Planning

Minutes HILLINGDON PLANNING COMMITTEE 05 December 2024 Meeting held at Committee Room 5 - Civic Centre Committee Members Present: Councillors Henry Higgins (Chair), Adam Bennett (Vice-Chair), Keith Burrows Roy Chamdal, Elizabeth Garelick, Barry Nelson-West, and Jagjit Singh Officers Present: Ed Laughton – Area Planning Service Manager (Central & South) Eoin Concannon – Planning Team Leader Chris Brady – Planning Team Leader Dr Alan Tilly – Transport & Aviation Team Manager Natalie Fairclough – Legal Advisor Ryan Dell – Democratic Services Officer 53. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) Apologies had been received from Councillor Gursharan Mand with Councillor Barry Nelson-West substituting. 54. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS COMING BEFORE THIS MEETING (Agenda Item 2) Councillor Barry Nelson -West declared a non -pecuniary interest in item 6 as he had been in contact with the petitioners. He left the room for this item and did not take part in the vote. 55. TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3) RESOLVED: That the minutes from the meeting on 05 November 2024 be approved. 56. MATTERS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OR URGENT (Agenda Item 4) None. 57. 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. 58. 16 HAYES END DRIVE, 9105/APP/2024/1760 (Agenda Item 6) Councillor Nelson-West left the room for this item. Officers introduced the item. A written representation from the lead petitioner was read out: There were no objections to a family extending their home as in the case of 31 and 33 Hayes End Drive. This is not the case with this rented property. This was a landlord trying to increase the income from as many tenants as he can. This was based on all the applicant’s previous applications: • 27 September 2023 – Erection of a three -bedroom dwelling to rear o f existing house – rejected. • 17 January 2024 – Erection of a three -bedroom dwelling next to existing house – rejected. • 10 May 2024 – Erection of a two storey, two -bedroom house attached to 16 Hayes End Drive. Applicant was given an option to withdraw application or it would be rejected. • 15 July 2024 – Erection of a part single two storey side and rear extension. No objection from petitioners. • 22 August 2024 – Amended planning application with a larger footprint of the two-storey side and rear extension, re ar dormers, roof lights, two double back doors and large windows side of extension. Applicant had to reduce the width of the two-storey extension. • 16 October 2024 – An extra-large widow added to the side extension. Making it three large widows and side door. Already having two double back doors. So potentially becoming a dwelling attached to 16 Hayes End Drive with entrance from Wilma Close. Petitioners strongly opposed the three large widows on the side elevation. None of the other corner houses had been allowed such large windows, other than a single small opaque window for the landing one per floor, due to the fact the end elevation over looks neighb ouring properties and will overlook a rear garden resulting in a lack of privacy. And the door in the side elevation, again no other corner houses have been allowed a side door. The big concern was that this door will become a front door to a divided prop erty i.e. 16 and 16a. If the Council approves this application, petitioners requested conditions that the house cannot be divided into two properties and no HMO. Other considerations were Wilma Close was significantly narrower than other local roads so p otentially having an extra dwelling to the side of 16 Hayes End Drive or turning it into an HMO would cause greater problems for parking on an already congested Close. This area was a medium flood plane and having this extra building footprint could increase the runoff increasing the risk of flooding. Councillor Darran Davies addressed the Committee as War d Councillor and made the following points: • This property risked overdevelopment and harm to the area's character. The extensions were excessive for a prominent corner plot, disrupting the open and uniform nature of the neighbourhood. This directly conflicted with policy DMHB 11 and DMHD 1, which required developments to be in keeping with the area. • This site had a history of refused applications and o verdevelopment. The current proposal, while for the extension, raised similar concerns about scale, scale, layout and intensification. • The residential amenity was at risk despite revision and the scale of the extension threatened neighbouring properties, p articularly 14 Hayes End Drive, with potential overshadowing and reduced privacy. These impacts were significant and conflicted with the principles of protecting residential living. • Parking and traffic will be worsened. Wilma Close was already under pressure due to the narrow layout and the large property could lead to increased occupancy and parking demands, creating safety and congestion issues, contrary to policy DMT 6. • It was questioned if a drainage assessment had been carried out. This area was pron e to surface water issues and the lack of detailed information on flooding raised concerns that the development could exacerbate flooding risk, contravening policy DMEI 10. • The removal of mature trees on the site was another concern. These trees contributed to the area’s character and biodiversity, yet the proposal did not include sufficient plans to protect o r replace them, contrary to policy DMHB 14. • In summary, this proposal risked overdevelopment and harm to local character and could negatively impact residential amenity. • The Committee was requested to refuse this application. If approval was considered, it was recommended to impose strict conditions to limit occupancy, safeguard the trees, address the drainage and parking issues and also the overshadowing on other properties. Officers clarified that policy DMHD 1 and DMHB 11 were not breached as per revi sed plans. This development, given its policy compliance, would not significantly harm the character and appearance of the area. There were examples o f this type of development within the local area. Condition Six ensured that the property cannot be converted into more than one dwelling without the benefit of further planning permission. Officers had gone above and beyond in order to ensure that any intensification of the site was addressed. The site was not within a flood risk area, therefore adding a co ndition regarding surface water drainage would not be justified. While there was some planting and vegetation on the site, it was not within a TPO ar ea and so trees were not protected and therefore could be removed without consent. There was a landscaping condition that required the details of landscaping to be submitted. Members noted that the footprint of this application site was one of the smalle st compared to those in the surrounding area, and there was a similar development opposite the site. Members further asked about the footprint, and officers advised that policy DMHD 1 did not require specific measurements but was based on certain paramet ers. This application did conform with these parameters. Members asked about parking and officers advised that as this application was for an extension, it was not necessary to assess any additional parking need. Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved 59. YIEWSLEY COURT, 18928/APP/2024/2272 (Agenda Item 7) Officers introduced the application. Members noted that this application seemed logical, noting the numbers of homeless individuals and being a port authority. Members noted that the report referred to a moderate PTAL rating and asked for the precise rating. Officers noted that the site had a PTAL ranking of three, indicating that access to public transport was reasonable to good compared to London as a whole. Officers also advised that there was a bus stop outside of the site. Members also asked if t here was a time frame on ‘short -stay’. Officers advised that it would be difficult to quantify thi s as it would be dependent on the individuals’ requirements. It would also be dependent on the availability of accommodation for the individuals to move on to. Conditions on this would not be appropriate as this could lead to individuals being made homeles s again. Officers further noted that due to the individuals being homeless, it was likely that they would not have a car and so there was likely an over-provision of parking available. Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote , unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved 60. 47 FAIRFIELD AVENUE, 78928/APP/2024/1952 (Agenda Item 8) Officers introduced the application, which had been brought to Committee following a Member call-in which raised concerns regarding potential loss of amenity to the garage of neighbouring property with a new adjoining bedroom. Members noted that all concerns from residents and the Councillor had been addressed. Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved 61. 45 CAVENDISH AVENUE, 79111/APP/2024/2762 (Agenda Item 9) Officers introduced the application. Officers noted that one representation had been receiv ed following publication of the agenda which raised concerns over the property having been unoccupied for some time; previous leakages at the property which have been addressed by Housing officers; and noise, disturbance and antisocial behaviour due to the property not being occupied. Members noted that this was a good project. Members also highlighted that they were happy with the condition about damage to the verge. Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved 62. 35 BERBERIS WALK, 28236/APP/2024/2761 (Agenda Item 10) Officers introduced the item. Members noted that there was a need for properties for larger families. 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 7.50 pm. These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of the resolutions please contact Ryan Dell on democratic@hillingdon.gov.uk. Circulation of these minutes is to Councillors, Officers, the Press and Members of the Public.

Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 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 79130/APP/2024/1864 Date Application Valid: 29.07.24 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 17.01.25 Application Type: Full Ward: Uxbridge Applicant: Mr Gary Wynne Site Address: 22 Belmont Close, Uxbridge Proposal: Erection of a detached house with 4 bedrooms and associated parking, amenity and bin/cycle stores 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 – January 15th, 2025 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 erection of a detached house with 4 bedrooms and associated parking, amenity and bin/cycle stores. 1.2 The application site has been subject to two previous planning consents for the construction of a 4 bedroom dwelling at the application site (72006/APP/2023/1259 and 72006/APP/2023/2116 ). It is noted that the comments raised recognise that planning permission has previously been granted. It is also important to note that neither of the previously consented applications were subject to a public objection or a petition. 1.3 Most recently p lanning permission was granted at the site for the ‘erection of a detached house with 4 bedrooms and associated parking amenity and bin/cycle stores.’ under reference 72006/APP/2023/2116 dated 11-09-23 . However, this consent cannot be implemented as the neighbouring property No.24 Belmont Close was incorrectly plotted on the submitted drawings. 1.4 The development is part retrospective as building works have commenced on site. 1.5 During the process of the application, a petition in objection to the development was received. 1.6 While the previous consent cannot be impl emented it does need to be afforded weight in the assessment of this application. The principle of resi dential intensification on this site is established by both previous consents. The design of the development has been altered, but not substantially so and no further intensification is proposed, therefore the principle remains acceptable. 1.7 The consented site layout plan illustrated No.24 to set further back within its plot than has now been established through a site survey being undertaken. This has resulted in amendments to the proposal. 1.8 Although the design has been revised these revisions are limited and would not significantly differ from the design c onsented in both previous applications. Officers therefore consider the design of the development to be in keeping with the street scene and the North Uxbridge Area of Special Local Character. Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 1.9 Finally in terms of neighbour amenity, the revised scheme illustrates the neighbouring property at No.24 within its correct position. This has required minor alterations to the design to ensure that the new dwelling does not extend unacceptably beyond the rear elevation of either neighbouring property. Part of the rear of the building has now been reduced to single storey therefore restricting the potential overshadowing of neighbouring windows to the same level as previously consented. As such Officers consider that there would be no additional harm to neighbouring properties. 1.10 A more detailed assessment is set out within this Committee Report including a response to the concerns raised within the petition and objections received where they are material to the assessment of the application. 1.11 The Committee Report seeks to provide a comprehensive assessment of the full application and supporting documentation. All material planning considerations have been considered. 1.12 It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions (Appendix 1) by virtue that the development would not have a significant impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, nor would it harm the character and appearance of the Area of Special Local Character, and it would not have a harmful impact on the highway network. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The proposed development site is located on the south side of Belmont Close. At present the site comprises a partly built detached dwelling which is subject to this application. 2.2 The surrounding area is predominantly residential and is characterised by uniquely designed two storey, detach ed properties some of which have accommodation in their roofs. Properties are set back from the main road, allowing for off street parking and/or front gardens with landscaping. 2.3 The site has public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 2 and is located within the North Uxbridge Area of special local character. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Street View Images of the Application Property Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached house with 4 bedrooms and associated parking, amenity and bin/cycle stores. 3.2 It should be noted that the development is part retrospective, as seen in the above photograph. 3.3 During the process of the application, updated drawings were sought and received amending the red outline of the locati on plan, updating the landscape plan and providing clarity on the roof height. Figure 3: Proposed Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 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. 4.2 It should be noted that the site has been subject to two approved applications 72006/APP/2023/1259 and the most recent under reference 72006/APP/2023/2116 dated 11-09-23. Both applications proposed the ‘Erection of a detached house with 4 bedrooms and associated parking amenity and bin/cycle stores.’ 4.3 However, this permission cannot be im plemented due to the neighbouring property being incorrectly plotted. 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 28 neighbouring properties were consulted on the application by letter dated 02- 08-24. During the process of the application neighbouring properties were re- consulted due to the red outline of the location plan being amended and the Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press address being updated to accurately reflect the subdivided plot. The final consultation period expired 06-12-24. 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 42 valid signatures has been received against the application. 1. The drawings are inaccurate and do not accurately reflect what has been built The drawings that are labelled as ‘existing’ are the pre -existing arrangement at the site. As the development is part retrospective (as the previous application cannot be built out) it is not considered a reasonable request to include the partly built development. Officers are determining the application based on the proposed plans. During the process of the application further information in the form of a roof level drawing was sought and received , undertaken by professionals to establish the building height of the surrounding properties. It is considered that the submitted plans accurately reflect the neighbouring roof levels. 2. The plot is being overdeveloped The principle of development has already been established with the previous planning applications. Therefore, an assessment of the design of the development has Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press been made within section 7 of this report. 3. The proposed building line does not respect the building line of neighbouring properties. This matter is discussed in section 7 of this report. 4. Concerns over damp course level of property in relation to neighbouring properties. This matter is discussed at paragraphs 7.46 to 7.48 5. Concerns over loss of light. This matter is discussed at paragraphs 7.40 to 7.48 6. Respect of planning laws: - No party wall agreement issued to adjacent neighbours - Working on Sundays - Hoarding in places not as agreed - Pavement dug up - Tree branches cut off - Delivery times - Parking issues Most of these matters are not material to the determination of this planning application and are covered under separated legislation. A construction management plan has been provided, a compliance condition has been added to ensure these measures are adhered to. 12 individual letters of objection have been received from a total of 8 households. (Please note that where multiple letters of objection have been received from the same person I. The rear building line exceeds the neighbouring property. The submitted Design and Access Statement contravenes this It is noted that the submitted Design and Access Statement appears to be a copy of previous statement submitted with application reference 72006/APP/2023/2116. The Council are assessing the proposed plans and will not include the Design and Access Statement as a consented document. Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press during different consultation periods; this has be en counted as one representation. All representations have been taken into consideration.) II. The front bay window exceeds the building line of no.20 Belmont Close and the rear building lie exceeds the building line of no.24 Belmont Close, causing overlooking. The proposed drawings show that the front bay window does not exceed the front building line of no.20 Belmont Close. The matter of the rear building line and its impacts on the neighbouring property has been discussed in paragraphs III. The floor height of the proposed dwelling is higher than neighbouring properties causing a loss of privacy. This matter has been discussed in section 7 of this report. A survey was undertaken to clarify the heights of the surrounding buildings and the depth of the building would not breach the 45 degree line of sight at either the front at ground and first floor level and first floor level to the rear. IV. The proposed ground floor side facing door and window will cause loss of privacy This matter is discussed at paragraphs 7.43 & 7.44 V. Concerns over loss of light and loss of outlook as the 45-degree angle line is not being followed The proposed site layout drawing reference 3309-03 Rev F show that the proposed development does not enter the 45 - degree angle line from the front facing neighbouring habitable room. Although there is some loss of outlook created. This has been established with the previously approved application and is considered acceptable. VI. Loss of light to neighbour’s bathroom A bathroom is not considered a habitable room. Therefore, refusal Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press for this reason is not considered reasonable. VII. Dormer window will cause loss of privacy Discussed at paragraph 7.50 VIII. Overdevelopment of the plot The principle of development has already been established with the previous planning applications. The design is assessed in section 7 of this report. IX. The proposed dwelling will be higher than the neighbouring properties During the process of the application further information in the form of a roof level drawing was sought and received, undertaken by professionals to establish the building height of the surrounding properties. It is considered that the submitted plans accurately reflect the neighbouring roof levels. An assessment of the proposed height has been made in para’s 7.29 & 7.30 X. Building works have continued through the planning process. It has been established by numerous site visits that building works have continued at site during the process of this planning application. The planning enforcement officer has instructed building works to be ceased at site . XI. There will be hardly any garden left and the An assessment of the proposed landscaping and external amenity space Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press landscaping feels unrealistic. has been made within paragraphs 7.58 & 7.59 XII. According to the plans, rainwater is to be managed by a soakaway but is not shown on the plans. The proposed plans show the provision of water buts. In addition to this a surface water management plan has been submitted. Should the application be recommended for approval, a suitable compliance condition will be added. XIII. Too many plans are uploaded to the website, and it is confusing for residents to assess. During the process of the application revised drawings have been sought. The up -to-date drawings are labelled as ‘REVISED’ on the website. An in-person meeting was held with the lead petitioners on 05/12/24 to show them the proposed drawings. IV. Concerns over parking stress Parking matters have been discussed in paragraph 7.64 XV. Hillingdon Council should be putting residents first. This is acknowledged by planning officers. The primary considerations are the alignment of the proposal with local planning policies, the impact on the built and natural environment and the impact of the development on neighbouring properties amenities. The planning process ensures that all neighbouring representations are taken into consideration (where Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press they are material to the development). The below report has assessed these elements fully. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Highway Authority: As this application is a reprise of an extant 2023 permission (72006/APP/2023/2116), the same comments made previously by the Highway Authority can be reapplied (no objection). Updated comment: For the scale of development, the Construction Management Plan (CMP) is broadly fit for purpose. As assessment of the highway impacts has been made at paragraph 7.60-7.70 Access Officer: No accessibility concerns are raised subject to co nditions to ensure the dwelling shall accord with the requirements of Policy D7 of the London Plan and shall not be occupied until certification of compliance with the technical specifications for an M4(2) dwelling, as set out in Approved Document M to the Building Regulations (2010) 2015, has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. All such provisions must remain in place for the life of the building. The comments have been noted and the relevant condition added. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The London Plan (2021) provides guidance on how applications for development on garden land should be treated within the London Region. The thrust of the guidance is that back gardens can contribute to the objectives of a significant number of London Plan policies and these matters should be taken into account when considering the principle of such developments. Policy D4 of the London Plan supports development plan -led presumptions against development on back gardens where locally justified by a sound local evidence base. Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.2 The Mayor's Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance, also provides further guidance on the interpretation of existing policies within the London Plan as regards garden development. Paragraph 1.2.44 advises that when considering proposals which involve the loss of gardens, regard should be taken of the degre e to which gardens contribute to defining local context and character (Policy D4 and D6), especially in outer London where gardens are often a key component of an area's character. The contribution gardens make towards biodiversity also needs to be conside red as does their role in mitigating flood risk. 7.3 Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic policies states that a high quality design should be achieved in all new buildings, alterations and extensions, and states that schemes should not result in the inappropriate development of gard ens and green spaces that erode the character and biodiversity of suburban areas. 7.4 Policy DMH6: Garden and Backland Development advises there is a presumption against the loss of gardens due to the need to maintain local character, amenity space and biodiversity. In exceptional cases a limited scale of backland development may be accepta ble, subject to the following criteria: i) Neighbouring residential amenity and privacy of existing homes and gardens must be maintained ii) Vehicular access or car parking should not have an adverse impact on neighbours in terms of noise or light iii) Development on backland sites must be more intimate in mass and scale; and iv) Features such as trees, shrubs and wildlife habitat must be retained or re- provided 7.5 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 a four -bed property and as such would make a contribution towards the boroughs need for family sized housing. 7.6 The property is located within an established residential area; however, the London Plan recognises the contribution of gardens (specifically rear gardens) make towards the quality of living accommodation and suggests a presumption against their loss where it can be locally justified. Local Plan Policy DMH 6 gives a presumption against the loss of gardens due to the need to maintain local character, amenity space and biodiversity. Only in exceptional cases will backland, or garden land in this instance, development be acceptable. 7.7 It is important to recognise the significance of the previous approved application for the redevelopment of this site to provide a 4-bedroom detached dwelling which is also the subject of this application. The decision for application ref 72006/APP/2023/2116 was made in assessment of the proposed plans submitted to Officers. As these plans were not found to be accurate in terms of the plotting of the adjacent property, the development could not be built out in accordance with the approved plans. It is also important to note that a full Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press consultation was undertaken with residents, no objections were raised including against the principle of development. 7.8 As set out within the delegated report, Officers considered the development to comply with the garden land related development plan policies stating that “it is in a residential area characterised by family housing with large gardens being a prevailing characteristic. The proposal would cause no harm to neighbours, the highways network, the character of the area, important trees or biodiversity. The infill development would comply with Policy DMH 6.” 7.9 While the development cannot be constructed in accordance with the approved plans the decision is a material planning consideration in the determination of this application. An objection based on the principle of development would need to be strongly justified, meaning that Officers and Members of the Planning Committee would need to demonstrate a significant difference between the two proposals in order to form a strong reason for refusal which finds there to be a policy departure. 7.10 Turning to the assessment of this current proposal, in order to be considered compliant with the above policies the scheme would need to integrate within the street scene both in terms of appearance (scale bulk and massing) and the established pattern of development (location). 7.11 The application site was formally part of the side garden for number 20 Belmont Close, however recently the plot has been subdivided with a new address. 7.12 The surrounding area is characterised with family housing with large gardens being a prevailing characteristic. The proposed development overall will not significantly harm the amenity of neighbour ing properties, will not cause harm to the highway network, nor will it be sign ificantly harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such, the infill development would comply with Policy DMH 6. 7.13 It should also be noted that the principle of development was accepted within the previous application reference 72006/APP/2023/2116. As such the main assessment of the application will focus on the design of the development and its impact on neighbouring properties amenities. 7.14 The design is assessed in more detail within the character and appearance section of this report, however the dwelling does not extend beyond the established front building line of No.20 and 18 Belmont Close. The scale, bulk and massing is more intimate than the surrounding properties and fits well within the site boundaries. As such the development complies with development plan and the support for the principle of development is retained. Officers do not consider there to be a justifiable reason to object to the principle of development and one which could be defended in the event of an appeal against a refusal, or an enforcement notice being served. Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.15 Finally, the application retains the benefits confirmed by the Case Officer when approving the two previous applications have been retained. Such as the developments contribution towards local housing stock, the provision of family sized units to help meet an identified demand for such accommodation and the redevelopment of a small brownfield site to provide new housing. These benefits are recognised and defined within the development plan. Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.16 Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) states that all new developments should achieve a high quality of design in all new buildings and the public realm contributes to community cohesion and a sense of place. 7.17 Local Plan Policy DMHB 11 states that all development, including extensions, alterations and new buildings will be required to be designed to the highest standards and, incorporate principles of good design including harmonising with the local context and considering the height, mass and bulk of adjacent structures. They should also ensure the use of high-quality building materials and finishes, and ensure that the internal design and layout of development maximises sustainability and is adaptable to different activities. 7.18 Policy DMHB 5 states within Areas of Special Local Character, new development should reflect the character of the area and its original layout. Alterations should respect the established scale, building lines, height, design and materials of the area. Extensions to dwellings should be subservient to and respect the architectural style of the original buildings and allow sufficient space for appropriate landscaping, particularly between, and in front of, buildings. The replacement of buildings which positively contribute to the character and local importance of Areas of Special Local Character will normally be resisted. 7.19 Policy DMHB 12 advises that development should be well integrated with the surrounding area. It should ensure public realm design takes account of the established townscape character and quality of the surrounding area. 7.20 Policy DMHB 14 advises that all development will be expected to retain or enhance existing landscaping, trees, biodiversity or other features of merit. 7.21 The proposed development site is located on the south side of Belmont Close, Uxbridge and is located within the North Uxbridge Area of Special Local Character (ASLC). The site has been partly develo ped and hosts a parti ally built detached property, this is due to the previously approved permission being made invalid due to the neighbouring property being incorrectly positioned. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character characterised by uniquely designed properties, some of which having accommodation within the roof space. Properties are set back from the main road, allowing off street parking and/or front gardens with landscaping. Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.22 As Belmont Close is a cul-de-sac there is no strongly established set of front and rear building lines. For instance, No.20 & No.18 feature front elevations which are in line with one another, however No.24 which is closer to the end of the cul- de-sac sits much further back within its plot as it borders the curved end to the road. 7.23 Furthermore, a lot of the properties within Belmont Close benefit from some form of extension which has resulted in a deteri oration of the side and rear buildings lines. 7.24 Based on the above it is appropriate to consider the relationship between the development and the adjacent properties as the most relevant when assessing the impact, the development may have on the character and appearance of the area. 7.25 The proposed site layout plan illustrates the new dwelling set within the context of No.20 and No.24. The front building line does not extend beyond the front building line of No.20 which aligns with No.18 as discussed above. In fact, the front bay window which is the closest and most extensive part of the front elevation to No.20 is set slightly behind the neighbouring front elevation. 7.26 Turning to No.24, firstly No.20 sits cons iderably further forward of the front elevation of No.24. While the new dwelling infills the generous gap between No.20 and No.24 the front elevation is staggere d which means that there is form of transition between the front elevation of No.20 and the recessed front elevation of No.24. 7.27 It is evident to Officers that the development has been designed to integrate with the established pattern of development within this corner of the road and to fit the sites constraints. 7.28 With regard to scale, bulk and massing, the proposed development involves the erection of a two storey detached property with habitable roof accommodation set within a rear dormer extension. It would measure approx. 17.8m deep, 7.6m wide and 9.05m in height characterised with a hipped roof profile and front bay feature. It would be set back from the highway wi th off street parking and landscaping accommodated to the front. The property would be finished in red brick with brown concrete roof tiles, which is considered to fit in with the surrounding properties. As mentioned within the above paragraph, Belmont Close is made up of uniquely designed properties and the proposed development would not detract from this. A street scene elevation drawing has been submitted which shows that the development would not appear cramped wi thin its plot, retaining a separation distance of approx. 1m both side boundaries. 7.29 During the process of the application revised drawings and additional information were sought to clarify the roof height levels of neighbouring properties. A suitable assessor has surveyed the roof heights and provided drawing number 200924/lev titled ‘Level Survey’ along with written confirmation to establish its credibility. The maximum roof height level is shown to be approx. 9.05m which Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press would be closely matched to the roof height of the adjacent property No.22 Belmont Close (shown as approx. 8.96m). It should also be acknowledged that a small increase in height would not be noticeable to a pedestrian at street level. A site visit has confirmed that properties along Belmont Close are of differing heights and as such there is no clear building height that should be adhered to. It is not considered that the proposed development would be excessively over dominating in terms of its height within the street scene. 7.30 Comments have been received during the assessment of the application regarding the accuracy of the street scene elevations and in particular the eaves line which are shown to be in line with No.20 and No.24. While Officers must assess the plans submitted by the applicant for consideration, the comments within the objections referring to the accuracy of the plans in comparison to what has been built are noted. It is important to note that the street scene elevation cannot be illustrated 100% accurately as the 2D plan cannot accurately present the location and relationship of the buildings. For example, the eaves line of the new dwelling may well appear in line with the eaves line of No.24 on the proposed drawings as this drawing is illustrated from a view looking directly at the two properties from the other side of the street. Whereas the two properties are not located side by side. The drawing does satisfactorily demonstrate that the eaves line would not appear awkwardly out of line, and this is supported by Officers. 