorporate principles of good design. 7.5 As shown in Figure 4 of this report, there are two installation options for the --Regardless of which option is installed, the appearance of the fencing would not differ. Overall, the proposal would be read in the context of the school and would not attract undue attention due to its unobtrusive and functional design. 7.6 In the interests of mitigating any visual impact on the openness of the adjacent Green Belt a condition is recommended that the section of fencing along the western boundary is painted in a dark green colour. This would help reduce any Hillingdon Planning Committee 2nd October 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press visibility of the fencing from the surroundings and provide a colour scheme that would help the proposal assimilate with the Green belt site context. 7.7 The proposed scheme is considered to accord with Policy BE1 of the Local Plan: Part One (2012), Policies DMEI 6 and DMHB 11 of the Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021). Impact on the amenity of the area 7.8 Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) states Part D7) that development proposals should deliver appropriate outlook, privacy and amenity. 7.9 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) seeks to ensure that development proposals do not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. 7.10 Due to the nature of the proposal, there are no envisaged impacts on the amenity of the area. The proposed fencing would be erected on the western boundary abutting a field and away from neighbouring dwellings on Pinkwell Lane. 7.11 The proposed scheme is considered to accord with Policy DMHB 11 of the Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021). Highway safety and parking 7.12 Policy T4 Part F of the London Plan (2021) states - Development proposals should not increase road danger. 7.13 Policy T6 Part D of the London Plan (2021) states - The maximum car parking standards set out in Policy T6 .1 Residential parking to Policy T6 .5 Non-residential disabled persons parking should be applied to development proposals and used to set local standards within Development Plans. 7.14 Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) require the Council to consider whether the traffic generated by proposed developments is acceptable in terms of the local highway and junction capacity, traffic flows and conditions of general highway or pedestrian safety. 7.15 Policy DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) seeks to ensure that all development is in accordance with the car parking standards set out in Appendix C, Table 1 unless it can be demonstrated that a deviation from the standard would not result in a deleterious impact on the surrounding road network. Hillingdon Planning Committee 2nd October 2024 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.16 The Highway Authority do not raise an objection to the application. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not exacerbate the demand for street parking or prejudice highway safety, in accordance with Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) and Policies T4 and T6 of the London Plan (2021). 8 Other Matters Human Rights 8.1 The development has been assessed against the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and in particular Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the Act itself. This Act gives further effect to the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to the applicant's reasonable development rights and expectations which have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance. Equality 8.2 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the assessment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 For the reasons set out in this Committee Report, it is considered that the proposal would comply with the objectives of national, regional and local planning policies and guidance. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved, subject to the imposition of the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents taken into account in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential information) are available on the Council's website here, by entering the planning application number at the top of this report and using the search facility. Planning applications are also available to inspect electronically at the Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW upon appointment, by contacting Planning Services at planning@hillingdon.gov.uk.

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th September 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Part 2 – Application Report Case Officer: Christos Chrysanthou 4501/APP/2024/1618 Date Application Valid: 18-06-24 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 04-10-24 Application Type: Full Ward: Colham & Cowley Applicant: London Borough of Hillingdon Site Address: Central Depot, 128 Harlington Road, Uxbridge, UB8 3EU Proposal: Installation of an acoustic wall around Service Yard. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 6 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (the Council is the Applicant) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th September 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 The development would provide a 4 metr e high acoustic wall around the eastern section of the service yard at the Harlington Road depot. 1.2 The development would benefit nearby re sidents with by way of a visual screen and expected noise attenuation improving neighbouring residential amenity. 1.3 It is considered that the development would be read in the context of the existing depot and would not adversely impact on the character and appearance of the area. No changes are being sought to the onsite car parking layout and there would be no impact on highway safety. 1.4 The development is therefore considered to accord with the Development Plan, and it is recommended that planning permission be granted. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site is located on the wes t side of Harlington Road. The site is currently used as a service yard and is part of the wider Harlington Road Depot. 2.2 The depot is used to support many of the Council ’s services such as refuse collection, road maintenance and other activities. 2.3 The area surrounding the application site is predominantly residential. To the north, south and e ast of the depot are two storey dwellings and flatted developments. To the west and northwest of the depot is Coney Green and Bishopshalt School. 