7.31 As established within the above sections of this report, the application is a resubmission of a previous scheme where the neighbouring property No.24 was incorrectly plotted. As such, the proposed dwelling would be sited approx. 0.7m deeper than No.24. As this is located to the rear it would not be visible from the street scene and is not considered to harmfully break the building line to a degree that is unacceptable. It should also be noted that this is at ground floor level only and single storey rear extensions are common in the surrounding area where the rear buildings lines are not uniform. Figure 4 – showing the front building line of the property in relation to No.20 Belmont Close Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.32 A large rectangular rear garden would be provided for new residents similar to other properties in the area. A hard and soft landscaping plan has been submitted and shows a good balance between hard and soft landscaping to compliment the areas suburban appearance. As ment ioned further within the neighbouring amenity section of this repot, a revised landscaping drawing was sought and received increasing the height of the boundary fence along the shared boundary with No.24. the fence would measure 2.2m in height and as this is solely along one boundary this is considered acceptable within design terms to reduce any harmful impact to the neighbouring property. 7.33 Concern has been raised in the public consultation responses regarding the proposal for a rear dormer and whether this in keeping with the character and appearance of the area. No.14 benefits from a modest rear dormer similar in scale to the proposed rear dormer. The rear dormer itself would meet the guidance set out within DMHD 1 of the Local Plan which states that extensions within the roof space should be located to the rear and measure no more than two thirds of the width of the roof. Finally, the properties within this street benefit from permitted Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press development rights, with a number utilising them to construct extensions of their own. The scale of the dormer would comply with the General Permitted Development Order and in fact is more modest in scale, therefore Officers consider the rear dormer to be acceptable. 7.34 It is not considered that the proposed development would cause harm to the Area of Special Local Character. It is acknowledged that the plot size is narrower than the neighbouring properties, however a sufficient separation distance is retained and as such the development would not appear cramped within the plot. 7.35 Taking into consideration the above, it is considered that the proposal would respect the character and appearance of the surrounding area in compliance with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies and Policies DMHB 5, DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHB 14 of the Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020), as well as relevant design guidance contained within the London Plan (2021) and NPPF (2024). Residential Amenity 7.36 Local Plan Policy DMHB 11 sets out design guidance for all new development in the borough. Part B of the policy states 'development proposals should not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space'. 7.37 Guidance for Policy DMHB 11 states 'The Council will aim to ensure that there is sufficient privacy for residents, and it will resist proposals where there is an unreasonable level of overlooking between habitable rooms of adjacent residential properties, schools or onto private open spaces. A minimum of 21 metres separation distance between windows of habitable rooms will be required to maintain levels of privacy and to prevent the possibility of overlooking. In some locations where there is a significant difference in ground levels between dwellings, a greater separation distance may be necessary'. 7.38 Guidance for Policy DMHB 11 also states ' For the purposes of this policy, outlook is defined as the visual amenity enjoyed by occupants when looking out of their windows or from their garden. 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. Single aspect dwellings should be avoided'. 7.39 Paragraph 135 (f) of the NPPF (2024) states that new development should seek to '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'. 7.40 Number 24 Belmont Close is located east of the application site. The proposed development would involve the erection of a two-storey property with habitable roof accommodation. It is acknowledged that the development would result in Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press some harm to the views which this neighbouring property would have benefitted from given that there would have been no building within 13 metres of the side and front elevations. Furthermore, given that this neighbouring property is set further behind the existing dwelling at No.20, the application needs to demonstrate that the new dwelling has been designed to limit any potential harm to the front and rear facing primary habitable room windows. 7.41 This neighbouring property has been shown on the existing and proposed plan with a pink outline to accurately show the correct position of the dwelling. The proposed development would be located 1m away from the boundary line with this neighbouring property and the rear building line would extend approx. 0.7m further (at ground floor level only) than the rear building line of this neighbour. This modest projection would not cause significant harm to the amenities of this neighbouring property as it would no t extend into the 45-degree line of sight from the closest neighbouring habitable room window from the front or rear of the property. 7.42 The proposed site layout drawing reference 3309-03- Rev F, shows that the proposed development does not extend into the 45-degree line of sight from the closest front neighbouring habitable room window which is located within the front elevation of No.24 (see figure 5 below). It is acknowledged that the development would restrict some views as the existing plot was empty. However, this depicts that there would be not a substantial loss of light or overshadowing to this room. Figure 5 plan indicating the 45 degree l ine of site and location of the neighbouring property Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.43 It is noted by Officers upon visiting site and well documented within the objections raised during the public consultation, that there is a ground floor side facing window within the flank elevation of No.24 which directly faces the new dwelling. However, this window serves a bathroom and bathrooms are not recognised as habitable rooms within the description contained within the development plan. Therefore they would not be safeguarded in terms of outlook or daylight/sunlight. Furthermore, they are commonly obscurely glazed and non- openable up to 1.7 metres above finished floor levels, to provide a level of privacy for occupiers. 7.44 The new dwelling features a door and window opening which is within a similar location to the opposing bathroom window. These openings would serve a utility and plant room thus not serving habitable rooms and would be used infrequently Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press and for short periods of time. In addition, as they are non-habitable, they are to be obscurely glazed to diminish the very limited level of overlooking which may occur. 7.45 A further point noted within the objections received is regarding the finished floor and external levels for the new dwelling in comparison with the neighbouring levels, in particular No.24. 7.46 Upon visiting site, Officers viewed the internal levels which had been constructed up to damp proof course at the time of the most recent visit. Further observations were made of the ground levels around the new dwelling in comparison with the levels at No.24. It is clear that there is a difference in levels between the two sites irrespective of the construction of the new dwelling as the levels lower towards No.24. As such any new building would naturally be formed on marginally higher ground level than the neighbouring property. 7.47 Measurements were taken from the existing ground level which indicated that the land around the new dwelling had been excavated. Internal measurements were taken which indicated that the finished floor levels are likely to be set 0.2 m (20cm) above the existing ground level. While Officers consider that any potential overlooking from the external areas and the side facing opening would be limited, the landscaping plan indicates that a 2.2 m high fence is proposed along the shared boundary with No.24 which would further reduce any potential for overlooking or loss of privacy. As illustrated on the proposed drawings a small ramp is to be provided to facilitate level access from the rear facing doors as the finished floor levels are set approximately 20 cm above the natural ground level within the rear garden. 7.48 It is acknowledged that this could give rise to potential loss of light to the neighbouring bathroom, however as stated above this is a non-habitable room as defined within the development plan. There is no sound policy basis which would require this windo w to be safeguarded from potential loss of light or outlook, the level of potential harm would be limited given that a fence of 2m in height could be constructed without the benefit of permission. As such there would be no justifiable reason for refusal which could be formed on this point alone. 7.49 There would be one new upper floor bathroom window facing this neighbour, this can be conditioned to be obscurely glazed and non-opening to prevent overlooking and loss of privacy. 7.50 The rear dormer would not face this neighbour and would therefore not overlook habitable rooms, there would be some views over the rear garden, however this arrangement is not unusual within residential areas and there would be mutual overlooking of garden areas. As such it is considered acceptable. The side facing rooflights would provide upwards views and would not cause a harmful loss of privacy. Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.51 Regarding the access levels of the rear doors into the garden, level access would be provided from one set of doors via a ramped access and the door closest to No. 24 would be stepped access. It is not considered there would be any harmful overlooking from this patio area due to this, combined with the 2.2m high fence. 7.52 Number 20 Belmont Close is located west of the application site. The development would not project past the front building li ne of this neighbouring property. The new dwelling would be positioned approx. 2.39m away from this neighbour. It would extend approx. 6.61m beyond the rear building line, however this at first floor level this would not project into the 45 -degree line of sight from the closest neighbouring habitable room window. Furthermore circa 3.5 m of this depth would be single storey in height which would further limit any potential oversh adowing. Given the separation distance it is not considered there would be a significant amount of loss of light or overshadowing to warrant refusal. 7.53 There would be two new ground floor windo ws facing this neighbour. These can be conditioned to be obscurely glazed and non-opening to prevent any overlooking or loss of privacy. The proposed rear dormer would not overlook this neighbour and the proposed rooflights would provide upwards views and as such there would be no loss of privacy. 7.54 Given the separation distance to other neighbouring properties. It is not considered there would be any harm to their amenities in terms of loss of light, overshadowing, loss of outlook, nor would it be overbearing. 7.55 As such, the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the neighbouring properties amenities complying with Policies DMHD 1 and DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan, Part 2 (2020). Quality of Residential Accommodation (Internal and External) Internal 7.56 Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) requires that 130sqm of internal floor space be provided for 4 bed, 8 person properties set over 3 floors. 7.57 The proposed dwelling would provide approx. 207sqm of internal floor space for future residents and therefore would comply with the relevant policy and space standards. The section drawings provided show that the floor to ceiling height would be 2.5m for at least 75% of the dwelling which would comply with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021 ). The dwelling would be dual aspect and would provide all habitable rooms with an adequate source of light and outlook. As such, the proposed dwelling would provide a high standard of internal amenity space for future occupiers complying with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMHB 16 of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020). External Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.58 Policy DMHB 18 of the Local Plan (2020) states that new residential developments should provide an adequate level of privat e amenity space for occupiers that is good quality and usable. 4-bedroom properties are required to provide 100sqm of amenity space. 7.59 The proposed dwelling would provide in excess of this area within the rear garden. As such, the proposal would have adequate external private amenity space in compliance with Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Highways and Parking 7.60 Policy DMT 2 states that proposals must ensure that safe and efficient vehicular access to the highway network is provided; they do not contribute to the deterioration of air quality, noise or local amenity; have safe, secure and convenient access and facilities for cyclists and pedestrian; that impacts on local amenity and congestion are minimised; and there are suitable mitigation measures to address any traffic impacts. 7.61 Policy DMT 6 states 'Development proposals must comply with the parking standards outlined in Appendix C Table 1 in order to facilitate sustainable development and address issues relating to congestion and amenity. The Council may agree to vary these requirements when the variance would not lead to a deleterious impact on street parking provision, congestion or local amenity.' 7.62 Similarly, the London Plan (2021) seeks to provide adequate parking for new residential development and to avoid harm to highways networks. Parking Provision: 7.63 The maximum parking requirement for the new 4-bedroom residential unit would be in the order of 2 on -plot spaces which should be provided on- site to comply with the adopted Hillingdon parking standard whilst, by contrast, for a PTAL rating of 3, the London Plan (2021) parking standard demands up to 1 space . Two spaces located on the frontage are presented. 7.64 Although the regional maximum standard is exceeded, it is considered that this level of proposed provision is acceptable particularly as it reduces the likelihood for untoward on-street parking displacement on the adjacent roadways resulting from a higher dependency on the private motor car due to the average PTAL rating. Vehicular Trip Generation: 7.65 In general terms, the proposal would clearly raise the level of vehicular activity to and from the site. However, peak period traffic movement into and out of the site is not expected to exceed 1 -2 additional vehicle movements during the most sensitive and therefore crucial peak morning and evening hours hence this uplift is considered marginal in generation terms and therefore can be absorbed within Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the local road network without notable detriment to traffic congestion and road safety. Vehicle Crossing: 7.66 The proposed development involves the installation of a new carriageway crossing, the details of this have been previously approved under reference 72006/APP/2023/2396. The dimensions of this are the same as previously approved and as such are considered acceptable Construction Management Plan: 7.67 The applicant has submitted a Construction Logistics Plan due to the sensitivities of the site. The Councils highway officer has reviewed this and considered the measures acceptable given the limited scale of development (one new dwelling). A compliance condition has been added to ensure the development is built on in accordance with this document. Cycle Parking: 7.68 A bike store is located within the rear garden of the site. This would be accessed by the 1m side access path. This is considered a suitable level of cycle storage, in compliance with Policy DMT 5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Electric vehicle Charging Points (EVCP’s): 7.69 One active and one passive EVCP is shown on the propose landscaping plan. This is considered sufficient. Conclusion 7.70 The application has been reviewed by the Councils Highway Officer who is satisfied that the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress, and would not raise any measurable highway safety concerns, in accordance with Local Plan: Part 2 Development Plan (2020) Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 & DMT 6 and Policies T4, T5 and T6 of the London Plan (2021). Noise 7.71 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. 7.72 An air source heat pump is provided as part of this application. It is not considered that this would cause an adverse impact in terms of noise to warrant refusal, and it is not considered necessary to add further conditions relating to noise. Air Quality Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.73 The site is located within an Air Quality Management Area and part of the rear of the site lies within an Air Quality Focus Area. Given the proposed development is for one new dwelling, it is not conside red that the proposal would cause unacceptable levels of dust and disturbance during the construction phase. A construction logistics plan has been provided which has provided mitigation measures to prevent the sped of dust. As such, no further information is required. Accessibility 7.74 Policy D5 of the London Plan (2021) se eks 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' 7.75 The Council’s Access Officer has been consulted on the application and has no concerns regarding accessibility subject to conditions which will be added to the decision should planning permission be granted. Level access would be provided from the front entranceway. Level access would be provided from one set of rear doors into the garden and the other door would have a small, stepped access. This is considered acceptable given step free access is provided into and out of the property. Trees and Landscaping 7.76 Policy DMHB 14 advises that all development will be expected to retain or enhance existing landscaping, trees, biodiversity or other features of merit. 7.77 The applicant has provided a hard landscaping drawing, a soft landscaping drawing, a proposed landscaping notes drawing and a planting index. The proposed drawings demonstrate that there will be a good balance of hard and soft landscaping incorporated into the scheme to compliment the areas suburban appearance. As such the proposed landscaping at the site would make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the street scene. 7.78 The applicant has provided details of refuge storage, cycle storage and boundary treatments which are all considered to be acceptable in terms of their design and impact to neighbouring properties. 7.79 The below section of this committee report has detailed the Biodiversity Net Gain at the site. 7.80 Overall, the proposed development would comply with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan, Part 2 (2020) and a compliance condition will be added to ensure the details are built out and maintained accordingly. Biodiversity Net gain Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.81 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. 7.82 Chapter 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity. 7.83 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. 7.84 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. 7.85 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. 7.86 During the process of the application the Statutory Biodiversity Net Gain Metric was requested and provided. The document shows that there will be a 64.65% increase in BNG at the site by provided vegetated garden to the rear of the site that would see the introduction of a grassed area and/or flower beds along with shrubs and the retention of existing tree. 7.87 As such, a Biodiversity Net Gain is capable of being secured for the development and therefore reverting to the statutory habitat management scheme condition would be acceptable. As such, the site would be able to provide a 10% increase in biodiversity, th erefore the statutory habitat management condition has been added to the decision notice. Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Flooding and Drainage 7.88 The proposed development site is not located in Flood Zones 2 or 3. Nor is it located within a critical drainage area or an area known for surface water flooding. The applicant has submitted a Sustainable Water Management Plan with SUDS mitigation measures. A suitable compliance condition has been added to ensure these measures are incorporated. Waste Management 7.89 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, with suitable access for collection. External bins should be located and screened to avoid nuisance and adverse visual impacts to occupiers and neighbours. 7.90 The proposed landscaping plan shows the provision of ensure and enclosed refuge storage to the front of the dwelling. This is considered an acceptable arrangement as occupiers would drag the bins to the kerbside on collection days. 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 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. Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.3 The Council adopted its own Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on 1st August 2014. The Hillingdon CIL charge for resi dential developments is £95 per square metre of additional floor space. This is in addition to the Mayoral CIL charge of £60 per square metre. CIL rates are index linked. The proposal involves the erection of new dwellings an d is therefore CIL liable if planning permission is granted. Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The site has been subject to two previous consents for the same development, as such the principle of development remains established. The design has been amended to address the concerns with the potential harm to neighbouring properties to a satisfactory degree. The development would provide additional housing on a brownfield site and a housing type for which there is an identified need. The potential harm would be limited and would be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. Appropriate weight has been afforded to the previous consents and Officers find there to be no departure from the Development Plan which would be significant enough to warrant refusal. 9.2 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. 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 – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Part 2 – Application Report Case Officer: Michael Kemp 25767/APP/2024/2484 Date Application Valid: 16.09.2024 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 24.01.2025 Application Type: Full Ward: Uxbridge Applicant: Mr Chris Barrett Site Address: 72 Harefield Road, Uxbridge, UB8 1PL Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of building to provide 3 x 1 -bed, 5 x 2-bed, 1 x 3 bed flats with associated parking and amenity space. 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 – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. Approval is subject to the applicants entering into a unilateral undertaking to remove future occupiers’ ability to obtain parking permits to park private vehicles in the streets surrounding the site. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 The application proposes the demolition of the existing dwelling at No.74 Harefield Road and the erection of a building containing 9 apartments over four floor levels. The apartments would consist of 1x3 bed, 5x2 bed and 3x1 bed units. 1.2 Planning approval (25767/APP/2023/2805) was granted at appeal in 2024 for the demolition of the existing building and erection of two five-bedroom semi-detached dwellings. The design and scale of the building prop osed within the planning application currently under consideration is identical to the scheme allowed at appeal, albeit that the quantum of units has increased from two dwellings to nine. 1.3 There is a clear policy presumption, where considering applications for new housing in favour of ensuring that land is developed effectively to achieve an optimum density of development as set out within Paragraph 129 of the NPPF 2024; Policies GG2, D1 and H1 of the London Plan; and Policy DMHB17 of the Local Plan Part 2. The proposed development would align with these aims, whilst the mix of housing units would ensure that a three bedroom is provided leading to no loss of family sized units. 1.4 The increased quantum of units and resulting amendments to the site plan, which include an increase in car par king would not impact negatively on the amenity of adjoining residential occupiers or highway safety and amenity. The proposals also provide adequate living accommodation and outdoor amenity space for future occupiers , would deliver biodiversity net gain equivalent to 12.66% and retain the vast majority of the existing trees on the site, thereby preserving the verdant character and appearance of the site. 1.5 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. 2 The Site and Locality Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2.1 The site is formed of a large, sloped plot occupied by a two-storey, detached house, set back from the highway (from whi ch the site is most apparent). This house is set within an established garden which is set back from Harefield Road on the east side, opposite Fairlight Drive. The site is situated in a particularly verdant part of the road and its modest scale, together with its front garden and spacing between buildings on either side, contributes to this. The site has a large rear garden which adjoins the rear garden of No.2 Cambridge Road. 2.2 Two pairs of period properties exist to the immediate north of the site which are four storeys in scale. The adjoining property, No.74 Harefield Road has been converted into apartments and has parking to the rear of the property. 2.3 A three storey, mid-20th century block of fl ats is located to the south of the site, there is an area of parking to the rear of the flats, which includes two rows of low- rise garages which are accessed via Fairfield Road. Views of the flats from Harefield Road are obscured by dense vegetation cover to the front of the site. 2.4 The side and rear boundaries of the application site are tree-lined. There are no TPO's or Conservation Area designations affecting the site itself, however there is an area TPO (ref TPO 75) on land to the south, and North Uxbridge Area of Special Local Character is located to the east. 2.5 The site has a PTAL rating of 1a. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application Property Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 The proposals involve the demolition of the existing dwelling at No.72 Harefield Road and the erection of a building containing 9 apartments over four floor levels. The apartments would consist of 1x3 bed, 5x2 bed and 3x1 bed units. Communal amenity space is provided to the rear of the site, as well as 11 car parking spaces. 1 disabled parking space is provided to the front of the property. The parking would be accessed via a driveway located to the north of the apartment building. Access would be provided from Harefield Road. The site plan is included in Figure 3 below, the red dashed line indicates the footprint of the existing building on site. 3.2 Minor amendments have been made to the approved plans to alter the proposed landscaping and treatment of communal amenity areas. These amendments have been made to improve the useability of the amenity areas and to enhance habitat creation to improve delivery of on-site biodiversity net gain. Figure 3: Proposed Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4: Proposed Plan for 25767/APP/2023/2805 - Allowed Appeal Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 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. 4.2 Four planning applications have been subm itted for residential development on the site since 2021, all of which have been subject of appeals, three of which were dismissed, however most recently permission was granted on appeal in August 2024 for two dwellings submitted under planning application 25767/APP/2023/2805. The recent appeal decisions are discussed in further detail in the relevant sections of this report. The recently allowed appeal decision should be afforded significant weight in considering the present proposals, given that the scale and siting of the proposed building is identical to the development permitted under th is recent appeal decision. Notwithstanding this, the additional quantum of development proposed under the current application, which relates to the provision of 9 dwellings must be afforded due consideration in terms of impact, compared with the consented scheme for 2 dwellings. Further commentary on this is set out in the relevant sections of the report below. The previous appeal decisions are also discussed further in relation to relevant material planning considerations including highways impacts and the impact of the development on the amenity of adjoining residential occupiers. 5 Planning Policy Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to th e consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 A total of 19 neighbouring properties were consulted directly regarding the proposed development. The North Uxbridge Residents Association was also consulted. 6.2 The consultation period of the planning application expired on 14th October 2024. 6.3 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses re ceived 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 with 30 signatures has been received in objection to the development. 1. One and two bedroom dwellings are prioritised over delivery of family accommodation. This matter is addressed in paragraphs 7.8 and 7.9 of the report below. 2. The size of the roof of the building would be too large in relation to the surrounding area and neighbourhood. This matter is addressed in in paragraphs 7.15 to 7.26 of the report below . 3. There would be a significant impact on the neighbouring properties by reason of the reduction of the existing open aspect and increased noise and air pollution. This matter is addressed in in paragraphs 7.31 to 7.39 of the report below . 4. There would be a significant increase in traffic compared with the consented scheme and a resulting increase This matter is addressed in in paragraphs 7.46 to 7.47 of the report below . Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press in noise and air pollution. 5. The green space and amenity areas would be reduced compared with the consented scheme. This matter is addressed in in paragraphs 7.58 to 7.63 of the report below . 6. There would be an inadequate number of car parking spaces (12 as opposed to 14 recommended in the Hillingdon Local Plan. This matter is addressed in in paragraphs 7.43 to 7.44 of the report below . It must be noted that the maximum parking standards outlined in the London Plan have superseded the residential parking standards set out in Policy DMT6 of the Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies. 7. The introduction of balconies would impact on the privacy of surrounding residents. This matter is addressed in in paragraphs 7.31 to 7.33 of the report below . North Uxbridge Residents Association Proposed roof plan is not compatible with 2nd floor plan and elevations. Tree report removes T27, but plan shows it can remain. COMMENTS: The 2x5 bed (2023/2805) appeal inspector's report was accepting (wrongly in our Association's view) that the streetscene would accomodate the proposal without reference to the detailed commentary on "the poor and somewhat contrived design" in the previous Inspector’s report (2022/3190). The present proposal is essentially a rerun of the previous appeal scheme with minor tweaking and relies upon Matters relating to the design approach, impact on residential amenity for existing and future occupiers, traffic generation and car parking are all addressed in the relevant sections of the report below. From reviewing the second floor and roof plans it is not apparent that there are any compatibility issues between the roof plan, floor plans and elevation drawings. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2x5bed houses decision for the mass and bulk of building. The use of the rear garden area for 11 car spaces denies realistic external amenity space - any green on the block plan are merely areas left over after construction! The difference of some 2 metres in level from the highway will accentuate the amenity loss, car noise and visual intrusion to the adjacent properties. we ask that in considering this application, you maintain your previous over - development reasons for refusing permission. A total of 6 individual letters of objection have been received in relation to the development. I. One and two bedroom dwellings are prioritised over delivery of family accommodation. This matter is addressed in paragraphs 7.8 and 7.9 of the report below. II. The size of the roof of the building would be too large in relation to the surrounding area and neighbourhood. This matter is addressed in in paragraphs 7.15 to 7.26 of the report below. III. There would be a significant impact on the neighbouring properties by reason of the reduction of the existing open aspect and increased noise and air pollution. This matter is addressed in in paragraphs 7.31 to 7.39 of the report below . IV. There would be a significant increase in traffic compared with the consented scheme. This matter is addressed in in paragraphs 7.46 to 7.47 of the report below . V. The green space and amenity areas would be This matter is addressed in in paragraphs 7.58 to 7.63 of the report below. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press reduced compared with the consented scheme. VI. There would be an inadequate number of car parking spaces. This matter is addressed in in paragraphs 7.43 to 7.44 of the report below. It must be noted that the maximum parking standards outlined in the London Plan have superseded the residential parking standards set out in Policy DMT6 of the Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies. VII. Objection to the loss of the existing building. This matter is addressed in in paragraphs 7.15 to 7.17 of the report below. VIII. Objection to the loss of the Yew Tree to the front of the site. This matter is addressed in in paragraph 7.66 of the report below. IX. The building work is close to the boundary wall of 56-60 Harefield Road and the wall is an old and a significant feature. The proposed site plan indicates the retention of the boundary wall . X. The scale of the development would not be appropriate for the plot size. This matter is addressed in in paragraphs 7.15 to 7.17 of the report below . Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Highways Due to the relatively isolated nature of this location from public transport facilities, the site exhibits a low public transport accessibility level (PTAL) rating of 1a and therefore potentially raises dependency on the ownership and use of private motor transport. The comments have been reviewed and are addressed in the relevant section of the committee report relating to highways and parking. Officers agree with the suggested conditions Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press A most recent & comparable flatted application was submitted in 2022 (25767/APP/2022/3190) and appealed/dismissed thereafter in 2023 on the basis of non -determination. Transport & Highway related matters did not raise issue with the inspectorate. Parking Provision In line with the overriding regional standard, the maximum total parking requirement for whole scheme would be in the order of up to 14 spaces and 12 are proposed (inclusive of one disabled compliant ). The allocation of all 12 spaces would benefit from a parking allocation plan secured by way of planning condition. There is a requirement for a minimum 20% 'active' EVCP provision with all remaining spaces being designated as 'passive' provisions which would equate to 2 ’active’ and 10 ‘passive’ spaces. This may be secured by planning condition. Cycle Parking A communal cycle store is indicated to the side of the build but without a specified quantum. Details of cycle parking should be secured by planning condition. Vehicular Trip Generation Clearly the proposal would raise the level of vehicular activity to and from the site as compared to the existing single dwelling unit. However peak period traffic movement into and out of the site would be expected to rise to approximately 2 -3 vehicle movements during the most sensitive and therefore crucial peak morning and late afternoon/evening hours. Hence, this uplift is considered marginal in generation terms and therefore can be absorbed within the local road ne twork without notable detriment to tra ffic congestion and road safety. Internal Roadway Arrangements & Vehicular Access There is no objection in principle to the proposed internal layout. In highway impact terms, it is noted that the principle of vehicular crossing provision is well established by surrounding properties in Harefield Road and there is no objection in principle to a reconstructed & revised single access. which have been added to the list of suggested conditions. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press As Harefield Road is a major thoroughfare, it is crucial that there is conformity to the relevant mutual inter- visibility sight -line requirements. To assist with maintaining satisfactory sight -lines at the new site entrance for both vehicles and pedestrians entering and leaving the site envelope, it is recommended that a lower height of frontage wall is applied throughout or for at least 2.4 metres on the southern side of the entrance. Ideally the height would not exceed 0.6m to achieve the aim of satisfact ory visibility. Access for Emergency Services Given the internal road widths, fire tenders may not be able to achieve fully unfettered access into and out of the site. However, in circumstances where a fire tender cannot, for whatever reason, gain access to a specific location, Building Regulations (Fire Safety: Document B) make allowance for this scenario by stipulating that fire appliances should be able to be positioned within 45m of the source of an emergency in order to execute their duty. In line with the aforementioned Building Regulations, if this distance is exceeded (unlikely in this case) then alternative solutions such as hydrants, fire detection/alarm/internal water sprinkler systems can be applied in lieu of a fire tender accessing a location thereby covering most, if not all, eventualities. There are no further observations. Refuse Bin Store Provision Refuse collection will continue via the roadway (Harefield Road) and is considered acceptable. Construction Management Plan (CMP) Request that this is secured by planning condition. Conclusion The application has been reviewed by the Highway Authority who are satisfied that the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress, and would not raise any measurable highway safety concerns, in accordance with Local Plan: Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020) - Policy DMT 1, DMT 2 & DMT 6 and Policies T4, T5 and T6 of the London Plan (2021). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Access Officer This proposal for the erection of a flatted development comprising 9 units has been reviewed with reference to London Plan Policy D7. No accessibility concerns are raised subject to conditions outlining step free access and certification of compliance with M4(2) building regulations standards for accessible dwellings. The suggested conditions have been added to the list of recommended conditions listed at Appendix 1 of this report. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 Policy H1 of the Local Plan indicates that the Council will meet and exceed its minimum strategic dwelling requirement in accordance with other Local Plan policies. 7.2 Policy H2 of the London Plan (2021) states that Boroughs should pro-actively support well-designed new homes on small sites (below 0.25 hectares in size) through both planning decisions and planmaking in order to: 7.3 1) significantly increase the contribution of small sites to meeting London's housing needs 2) diversify the sources, locations, type and mix of housing supply 3) support small and medium-sized housebuilders 4) support those wishing to bring forward custom, self -build and community -led housing 5) achieve the minimum targets for small sites set out in Table 4.2 as a component of the overall housing targets set out in Table 4.1. 7.4 The site is within the settlement limits within an established residential area and the provision of new housing on the site is acceptable in principle, subject to consideration of other factors. The prov ision of nine dwellings would represent a net increase of eight units that would provide a valuable contribution towards meeting local housing need. The proposed quantum of units would also represent an uplift of 7 dwellings compared with the proposals consented under planning application 25767/APP/2023/2805. Matters relating to the appropriateness of the additional increase in units on the site is addressed in the relevant sections of the report below. As addressed in the design section of the report it must be noted that there is a clear p olicy directive in favour of making effective use of sites and achieving optimum density of development to deliver additional housing which is set out in Paragraphs 129 of the NPPF 2024, Policy GG2 of the London Plan; and Policy DMBH17 of the Policy DMH 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Housing Mix 7.5 Policy H10 of the London Plan (2021) states that applicants and decision-makers should have regard to the need for additional family housing. Family housing is defined within the glossary of the London Plan (2021) and advises that it must generally be of a size that has three or more bedrooms. 7.6 Policy DMH 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that the net loss of existing self-contained housing, including affordable housing, will be resisted unle ss the housing is replaced with at least equivalent residential floorspace. 7.7 Policy DMH 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that the Council will require the provision of a mix of housing units of different sizes in schemes of residential development to reflect the Council's latest information on housing need. 7.8 The proposal would result in demolition of the existing dwelling which is a four- bedroom home. Whilst regrettable, family sized housing is described as three bedrooms and above. One three -bedroom unit would be provided meaning that that the development would not result in the loss of a family sized unit. As such it is considered that there would be no c onflict with regard to Policy DMH 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two. 7.9 As noted above there is established policy in favour of making effective use of sites and optimising the density of dev elopment. The proposals ensure that a family sized home would be retained, whilst providing an additional 8 homes. There is limited capacity to provide additional homes of 3 or more bedrooms whilst providing a significant uplift in units on the site and providing appropriate standards of internal living space and external amenity space . This is without increasing the footprint or scale of t he building compared with the recently consented development. On balance, the proposed mix of homes is considered acceptable as this retains a family size d home and allows for an appropriate increase in the density of development. Design, Scale and Impact on Streetscene 7.10 Paragraph 135 of the NPPF (2024) states 'Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) 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.' 7.11 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. 7.12 Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies (2012) Policy BE1 states 'The Council will require all new development to improve and maintain the quality of the built environment in order to create successful and sustainable neighbourhoods, where people enjoy living and working and that serve the long- term needs of all residents. All new developments should achieve a high quality of design in all new buildings, alterati ons, extensions and the public realm which enhances the local distinctiveness of the area, contributes to community cohesion and a sense of place.' 7.13 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states: 'All development, including extensions, alterations and new buildings will be required to be designed to the highest standards and, incorporate principles of good design including: i) harmonising with the local context by taking into account the surrounding scale of development, height, mass and bulk of adjacent structures; building plot sizes and widths, plot coverage and established street patterns; building lines and setb acks, rooflines, streetscape rhythm, for example, gaps between structures and other streetscape elements, such as degree of enclosure; architectural compos ition and quality of detailing; local topography, views both from and to the site; and impact on neighbouring open spaces and their environment.' 7.14 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 de sign criteria as to how this would be achieved. 7.15 The scale and footprint of the proposed building would be very similar to the proposal for two dwellings that was allowed at appeal. The proposed building would measure 11.6 metres to the roof ri dge, with the ridge line of the building sitting level with the adjoining b lock of flats to the south ( 56-60 Harefield Road) and below that of the adjacent building to the north (74 Harefield Road). The scale of the building is commensurate with the adjoining buildings in the street scene in Harefield Road. When considering this matter in the most recent appeal on the site for two dwelling, the inspector noted that the proposal's height would be lower than the adjacent property to the north and similar to the flats to the south, thereby successfully managing the transition between both neighbouring properties. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.16 Officers note that the previous planning application on the site (25767/APP/2023/2805) was refused for the following reason: The proposed development, by reason of its excessive size, scale, bulk, design and significant site excavation would result in a cramped, unduly intrusive, visually prominent, over -development of the site, which would also lead to a loss of the site and areas green, open and verdant c haracter. The proposal would therefore be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual amenities of the street scene and the wider area in general. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012), Policies 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 the National Planning Policy Framework (2021). 7.17 This matter was considered in detail by the inspector during the subsequent appeal (APP/R5510/W/23/2805) which was allowed. In respect of the impact of the development on the street scene the inspector commented that the proposed development would replace the modest house by a four -storey pair of semi- detached dwellings of a greater scale. However, the proposal would have reasonable gaps to the side plot boundaries and to the adjacent buildings. Despite being wider than the exist ing dwelling, the proposal would nonetheless provide views towards the retained greenery with in the site, therefore maintaining an acceptable relief from built form on this part of the road. Further, the width of the pair of semis would be similar to that of the buildings to the north, so it would respect the rhythm of buildings and spaces in the street scene. The appeal decision notes that although the dwellings would be bulkier and taller than other pairs of semi-detached properties within the road, the streetscape is tolerable to new design due to its varied nature and lack of homogeneity in style. As such, the proposal would sit comfortably within its receiving context. Regarding the height of the building, the inspector commented that the proposal’s height would be lower than the adjacent property to the north and similar to the flats to the south, thereby successfully managing the transition bet ween both neighbouring properties. The appeal inspector conclude d that the proposal would not detract from the character of the area in it s own terms. In giving significant weight to the inspector's comments and noting that the appearan ce of the building is fundamentally unchanged, notwithstanding the increase in dwellings proposed on the site compared with the consented plans, it is considered that the design approach is acceptable. 7.18 The provision of 9 dwellings would be a re latively significant intensification of development on the site and the additional impact of this uplift in units must be afforded due consideration. It must be noted that both local, regional and national policy clearly outlines the importance of ensuring th at development makes efficient use of land to meet local housing need. 7.19 Paragraph 129 of the NPPF (2024) states that planning decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account: the identified need for different types of housing a nd other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it; local market conditions and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press viability; the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use; the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change; and the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places. 7.20 The importance of making the best use of land is heavily emphasised within London Plan. Policy GG2 states that those involved in planning and development must proactively explore the potential to intensify the use of land to support additional homes and workspaces, prom oting higher density development, particularly in locations that are well -connected to jobs, services, infrastructure and amenities by public transport, walking and cycling. Policy D3 emphasises that all development must make the best use of land by following a design -led approach that optimises the capacity of sites. Policy H1 of the London Plan states boroughs should optimise the potential for housing delivery on all suitable and available brownfield sites throu gh their Development Plans and planning decisions proactively explore the potential to intensify the use of land to support additional homes and workspaces, prom oting higher density development, particularly in locations that are well -connected to jobs, services, infrastructure and amenities by public transport, walking and cycling. 7.21 Policy DMHB 17 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that all new residential development should take account of the Residential Density Matrix contained in Table 5.3 of the plan. 7.22 The application site is 0.11ha in area and is located within 800 metres of Uxbridge Town Centre. Whilst accounting for the character of the area, a development of mostly flats would be expected to provide between 50 - 110 units per hectare, this would equate to between 5.5 and 12.1 units. On this basis the proposed density of development would align with Policy DMHB 17 of the Local Plan. 7.23 Where accounting for the minimum density requirements set out in Table 5.3, the development of 2 dwellings recently allowed at appeal fails to make effective use of the site. For a development of detached or linked houses the density per hectare in this location should be 35 - 50 units per hectare, which would equate to between 3.85 and 5.5 houses. 7.24 Where accounting for the increased dens ity of the proposed scheme compared with the consented plans, it is considered that this would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Th e building adjoins two other properties which are both used as flats. The building to the south is a purpose-built block of flats whilst N o.74 Harefield Road to the north has been subdivided into apartments. 7.25 Compared with the consented plans for the two houses which featured only gardens to the rear, the proposed plans include the provision of parking to the rear, which would be accessed via a driveway to the side of the property. This arrangement is very similar to the adjoining property to the north which similarly Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press has rear parking accessed to the side of the property and such an arrangement would not therefore appear out of place. The proposals include the retention of a shared area of communal space as well as retention of the trees to the front and rear which contribute to the verdant character of the street scene. 7.26 Where considering the above matters, the development is therefore considered to be acceptable, where assessed against Po licies DMHB 1; DMHB 11; DMHB12; of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020); Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies (2012) Policy BE1; Policies D1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021); and the relevant provisions of the NPPF. Neighbouring Amenity 7.27 DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) seeks to ensure a satisfactory relationship with adjacent dwellings and no unacceptable loss of outlook, amenity, daylight and sunlight to neighbouring occupiers. Part B of the policy states that development proposals should not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. 7.28 Guidance for Policy DMHB 11 states 'The Council will aim to ensure that there is sufficient privacy for residents, and it will resist prop osals where there is an unreasonable level of overlooking between habitable rooms of adjacent residential properties, schools or onto private open spaces. 7.29 Guidance for Policy DMHB 11 also states ' For the purposes of this policy, outlook is defined as the visual amenity enjoyed by occupants when looking out of their windows or from their garden. The Council will expect new development proposals to carefully consider layout and massing to ensure development does not result in an increased sense of enclosure and los s of outlook. Single aspect dwellings should be avoided. 7.30 It is noted that officers did not recommend that the previous planning application 25767/APP/2023/2805 for two dwellings should be refused on amenity grounds and the appeal inspector also considered there to be no significant harm to the amenity of adjoining occupiers. 7.31 The side gable of the block of flats to the south of the site (56 to 60 Harefield Road) faces the site . It is noted that there are no side windows facing the application site. Except for a second-floor window which serves a kitchen/dining room all the windows on this elevation would serve bathrooms. A condition should be applied were planning permission to be granted to ensure that all obscure glazing is fitted to all side facing windows located above ground floor level. There is the potential for overlook ing of the front and rear facing windows serving 56 to 60 Harefield Road as well as communal amenity areas from the proposed front and rear facing balconies. The balconies are shown to be fitted with obscured screening up to a height of 1.8 metres. A condition should be attached requiring that details of privacy screening to the balconies is submitted for approval in Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press writing prior to first occupation of the flats in order to prevent overlooking and loss of privacy. 7.32 In relation to the windows located along the north facing side elevation of the property, it would be required that all windows above ground floor level are fitted with obscure glazing to prevent overlooking of the adjoining flats at No.74 Harefield Road. The windows along this el evation above ground floor level all serve bathrooms and conditioning that the windows are fitted with obscured glazing would not impact on the internal amenity standard of the flats. It would be a requirement that the side facing balconies facing these properties are fitted with obscured screening as shown on the proposed plans to prevent overlooking. 