2.4 The application site is located on contaminated land and is within a critical drainage area. It is also located just outside of the Hillingdon Village Conservation Area and the Green Belt (which are to the west of the site). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th September 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application Property 3 Proposal 3.1 The application proposes the installati on of an acoustic wall around the eastern section of the service yard within the depot. 3.2 The proposed acoustic wall would be formed of 1metre wide prestressed concrete wall modules that are 4metres in height and constructed on 1.5metre deep Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th September 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press foundations. The top half of the walls have a thickness of 15cm. The lower half of the walls increases from 15cm to 1.2metres at the base. Figure 3: Proposed Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Figure 4: Proposed Elevations (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th September 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 63 neighbouring properties were originally consulted by letters dated 24-06-24. The consultation period expired on 15-07-24. 6.2 No comments were received. 6.3 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response None received. Not applicable. No comment. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Highway Officer: The application proposes to erect a 4m x 40m acoustic wall within the London Borough of Hillingdon Central Depot which would not encroach upon visibility and would be unlikely to have a severe impact on the local highway network or highway safety which wou ld be acceptable. The Highway Authority therefor e has no objections to this application which would be unlikely to cause highways and traffic impact. Noted. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th September 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Contamination Officer: Having consider ed the nature of the proposed development and its location, please be advise d that we have no objection in relation to the application on land contamination. However, land contamination informative s are recommend for the planning application if approved. Noted and informatives added. Noise Specialist: No comment. Noted. 7 Planning Assessment Impact on the character & appearance of the area 7.1 Paragraph 131 of the NPPF (2023) seeks the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings. Parts b) and c) of paragraph 135 of the NPPF (2023) states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment. 7.2 Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) require development proposals to be of a high quality and to enhance the local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness. 7.3 Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (2012) states - All new developments should achieve a high quality of design in all new buildings, alterations, extensions and the publ ic realm which enhances the local distinctiveness of the area, contributes to community cohesion and a sense of place. 7.4 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that all developm ent will be required to be designed to the highest standards and incorporate princ iples of good design. It should take into account aspects including the scale of the development considering the height, mass and bulk of adjacent structures; building plot sizes and established street patterns; building lines and streetscape rhythm and landscaping. 7.5 Policy DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) re-emphasises the need for new development to be well integrated with the surrounding area and provides des ign criteria as to how this would be achieved. 7.6 The site is located in a set back posi tion off Harlington Road and the proposed wall would be of limited visibility and read in the context of the existing depot. As such, i t is considered that the proposed development would not impact on the character, appearance or visual amenity of the area , in accordance with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part On e- Strategic Policies (2012), Policies Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th September 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020), Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) and the NPPF (2023). Impact on neighbours 7.7 Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) states Part D7) that development proposals should deliver appropriate outlook, privacy and amenity. 7.8 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Pa rt Two - Development Management Policies (2020) seeks to ensure that development proposals do not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. The supporting text for this policy states that the Council will expect new development proposals to carefully consider layout and massing in order to ensure development does not result in an increased sense of enclosure and loss of outlook. 7.9 There are nearby residential properties to the east of the application site on Harlington Road. The proposed wall would be sited away from these neighbouring properties with separation distances of approximately 22 metres to the nearest neighbouring property No.126 Harlington Road and 27 metres to Thorney Court. 7.10 Taking these factors into account, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in a loss of light, outlook or sense of dominance for the neighbouring occupiers. 7.11 It is therefore considered that the proposed amendments would not adversely impact on the living conditions of neighbo uring occupiers, in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020), Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and the NPPF (2023). Noise 7.12 Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021) states that in order to reduce, manage and mitigate noise to improve health and quality of life, residential and non -aviation development proposals should manage noise by avoiding significant adverse noise impacts on health and quality of life. 7.13 The Depot benefits from numerous physical barriers to minimise the transmission of noise, includ ing solid concrete walls around the gritting storage area and building situated adjacent to the waste management area. The service yard is an operational area used for the processing and storing of loose wastes within bays and benefits from a 2.5 metres high solid concrete retaining wall along the southern section. 7.14 The proposed concrete wall will provid e an additional 40 metres wide & 4 metre high barrier around the eastern section of the service yard which is as close to the sources of noise as practicable. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th September 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.15 The development would therefore improve sound insulation of the service yard and in turn reduce noise levels from neighbouring residential receptors. The barrier would also be providing a visual screen which would further benefit the residential amenity of neighbouring residents. 7.16 Due to the modular form of construction, it is considered that there would unlikely be any undue noise, nuisance and disturbance during the construction phase. 7.17 As detailed in Table 2 of this report, the Council’s Noise specialist has been consulted and does not raise an objection or recommend any conditions. Traffic impact, Car/cycle parking, pedestrian safety 7.18 Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021) stat es that new residential development should not exceed the maximum parking standards set out in Table 10.3. 7.19 Policy DMT 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that development proposals will be required to meet the transport needs of the development a nd address its transport impacts in a sustainable manner. 7.20 Policy DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that proposals must ensure that safe and efficient vehicular access to the highway network is provided. 7.21 Policy DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) requires that propos als comply with t he Council's parking standards in order to faci litate sustainable development and address issues relating to congestion and amenity. 7.22 As detailed in Table 2 of this report, the Highway Authority have been consulted and do not raise an objection. No conditions are recommended. 7.23 Having regard to the Highway Authority’s comments, the development would accord with Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Flooding or Drainage Issues 7.24 Policy SI 12 of the London Plan (2021) states that development proposals should ensure that flood risk is minimised and mitigated, and that residual risk is addressed. 7.25 Policy SI 13 of the London Plan (2021) states that development proposals should aim to achieve greenfield run -off rates and ensure that surface water run- off is managed as close to its source as possible. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th September 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.26 Policy DMEI 9 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that proposals that fail to make appropriate provision for flood risk mitigation, or which would increase the risk or consequences of flooding, will be refused. 7.27 Policy DMEI 10 states that development within areas identified at risk from surface water flooding which fail to make adequate provision for the control and reduction of surface water runoff rates will be refused. 7.28 The site is in Flood Zone 1 and within a Critical Drainage Area (CDA) identified in the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) for Hillingd on. A CDA is the catchment area from which surface water drains and contributes to drainage problems. 7.29 Due to the nature of the proposal a full SuDS scheme would in this instance not be required. In the event of this application being recommended for approval, an informative would be attached with further guidance on how the applicant can reduce the surface water from the site entering the sewers. 7.30 Subject to the above informative, it is considered that the development would not significantly increase the risk of surface water flooding at the site or elsewhere in compliance with Policies DMEI 9 and DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) and Policies SI 12 and SI 13 of the London Plan (2021). Land Contamination 7.31 Policy DMEI 12 of the Local Plan: Part Two (2020) requires proposals for development on potentially contaminated sites to be accompanied by at least an initial study of the likely contaminants. Conditions will be imposed where planning permission is given for development on land affected by contamination to ensure all the necessary remedial works are impl emented, prior to commencement of development. 7.32 Due to the limited scale of the proposal, it is considered that the development would be unlikely to give rise to any land contamination issues. 7.33 As detailed in Table 2 of this report, t he Council’s land contamination officer has been consulted and does not raise an objection subject to informatives. 7.34 Subject to the informatives recommended by the Council’s land contamination officer, that would be attached to any approval , the proposal would accord with DMEI 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). 8 Other Matters Human Rights Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th September 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 8.1 The development has been assessed against the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and in particular Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the Act itself. This Act gives further effect to the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to the applicant's reasonable development rights and expectations which have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / the Devel opment Plan and Central Government Guidance. Equality 8.2 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the assessment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 For the reasons set out in this Committee Report, it is considered that the proposal would comply with the objectives of national , regional and local planning policies and guidance. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved, subject to the imposition of the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents taken into account in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential information) are available on the Council's website here, by entering the planning application number at the top of this report and using the search facility. Planning applications are also available to inspect electronically at the Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW upon appointment, by contacting Planning Services at planning@hillingdon.gov.uk. AAPPENDICES Planning Application 4501/APP/2024/1618 Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 7 11. COM3 T Time Limit The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. COM4 A Accordance with Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers 6718-ACC-00-ZZ-DR-A-1001 P1, 6718-ACC-00-ZZ-DR-A-1003 P1, 6718-ACC-00-ZZ-DR-A-1004 P1 and shall thereafter be retained/maintained for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions Hillingdon Local Plan Parts 1 (November 2012) and 2 (January 2020) and the London Plan (2021). Informatives 1. I52 C Compulsory Informative (1) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act (1998) (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 2. I59 C Councils Local Plan : Part 1 - Strategic Policies On this decision notice policies from the Councils Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies appear first, then relevant Local Plan Part 2 (2020), then London Plan Policies (2021). Hillingdon's Full Council adopted the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies on 8 November 2012 and the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 on 16 January 2020. 3. The site lies in a Critical Drainage Area (CDA) identified in the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) for Hillingdon. Therefore the water from the site entering the sewers should minimised: - Water run off from any hard paving associated with the development should be directed to a soakaway, or tank or made permeable or be collected and directed to a permeable area, or Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 7 it would need an additional permission. - A water butt should be incorporated. - No drainage to support the development should be connected to any existing surface water network, other than as an overflow. 4 4. Construction Techniques - It is recommended that the ground penetrating structure/s / extension / outbuilding / porch / building / electrical supply cables and panels is/are designed and constructed to prevent/minimise the possible entry of any migrating landfill gas/ground gas. Please contact your building surveyor and/or architect if you require advice concerning suitable construction techniques. 5. There is a possibility there may be some contaminating substances in the ground at the site. Our contaminated land record shows the site to be on a former contaminated land use identified as yards (various) as well as infilled/possibly infilled site. We would advise persons working on site to take basic precautions in relation to any contamination they may find. Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 7 AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History 4501/AA/82/0999 Lbh Central Depot 128 Harlington Road Hillingdon Retention of permission (base unknown)(P) Decision: 16-12-1982 Approve Deemed Hill. 4501/AB/82/1120 Lbh Central Depot 128 Harlington Road Hillingdon Commercial dev. - 306sq.m. (Full)(P) Decision: 01-09-1982 Approve Deemed Hill. 4501/AC/82/1154 Lbh Central Depot 128 Harlington Road Hillingdon Change of use Decision: 08-09-1982 Approve Deemed Hill. 4501/AD/83/0305 Lbh Central Depot 128 Harlington Road Hillingdon Erection of canteen extension and resiting of double garage (Section 53 determination). Decision: 28-04-1983 Approve Deemed Hill. 4501/AE/83/0953 Lbh Central Depot 128 Harlington Road Hillingdon Extension/Alterations to Commercial premises (P) of 30 sq.m. Decision: 08-09-1983 Approve Deemed Hill. 4501/AG/85/1386 Lbh Central Depot 128 Harlington Road Hillingdon Extension/Alterations to Industrial premises (P) of 150 sq.m. Decision: 30-09-1985 Approve Deemed Hill. 4501/AH/85/1478 Lbh Central Depot 128 Harlington Road Hillingdon Office development - 200sq.m. (Full)(P) Decision: 01-11-1985 Approve Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 7 Deemed Hill. 4501/AN/89/0649 Lbh Central Depot 128 Harlington Road Hillingdon Retention of a temporary building for use as office purposes for a 15 week period. DDecision: 07-06-1989 Approve Limited Time 4501/APP/2000/919 Harlington Road Depot Harlington Road Hillingdon ERECTION OF TWO STOREY TERRAPIN OFFICES (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BLOCK) Decision: 30-10-2001 No Further Action(P) 4501/APP/2009/535 Harlington Road Depot Harlington Road Hillingdon Erection of 139 residential units, consisting of a mix of houses and apartments with associated car parking and amenity space (involving demolition of existing buildings) (Outline application). Decision: 08-11-2013 Withdrawn 4501/APP/2021/3310 Lbh Central Depot 128 Harlington Road Hillingdon Demolition of an existing lorry diesel pump station and installation of a new diesel pump station and canopy with photovoltaic cell and SUDS/rain gardens to periphery and all associated road woks Decision: 24-12-2021 Approved 4501/AZ/95/1209 Harlington Road Depot Harlington Road Hillingdon Erection of a two storey office building Decision: 20-09-1995 Approve Deemed Hill. 4501/BB/95/1931 Harlington Road Depot Harlington Road Hillingdon Installation of two lighting columns Decision: 10-07-1996 No Further Action(P) 4501/BC/98/3033 Lbh Central Depot 128 Harlington Road Hillingdon Erection of an 8 metre high flagpole Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 7 DDecision: 21-05-1998 Approve Deemed Hill. 4501/N/77/1342 Lbh Central Depot 128 Harlington Road Hillingdon Office development - 111sq.m. (Full)(P) Decision: 02-11-1977 Approve Deemed Hill. 4501/P/77/1785 Lbh Central Depot 128 Harlington Road Hillingdon Extension/Alterations to Commercial premises (P) of 18 sq.m. Decision: 09-02-1979 Approve Deemed Hill. 4501/R/78/2137 Lbh Central Depot 128 Harlington Road Hillingdon Alterations to elevation (P) Decision: 15-10-1979 Approve Deemed Hill. 4501/S/79/1046 Lbh Central Depot 128 Harlington Road Hillingdon Change of use Decision: 27-12-1979 Approve Deemed Hill. 4501/X/81/0848 Lbh Central Depot 128 Harlington Road Hillingdon Alterations to elevation (P) Decision: 12-11-1981 Approve Deemed Hill. 4501/Y/81/0849 Lbh Central Depot 128 Harlington Road Hillingdon Alterations to elevation (P) Decision: 10-11-1981 Approve Deemed Hill. Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 7 AAppendix 3: List of Relevant Planning Policies The following Local Plan Policies are considered relevant to the application:- Part 1 Policies: PT1.BE1 (2012) Built Environment PT1.EM6 (2012) Flood Risk Management Part 2 Policies: DMCI 2 New Community Infrastructure DMEI 11 Protection of Ground Water Resources DMEI 12 Development of Land Affected by Contamination DMEI 14 Air Quality DMEI 2 Reducing Carbon Emissions DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMT 2 Highways Impacts Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7 of 7