7.33 No.2 Cambridge Road is located to the rear of the site, the relatively large rear garden of this property extends along the boundary of the site. There would be a distance of 28.3 metres between the rear facing first floor balcony, which is the closest of the rear balconies facing this site and the garden of this property. The balconies would not overlook the house itself directly which is located to the north east of the site. Given the significant separation distance between the rear facing balconies and rear facing windows and the garden of this property it is considered that the development would not result in unacceptable loss of privac y or overlooking of this property. 7.34 Another property 24A Fairfield Road adjoins the site, however accounting for the siting and orientation of the proposed building it is considered that there would be no significant impact on the amenity of this property. 7.35 Accounting for the siting of the of the new building and its alignment in relation to Nos.56 to 60 Harefield Road, the development is unlikely to result in overshadowing or loss of light to the fron t or rear windows of the adjacent flats. The submitted site plan demonstrates that the siting of the building would not breach the 45-degree rule applied from the nearest windows serving these flats. 7.36 The building would also not breach the 45-degree rule, where this is applied to the rear facing windows serving No.74 Harefield Road. It is noted that there are a range of windows located on the side (south) elevation of this building facing the site. A number of these windows serve bathrooms which are not classed as habitable rooms. Some of the windows do serve habitable rooms. A distance of 5.8 metres is proposed between the side elevation of the building and No.74 Harefield Road. Officers note the comments from the previous appeal inspectors in relation to the recent appeals in 2022 and 2023. Within the 2023 appeal decision, the inspector concluded that both proposed schemes, considered jointly at appeal would not have a significantly adverse impact on daylight and sunlight in respect of the apartments located at No.74. The 2022 and 2023 appeals both related to buildings of a larger scale than the present proposals. 7.37 The most recent application in 2023 (25767/APP/2023/2805) for a building of an equivalent size to the proposed building was not refused by the Council on amenity grounds. The appeal inspector cons idered that the siting of the building would not have an overbearing impact on the apartments at No.74 Harefield Road Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press and would not result in unacceptable loss of light of these dwellings. Given that the scale and siting of the proposed bu ilding would be the same as the building allowed at appeal in 2024, officers would similarly conclude that the building would not have an oppressive and overbearing impa ct on the amenity of the adjoining occupiers at No.74Harfield Road and would not result in an unacceptable loss of light or overshadowing. This is accounting for the position of the building, its scale and the separation between the proposed building and No.74 Harefield Road. 7.38 In relation to the proposed vehicular access, a similar arrangement was proposed under planning application 25767/APP/2022/3190 which provided access to 11 parking spaces to the rear of the proposed apartment building. The impact of vehicles accessing the rear of the site was considered by the appeal inspector in the 2023 appeal decision. The impact of noise and general disturbance resulting from the positioning of the access on the adjacent neighbours was considered to not be significantly harmful given that the access would be lower than the access leading to the rear of No.74 and a 1.4 metre wall was to be retained between the two properties. The boundary wall would be retained and 1.8-metre-high close board fence erected between Nos.72 and 74 Harefield Road which would appropriately attenuate noise, such that there would not have a harmful impact on the amenity of the adjoining occupiers at No.74 Harefield Road. 7.39 In summary, accounting for the above assessment it can be concluded that the development would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of any adjoining properties and the development would comply with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Highways and Parking Provision 7.40 Policy DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2: Development Management Policies (2020) requires that proposals ensure that safe and efficient vehicular access to the highway network is provided , they do not contribute to the deterioration of air quality, noise or local amenity or safety of all road users and residents; safe, secure and convenient access and facilities for cyclists and pedestrians are provided; impacts on local amenity and congestion are minimised; and there are suitable mitigation measures to address any traffic impacts in terms of capacity and functions of existing and committed roads. 7.41 Policy DMT 5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2: Development Management Policies (2020) requires that proposals will ensure that safe, direct and inclusive access for pedestrians and cyclists is provided on the site, including the retention and, where appropriate, enhancement of any existing pedestrian and cycle routes; the provision of a high quality and safe public realm or interface with the public realm; the provision of well signposted, attractive pedestrian and cycle routes separated from vehicular traffic where possible; and the provision of cycle parking and changing facilities. 7.42 Policy DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2: Development Management Policies (2020) states: Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 'Development proposals must comply with the parking standards outlined in Appendix C Table 1 in order to facilita te sustainable development and address issues relating to congestion and amenity. The Council may agree to vary these requirements when: i) the variance would not lead to a deleterious impact on street parking provision, congestion or local amenity; and/or ii) a transport appraisal and travel plan has been approved and parking provision is in accordance with its recommendations. 7.43 The Mayor of London adopted a new and revised London Plan in March 2021, consequently the car parking standards set out in the London Plan take precedence over those in the Local Development Plan, except where the Local Plan specifies lower local maximum standards. For residential developments this is outlined in Policy T6.1 (Residential parking). The site has a PTAL of 1a . Based on the proposed housing mix a maximum of 1.5 parking spaces may be allocated for all units on the site which equates to a maximum of 13.5 spaces. A total of 12 parking spaces is proposed, which is below the maximum standards outlined in the London Plan and is acceptable. 10% of parking spaces should be for disabled occupiers this would equate to 1 space. One space is provided to the front of the buildin g. A car park management plan would be required by condition to set out the appropriate allocation of parking spaces to the units and to ensure that the spaces are leased to future occupiers and not sold. 7.44 Harefield Road is an important thoroughfare and is subject to parking restrictions in the form of double yellow line markings on either side of the road. Surrounding side roads including Fairfield Roa d and Cambridge Road benefit from on -street resident parking bays. To prevent overspill parking within these surrounding streets it is necessary that the applicant enters into a Unilateral Undertaking with the Council which would prevent future occupants of the new dwellings from obtaining parking permits to pa rk vehicles in the surrounding streets . The applicant has agreed to enter into an agreement to this effect. Accounting for these restrictions and the adequacy of the proposed parking on site, it is considered that the development would not result in an accumulation of parking within the vicinity of the site. 7.45 The published London Plan (2021) requires that an active 7kw EVCP is provided for 20% car parking spaces with 80% s paces being provided with 7Kw passive EVCPS. Details of the requisite EV char ging spaces, including the location and specification of this infrastructure would be required by planning condition. 7.46 Local Plan: Part 2 Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 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. 7.47 The proposal would raise the level of vehi cular activity to and from the site as compared to the existing single dwelling un it. Peak period traffic movement into and out of the site would be expected to rise to approximately 2 -3 vehicle movements during the most sensitive crucial peak morning and late Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press afternoon/evening hours. This uplift is considered marginal in generation terms and therefore can be absorbed within the local road network without notable detriment to traffic congestion and road safety. Where considered in the context of Paragraph 116 of the NPPF (2024) the residual cumulative impact of this uplift in vehicular movements cannot be considered to be severe. The two planning applications submitted on the site in 2022 are comparable developments in terms of highway impact with both schemes comprising 9 apartments and 13 car parking spaces. The appeal inspector in both ins tances considered that refusal on highway amenity grounds would not be justified. The Councils Highways Officer has similarly raised no objection to the development on highway safety grounds. 7.48 The Councils Highways Officer has advised that the proposed internal layout conforms to best practice design stan dards and allows for passenger vehicles using the site to enter and leave in a forward gear . In highway impact terms, it is noted that the principle of vehicular crossing provision is well established by surrounding properties in Harefield Road and a reconstructed & revised single access which conforms with the council's 'Domestic Vehicle Footway Crossover' Policy (2022) would be appropriate. 7.49 The site's ground level is currently elev ated in comparison with the existing adopted footway fronting the address. As the site is to be levelled, there are no anticipated issues with rainwater disch arging onto the highway which is not permitted. The crossing proportions as s hown on plan broadly comply with the above policy and should read a maximum width of 5m at the back of footway and 6.2m at the edge of kerb. Finalised detail would be required post -permission, and it should be noted that the new crossing would need to be constructed to the relevant council standard executed under S184 of the Highways Act 1980 (or suitable alternative arrangement). 7.50 As Harefield Road is a major thoroughfare, it is crucial that there is conformity to the relevant mutual inter-visibility sight-line requirements, as per DfT (Manual for Streets (MfS) circa 2007) best practice for new development road and parking layouts g uidance, between vehicles leaving the site and extraneous vehicles/pedestrians on Harefield Road. To assist with maintaining satisfactory sightlines at the new site entrance for both vehicles and pedestrians entering and leaving the site envelope, it is recomm ended that a lower height of frontage wall is applied throughout or for at least 2.4 metres on the southern side of the entrance. Ideally the height would not exceed 0.6m to achieve the aim of satisfactory visibility. Details should be secured by planning condition. 7.51 Given the internal road widths, fire tenders may not be able to achieve fully unfettered access into and out of the site. However, in circumstances where a fire tender cannot, for whatever reason, gain access to a specific location, Building Regulations (Fire Safety: Document B) make allowance for this scenario by stipulating that fire appliances should be able to be positioned within 45m of the source of an emergency to execute their duty. In line with Building Regulations, if this distance is exceeded (unlikely in this case) then alternative solutions such as hydrants, fire detection/alarm/internal water sprinkler systems can be applied in Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press lieu of a fire tender accessing a location thereby covering most, if not all, eventualities. 7.52 Refuse collection would continue via the roadway (Harefield Road). The bin storage positioning should allow for conformity with the accepted 'waste distance' collection standards which encourage waste collection distances to be within 10m from the point of collection on the publ ic highway. A store is proposed on the property frontage which is in relative proximity of the highway in adherence to the standard. 7.53 The published London Plan (2021) Table 10.2 - Minimum Cycle Parking Standards would require provision 1 secure and accessible space for each 1/2- bedroom flat with 2 spaces for the 3 -bedroom unit to accord with the council's adopted cycle parking standard. This would total a requirement of 10 new suitably located spaces. A communal cycle store is indicated to the side of the build but without a specified quantum hence this as pect needs to be secured by way of planning condition. 7.54 In summary the proposals are considered acceptable from a highway safety and amenity perspective and comply with Po licies Policy DMT 2, DMT 5 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2: Development Management Policies (2020) and Policies T4, T5, T6.1 of the London Plan (2021). Accessibility 7.55 London Plan (2021) Policy D7 states: 'To provide suitable housing and genuine choice for London's diverse population, including disabled people, older people and families with young children, residential development must ensure that: 1) at least 10 per cent of dwellings (w hich are created via works to which Part M volume 1 of the Building Regulatio ns applies) meet Building Regulation requirement M4(3) 'wheelchair user dwellings' 2) all other dwellings (which are created via works to which Part M volume 1 of the Building Regulations applies) meet Building Regulation requirement M4(2) 'accessible and adaptable dwellings'. 7.56 The application has been reviewed by the Council’s Access Officer who has confirmed that the proposals are acceptable from an accessibility perspective subject to conditions requiring the submission of details of step free access to the units and certification of compliance with the technical specifications for an M4(2) dwelling, as set out in Approved Document M to the Building Regulations (2010). Subject to the submission of appropriate details to satisfy these conditions, the development would comply with Policy D7 of the London Plan. Internal Living Accommodation 7.57 London Plan Policy D6 (F) states: Housing developments are required to meet the minimum floor space standards which apply to all tenures and all residential accommodation that is self-contained. This requirement is replicated under Policy Policy DMHB 16 of the Local Plan Part 2. The new flats would each exceed the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press minimum requirements set out under London Plan Policy DMHB 16 in relation to the size of the flats and individual bedrooms and living spaces. Each of the flats would be dual aspect and the accommodation would benefit from appropriate outlook and natural light. On this basis the development would comply with Policy D6 of the London Plan and Policy DMHB 16 of the Local Plan Part 2. External Amenity Space 7.58 Policy DMHB 18 of the Local Plan Part 2 states that new residential developments should provide an adequate level of private amenity space for occupiers that is of good quality and usable. The policy advises that 1 bed flats should provide 20sqm of amenity space, 2 bed flats should provide 25sqm and 3 bed flats should provide at least 30sqm of private amenity spac e. Balconies should have a depth of not less than 1.5 metres and a width of not less than 2 metres. 7.59 Except for Flat 8, which is a 1-bedroom unit and Flat 9 which is a 2-bedroom unit, both of which are located on the second floor of the building, all the proposed flats would be served by private amenity areas in the form of balconies in the case of the upper floor flats and patios in the case of the ground floor flats. There would also be an area of communal amenity space located to the rear of the flats. 7.60 The patio serving the three-bedroom flat (Flat 1) measures approximately 27.4sqm in area and has direct access to the communal amenity space. The private amenity spaces serving the remaining flats would be as follows: 7.61 -Flat 2 - 12.6sqm (patio) -Flat 3 - 13.9sqm (balcony) -Flat 4 - 9.2sqm (balcony) -Flat 5 - 9.2sqm (balcony) -Flat 6 - 6sqm (balcony) -Flat 7 - 6sqm (balcony) 7.62 Each of the balconies exceed the minimum depth and width required under Policy DMHB 18 of the Local Plan. 7.63 There are various spaces surrounding the building, however many of these areas cannot be classed as serving a practical amenity function as various parcels include dense planting to supplement habitat enhancement contributing towards delivery of on -site biodiversity net gain. The spaces immediately to the rear of the building are largely free of planting and serve a more practical function as amenity space and cumulatively measure 104 sqm in area. Accounting for the proposed mix of units, there would be a requirement to provide 215 sqm of amenity space. Cumulatively the balconies and external areas to the rear of the building would provide 188.3 sqm of external amenity space within a combination of private and communal spaces. This would fall slightly short of the requirements set out under Local Plan Policy DMHB 18, however on balance the amenity space provided is considered acceptable given the proximity of the site to areas of public open space, namely Uxbridge Common which is located within 500 metres of the site. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Trees 7.64 Policy DMHB 14: 'Trees and Landscaping' of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2: Development Management Policies (2020) requires: A) All developments will be expected to retain or enhance existing landscaping, trees, biodiversity or other natural features of merit. B) Development proposals will be required to provide a landscape scheme that includes hard and soft landscaping appropriate to the character of the area, which supports and enhances biodiversity and amenity particularly in areas deficient in green infrastr ucture. C) Where space for ground level planting is limited, such as high-rise buildings, the inclusion of living walls and roofs will be expected where feasible. D) Planning applications for proposals t hat would affect existing trees will be required to provide an accurate tree survey showing the location, height, spread and species of trees. Where the tree survey identifies trees of merit, tree root protection areas and an arboricultural method statement will be required to show how the trees will be protected. Where trees are to be removed, proposals for replanting of new trees on -site must be provided or include contributions to offsite provision. 7.65 The side and rear boundaries of the application site are tree-lined. There are no TPO's or Conservation Area designations within the site, although TPO 75 protects trees on the neighbouring property (to the south), including T28, a mature lime tree located on the front boundary. 7.66 It is proposed that 7 trees and 2 shrubs would be removed, with works to a further 9 trees proposed involving lifting the canopy of 8 trees and reducing the crown of 1 tree. Tree T28, a large mature lime tree, provides an important contribution to the stre et scene and would be retained. The trees that would be removed are all rated as Category C trees of low amenity value and the removal of these trees would be necessary to allow for the proposed development to proceed given that the trees encroach on the footprint of the building or are located on accesses or parking areas. It should be noted that the previous applications were considered to be acceptable in relation to their impact on the existing trees. It was noted that Tree T27, a yew tree in the front garden would be removed. This tree is a relatively small early-mature tree classed as a Category C tree of relatively low value. The removal of this tree was proposed within the previous planning application and was determined to be acceptable. Given the r elative value of the tree and its limited contribution to the character of the area, the removal of the tree of the tree is considered to be acceptable and would not impact negatively on the verdant character of the site. 7.67 The submitted Arboricultural Report contai ns a series of suggested protection measures that should be implemented duri ng the course of the construction operations, and protection measures to be implemented where hardstanding is to be introduced in the parking areas to the front and rear. This includes the addition

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Part 2 – Application Report Case Officer: Mitchell Heaven 22899/APP/2023/2219 Date Application Valid: 29.08.2023 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 01.02.2025 Application Type: Full Ward: Eastcote Applicant: Mr Chris Hall Site Address: Harrow & Wembley Society of Model Engineers, Roxbourne Park, Field End Road, Eastcote Proposal: Part-retrospective and relocation within the site of one portacabin with paint -finished timber cladding to provide a ticket office and community space . 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 – 15th January 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 pa rt-retrospective provision of one portacabin with paint -finished timber cladding to provide a ticket office and community space for a not-for-profit community-based scale model railway club. The application is part-retrospective as the portacabin is already placed on the site. 1.2 The application site comprises land within the Harrow & Wembley Society of Model Engineers which is a scale model railway c lub located within Roxbourne Park. The society is a not-for-profit organisation run by volunteers. The wider site development consists of the railway, associated carpark and clubhouse, as well as vegetation and paths associated with the wider Roxbourne Park. The area to which this application relates is to the southeast of the existing clubhouse located between the clubhouse and the carpark. 1.3 The application is subject to a petition containing 25 signatures in objection to the proposal. The concerns raised within the petition are set out in more detail in Section 6 of this report, but in summary refer to neighbouring amenity impacts and security concerns. 1.4 In response to Officers ’ feedback during processing of the application, the applicant has provided a revised scheme reducing the proposed number of cabins from 3 to 1, amended the location of the portacabin, added proposed landscaping to the scheme, and added paint-finished timber cladding to the portacabin. 1.5 The applicant has provided sufficient justification for the need for the portacabin which would provide additional internal floor space to be used as both a ticket office and adopted for additional social events associated with the club. The club has been in Roxbourne Park since 1976 and the aim is to ensure the clubs survival in the short and medium term by attracting more younger volunteers to the club on a regular basis. 1.6 In principle the local planning authority (LPA) supports community uses that provide a safe space for the wider local population who wish to participate. Culturally and historically, ther e is a strong link with railways and trains within Hillingdon Borough. Benefits include the provision of an outdoor activity available to the local population which also provides education opportunities to the younger population, and other groups such as schools and scout groups. Additional onsite space would provide a more attractive indoor space to complement the existing space. There are therefore some recognised benefits with maintaining this attraction available to the wider population including an opportunity to be educated on engineering of trains by a group of volunteers. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 1.7 It is acknowledged that a container unit does not represent an ideal long-term solution to the club need for additional facilities. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has worked cooperatively with the LPA in reducing the visual impact. In response to Officer feedback, the applicant has provided a revised scheme reducing the proposed number of cabins from 3 to 1, amended the location of the portacabin, added proposed landscaping to the scheme, and added paint -finished timber cladding to the portacabin. The portacabin would now be positioned in a less sensitive location between the car park and the clubhouse , and not in the open area of the park . Whilst the site is designated Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), given the revised location and revisions to remove two of the containers, the LPA are satisfied it would not impact on the openness of the MOL. A condition is also recommended that the portacabin shall be removed from the site within one month of the model train use ceasing to operate on the site or the cabin is no longer needed for its proposed use. This would ensure that the land is restored to previous condition. 1.8 The revised changes ensure that the portacabin would not cause significant impact on the character and appearance of the local area. The cabin is modest in scale and would be largely screened from the wider street scene. The use of green cladding would ensure that the portacabin appears more like a temporary outbuilding rather than a container unit. The overall leafy nature of the site would also allow the structure to blend in with its environs. 1.9 Concerns have been raised in the representations received regarding the impact on adjoining neighbours’ amenity as well as security issues. Whilst these matters are acknowledged, the location and screening would ensure that any impact on the wider neighbourhood is kept to a minimum. The very nature of the use is also less frequent given it is based on volunteers. It therefore would not cause significant amenity harm to the wider community. 1.10 It is considered that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and Metropolitan Open Land, neighbouring residential amenity or on highway safety. 1.11 The Committee Report seeks to provide a comprehensive assessment of the application with all material planning considerations considered. Due regard has been given to local residents’ objections, including the petition against the application. However, it is concluded, that the proposal complies with the broad aims of the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. 1.12 It should be noted that a corrected red-line site boundary plan and existing site plan has been received, and at the time of publication and the committee meeting, the re-consultation period had not yet expired (expires 17-01-24) . It is important to note that this red -line amendment sought only to include the area of the proposed landscaping which have been shown on the previously consulted plans. There are no changes to the proposal itself to consider. Any comments received Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press prior to the planning committee will be reported in the addendum report and/or at the meeting. Should any materially significant comments be subsequently received, then the application will be re ferred back to the planning committee for consideration. The planning application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the above and the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site is located within Roxbourne Park and consists of a small area of land for the placement of the proposed portacabin. The site is located between the associated clubhouse and carpark (discussed below), within a group of trees. 2.2 The site is located on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and potentially has soil contamination according to the Council GIS. 2.3 Two portacabins are currently located on the site without planning permission, that is subject to an enforcement investigation (ref. ENF/636/23). This application proposes to retain one of the cabins on the site and clad it in paint-finished timber and undertake associated landscaping around the cabin. This application is therefore, in -part, retrospective. It is noted that, being a portacabin, the building is easily moveable and therefore the existence of the building on the site was not a determining facto r in this recommendation. Should planning permission be granted, the second portacabin would be removed when the retained portacabin is shifted into its proposed position on the site, due to the need for heavy machinery to move the cabins. This would be secured by condition. 2.4 The wider site consists of the Harrow & Wembley Society of Model Engineers which includes a model railway, clubhouse and carparking. The society is a not- for -profit community-based organisation. Vehicular access to t he site is via Field End Road. The existing clubhouse is single storey with a pitched roof and contains storage, tools and machinery associated wi th the society’s operations as well as a control room for the model railway. The railway sits within the southern end of Roxbourne Park, a large park that facilitates a variety of recreational activities. 2.5 To the north of the site, adjoining Roxbourne Park along their rear boundaries, are residential properties located on Field End Road and Boleyn Drive. These properties all front their respective road frontages with the end of their rear gardens facing the site. These properties have a limited relationship with the site due to changing ground levels and dense trees and vegetation located along Roxbourne Park boundaries. To the we st is the Tudor Luncheon Club which cannot see the site due to intervening ground levels and vegetation, and to the south and east continues Roxbourne Park. 2.6 Figures 1 and 2 overleaf include a site location plan and an aerial image of the site. The following Figures 3-6 provide site photos. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Site Location Plan Figure 2: Contextual Aerial Imagery. Indicative location of proposed cabin in red. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Close up of the portacabin railway facing elevation to be relocated and cladded Figure 4: Existing Container Location in the context of Roxbourne Park Figure 5: Portacabin from across the park. Cabin is located under the trees. Clubhouse right. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 6: Clearest view between a residential property and the site, 3 Proposal 3.1 The application proposes retrospective p lacement of one portacabin on the site, to clad the cabin in green paint finished feather board and undertake associated landscaping. The cabin would be relocated from its existing location slightly west, closer to the existing clubhouse. Landscaping would consist of the creation of a footpath to the cabin and planting of a Hawthorn Hedge around the rear of the portacabin area to delineate between the public park walkway and the railway site. 3.2 While temporary buildings are generally considered to result in poorer outcomes, a portacabin is proposed due to the limited resources of the not -for-profit community organisation and the ecological environment of the park that would be more impacted by construction of a permanent building. 3.3 Due to the need for heavy machinery and for efficiency purposes, should planning permission be granted, the existing second portacabin would be removed from the site at the same time as the retained cabin is shifted into its proposed position. 3.4 No tree removal has occurred or would occur as part of the application. 3.5 During the processing of the application the applicant has proactively worked with the LPA to amend the scheme, including the following: - reducing the proposed number of cabins from 3 to 1 to reduce the bulk; - shifting the location of the cabin to a better position to surrounding features; - adding landscaping to the scheme to provide delineation between the public park walking areas and semi-private railway site; and - cladding the cabin in green paint- finished feather board to improve the visual appearance of the cabin. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 7: Amended Site Plan Figure 8: Amended Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 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. 4.2 The site is subject to the following planning history: - Approved, 1989: Erection of a single storey extension to existing model rail (ref:22899/A/88/2756) - Approved, 2011: Single storey side extension (ref:22899/APP/2011/266) - Withdrawn, 2016: Single storey de tached building to be used a club house/meet (ref: 22899/APP/2015/464) The most recent application at the site was in 2016 for the erection of a single storey detached building to be used as a club house/meeting room associated with the railway. This proposal was not progressed and the application withdrawn for reasons unknown. 4.3 Enforcement Investigation, 2023: Related to this proposal where the portacabins were shifted onto the site without planning permission. Planning enforcement officers will be updated on the determination of this planning application following the planning committee (ref: ENF/636/23). 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 16 neighbouring properties and the Eastcote Residents Association were consulted by letter dated 30-08-23. A site notice was displayed and a press notice published on 04-10-23. 6.2 During this first round of consultation, one representation was received from a neighbouring resident in support of the application and a resident’s petition with 25 signatures was received opposing the application. A Ward Councillor also requested that the application be called in to the planning committee. 6.3 A second round of consultation was initiated on 27-11-24, after receipt of an amended proposal from the applicant, and expired on 18 -12-24. No comments were received at the time the report went to publication. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 6.4 A final round of consultation was carried out on 03-01-24 and had not concluded at the time this committee report was published (expires 17-01-24). This 14 -day re-consultation was carried out primarily due to an amendment to the red- lined site boundary to include not just the proposed portacabin, but also the area of proposed landscaping. There are no changes to the proposal , but for completeness it was considered necessary to re -consult on the amended, red- lined site boundary. Any comments received pr ior to the planning committee will be reported in the addendum report and/or at the meeting. 6.5 Internal consultations were also sent out and a summary of the comments received are noted below in Table 2 of this Committee Report. 6.6 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 ha ve also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response A petition of 25 valid signatures in objection has been received I. The buildings will attract anti-social behaviour including graffiti. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.51-7.54 of this report. II. The metal containers will visually impact the area and are not appropriate for the site. The visual impact on the character of the area is discussed at paragraphs 7.1 5 – 7.27 of this report. III. The increased intensity of use of the site, including increased vehicle movements, facilitated by the new buildings would be unacceptable. The intensity of the use is discussed at paragraphs 7. 8 -7.14; and 7.22 -7.23. Highways matters are discussed at paragraphs 7.3 3 -7.35. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press IV. The height and proximity of the containers will harm the amenity of surrounding residential properties in terms of overlooking, noise and disturbance. The impact on neighbouring properties is discussed at paragraph 7. 28 -7.32 of this report. The application was called in by a Ward Councillor I. Size and appearance Discussed at paragraph 7.19 -7.27 of this report. II. Detrimental effect to the area It is not specified the detrimental effect however the effect of the portacabins on the character of the area are discussed in paragraphs 7. 19 -.7.27. The effect on neighbours’ amenity is also discussed in paragraphs 7.28 -7.32. The potential for crime and anti-social behaviour are also discussed in paragraphs 7.51-7.54. 1 letter of support has been received. I. The proposal will support the ongoing viability and operations, which is a service used by the wider community. The comments from the representation received in support of the application are noted. Further detail on the use for the railway society use are discussed at paragraphs 7.08-7.14. II. The proposal will improve the quality of the facilities for use by the society and visitors. Further details are discussed at paragraphs 7. 8 -7.14. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Access Officer: Acceptable from an accessibility standpoint. There is no planning requirement for the proposal to meet current access standards. Recommended an The comments from the Access Officer are noted. The Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press informative relating to the Equality Act 2010 to be attached to any approval. suggested informative is recommended to be added to the decision notice. Highways Officer: Recommendation to grant the application. As the adjustment of internal site access arrangements together with the proposed temporary building is considered purely as a rationalisation of operations ancillary to established on -site communal activities, there is no specific comment made, or demand raised on transport/highway grounds. The comments from the Highways Officer are noted. Urban Design Officer Broadly supportive of the application given the limited scale and single -storey design but noted concerns regarding the impact on neighbouring trees, average quality of the portable building, convoluted access and potential for overgrowth of the proposed landscaping. The comments from the Urban Design Officer are noted. These matters have been considered and addressed within the revisions, this report and conditions. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The principle for the model railway use on the site is established through the existing use . H owever as the site is located on Metropolitan Open Land, the principle of erecting a new building on the site must be tested. 7.2 Policy DMEI 4: Development in the Green Belt or on Metropolitan Open Land of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) states that ‘inappropriate development in Metropolitan Open Land will not be permitted unless there are very special circumstances ’ and ‘ redevelopment would only be permitted where it would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land, and the purposes of including land within it, than the existing development’. 7.3 Policy EM2: Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Green Chains of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) states that ‘Any proposals for development in Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land will be assessed against national and London Plan policies, including the very special circumstances test.’ 7.4 Paragraph 8.21 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) states the purposes of the Metropolitan Open Land is to: Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press - providing a clear break in the urban fabric and contributing to the green character of London; - including open air facilities serving the leisure, recreational, sports, arts and cultural needs of Londoners outside their local area; - and containing a feature or landscape of historic recreational or biodiversity value of national or regional significance. 7.5 Policy G3 of the London Plan (2021) requires that Metropolitan Open Land be afforded the same status and protections as Green Belt land. Inappropriate development should be avoided but boroughs must also work to enhance the quality and range of uses of Metropolitan Open Land. 7.6 Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) relates specifically to development in the Green Belt however Policy G3 and Policy EM2 refer to the NPPF (2024) for assessment of development on Metropolitan Open Land. Specifically, Policy G3 states that: ‘MOL should be protected from inappropriate development in accordance with national planning policy tests that apply to the Green Belt’. 7.7 Paragraph 154(b) of the NPPF therefore states that development is inappropriate unless it is for ‘the provision of appropriate facilities (in connection with the existing use of land or a change of use), including buildings, for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation, cemeteries and burial grounds and allotments; as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.’ 7.8 The proposed portacabin would be multi-purpose to support the model railway activities but w ould be used primarily as a ticket office and for events such as hosting children's birthdays. The portacabin w ould therefore be ancillary to the existing model railway, an established outdoor recreation activity on the Metropolitan Open Land, and therefore erection of the building on the site is not considered ‘inappropriate development’. 7.9 The railway currently operates these us es under gazebos due to a lack of floor space on the site causing the operations of the railway to be highly weather dependent and severely impacted during bad weather. The planning officer undertook a site visit and noted the exist ing clubhouse is not suitable for hosting such uses as the space is used entirely for the storage of trains and related tools and machinery which is not suitable for ge neral public access. To accommodate the natural growth of the not -for-profit community-based railway society and to enhance the quality of the community facility, additional floorspace is required on the site. In this regard, the modified portacabin is considered an appropriate facility required for the ongoing viable operations of the railway that will enhance the quality of the land use. 7.10 It is also considered that the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land will be maintained. In particular, the portacabin is small in size, subordinate to the existing Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press clubhouse, will be clad in recessive pa int-finished feather board, and has been purposefully located under a stand of trees behind the clubhouse, minimising the visibility of the cabin from any one location. Any visual impact on the openness of Roxbourne Park would therefore be minimal and is considered acceptable. 7.11 Community and recreational use policies ar e also a factor within this current application. Para graph 98 of NPPF (2024) cites the need to provide social, recreational and cultural facilities and services th at serves community needs. Shared spaces and community facilities should aim to provide facilities to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments. Part B of S5 of the London Plan 2021 places emphasis on decision makers need to increase or enhance the provision of accessible facilities, suitable for multiple use. While the Local Hillingdon Policy DMCI2 promotes the improvement of entertainment facilities located w ithin the catchment area they serve, provide buildings that are inclusive, flexible and meet the needs of intended occupants. 7.12 This facility does provide a service to the local community with a local volunteer group having been established within Roxbourne Park since 1976. Harrow and Wembley Society of Model Train Engineers traces its historical routes further back to the 1930s and as such, the club provides a historical and cultural significance to the local catchment area. In recent times, membership of the society has been in decline, however the club’s aims are to ensure the club attracts new members in the coming years to ensure its long-term future. By providing additional facilities on-site which cater for all, it is hoped it would become more attractive to local community members. Part of the entertainment facilities on offer include the Rox Bourne Miniature Railway which provide railway rides around Roxbourne Park. It also caters for a model railway club for young people 5-13 years old , Sunday morning club for teenagers under the supervision of experienced engineers. The group also opens its doors to the wider community, with scout clubs, children with special needs and school visits, as well as children’s birthday events and special events. 7.13 The portacabin on site would aim to provide a multi-functional space that could be used for parties, ticket sales and meetings associated with the existing use. Based on the engagement across the wider local catchment area, as well as providing a much needed cultural and historical form of service locally, the expansion of these facilities would conform with the broad aims of the community use policies above. 7.14 Overall, the principle of the proposed development is accepted and complies with the National Planning Po licy Framework (2024), Policy S5 of the London Plan (2021), Policies EM2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One (2012) and Policies DMCI2 and DMEI 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020). Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.15 Chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) seeks to prevent inappropriate development and ensure the openness of the land is not harmed. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.16 Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) requires development proposals to be of high quality and to enhance the local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness. Policy G3 of the London Plan (2021) requires inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land to be avoided but also requires boroughs to work to enh ance the quality and range of uses of Metropolitan Open Land. 7.17 Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 – Strategic Policies (2012), and policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 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 (2024). 7.18 Policy DMEI 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 – Strategic Policies (2012) seeks to ensure development does not impact the openness of Metropolitan Open Land with regard to height, bulk, location and character of the site and development. 7.19 During the process of the application, revised drawings were provided in response to Council Planning Officer feedback . These revisions reduced the number of proposed buildings from 3 to 1, added paint-finished feather board cladding to the portacabin, and add ed additional landscaping. These amendments addressed concerns of overdevelopment of the MOL and poor visual amenity outcomes. 7.20 Overall, it is considered that the amen ded scheme with the single portacabin is acceptable and is supported. The proposed location of the portacabin underneath the existing stand of mature trees and beside the existing clubhouse would minimise visual impacts on the surrounding Metropolitan Open Land, providing visual screening of the building from mo st of Roxbourne Park and ensuring it is not visually prominent within the open area of the park. This can be seen from site visit photo Figure 5 where the existing portacabins (without cladding) are barely visible from across the model railway site, let alone from any further views across Roxbourne Park. As such, it is considered the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land would be maintained with the placement of the building. 7.21 The limited scale, single-storey height and addition of paint-finished cladding would ensure the portacabin sits comfortably in the surrounding environment. The small size would ensure the building is not visually prominent. The new cladding would acceptably alter the appearance of the portacabin such that it does not immediately portray as a portable building, and the green paint finish ed timber would integrate well with the greenery/trees of Roxbourne Park. Where the cabin might still be viewed as a temporary/portable building, it is considered the benefits of supporting the not-for-profit community- based organisation and the carbon emission reduction benefits of building reuse (rather than construction of a new permanent building) would offset any visual harm. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.22 The building itself would be of an acceptable quality and functionality for the intended use and has the added benefit of being easily removed from the site in the future should it no longer be required. The building would support the growth of the model railway and enhance the existing recreational use on the site. There is no evidence that the new structure would encourage anti-social behaviour, and the society operates/meets multiple times a week which would discourage any such behaviour. 7.23 The building is designed to accommodate existing activities (ticket office/ kids’ birthdays) that are currently being held under gazebos, and therefore the new building would not notably increase the intensity of use of the site. Should the building enable some greater intensity of the railway operations, this increase would likely be acceptable and the site is located over 20 metres from the nearest residential neighbour with buildings and vegetation located between the railway operations and the neighbouring properties. 7.24 The proposed access is designed to relate to the existing operation of the railway site and would be functional. While the access appears convoluted on the plans, the existing site operates with a footpath located around the fenced off rail track area between the clubhouse and the carpark. As the main entrance to the portacabin is designed to face the rail track area, the access is therefore functional and fit for use. 7.25 The proposed landscaping of low 1m high hedging along the rear of the site location would provide a barrier between the fenced off section of the railway site and the public walkway that runs to the west of the railway site. It w ould help provide additional delineation of the public walkway and model railway site and would also provide some low-level soft landscaped screening/enhancement of the portacabin. This hedging would be secured by way of condition. 7.26 Overall, the proposed portacabin would sit comfortably on the Metropolitan Open Land and would not unduly harm the openness, appearance or character of the area. The proposed massing has been minimised and the portacabin has been optimally located to minimise visibility of the building from any wider viewpoints. The proposed cladding would ensure an acceptable external finish that is reasonably visually attractive and considered acceptable in the context of meeting the needs of the not-for-profit community organisation, minimising the costs to the organisation, and reducing carbon emissions from reuse of an existing building. 7.27 It is considered that the proposed development would comply with the overarching aims of the NPPF (2024), Policies D3 and G3 of the London Plan (2021), Policy BE1 and DMEI 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (2012), and Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Neighbouring Residential Amenity 7.28 Policy DHMB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) states that development proposals should not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. An assessment of the potential impact on neighbouring residential amenity of neighbouring residential properties along Boleyn Drive and Field End Road is discussed as follows. 7.29 The portacabin would not introduce any bulk, shading or visual dominance effects over the neighbouring residential properties. While the portacabin w ould sit at a higher ground level than the neighbouring residential properties, it w ould be located a minimum of approximately 22 metres from the rear boundaries of these properties. In addition, there is extensive mature vegetation along the shared boundary providing a high level of visual screening as depicted in the site visit photos. These factors in combin ation with the small scale of the cabin and single- storey height, w ould ensure there would not be any bulk, shading or visual dominance impacts on neighbouring residential properties. Figure 9: Minimum approximate separ ation from adjacent residential properties. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.30 With regard to potential impacts on neighbouring privacy, one window in the western end of the cabin is proposed to face the residential neighbours. However, due to the significant separation distance from the adjacent residential properties and high level of visual screening along the shared boundary, any overlooking would be wholly minimal, infrequent and br ief. Any overlooking from parking vehicles would be fleeting and minimal for the same reasons identified above. It is therefore considered there would be no undue harm to neighbouring privacy. 7.31 With regard to the potential impacts on the quality of neighbouring outlook, the portacabin would be located a minimum of approximately 22 metres from the rear boundaries of the residential neighbours along Boleyn Drive and Field End Road. There is extensive mature vegetation creating a high level of screening along the shared boundary as depicted in the site vi sit photos. The portacabin is relatively small in scale for a building, single -storey in height, would be clad in a visually recessive paint-finished feather board cladding and is to be located underneath a crop of mature trees. Due to the separati on distance and existing boundary vegetation screening, any views of the por tacabin from neighbouring residential dwellings would be limited and would not create undue impact s on neighbouring residential outlook or amenity. 7.32 Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and there would be no undue harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties by the development. It would therefore comply with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Highways and Parking 7.33 The application has been reviewed by the Highways Officer as per below comments. Appraisal 7.34 As the adjustment of internal site access arrangements together with the proposed temporary buildings are considered purely as a rationalisation of operations ancillary to established on -site communal activities, there is no specific comment made or demand raised on transport/highway grounds. It is not envisaged that the proposed portacabin would lead to a signif icant intensification of the site that would lead to any significant increase in highway disturbance or car parking concerns. There is already a considerable amount of parking spaces available on this site and the nature of the use would not result in an increase in traffic that would raise concerns. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Conclusion 7.35 The application has been reviewed by the Highway Authority who are satisfied that the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress, and would not raise any measurable highway safety concerns, in accordance with Local Plan: Part 2 Development Plan (2020) Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 and Policy T4 and T6 of the London Plan (2021). Accessibility 7.36 The application has been reviewed by the Access Officer as per below comments. 7.37 This application is for the provision of one portacabin which has been purchased from another organisation with the intention to repurpose them to include a ticket office , community space to host children's parties and club events. Having reviewed this application and the accompanying photos, it would seem that level access to the small step up could be eliminated by re-grading the ground levels to achieve step free entry. 7.38 The Harrow and Wembley Society Model Eng ineers as an organisation is legally obliged to ensure equality of opportunity for people with a protective characteristic within the ambit of the Equality Act 2010, and the following informative should therefore be attached to any grant of planning permission: The Equality Act 2010 seeks to protect people accessing go ods, facilities and services from discrimination on the basis of a 'protected characteristic', which includes those with a disability. As part of the Act, service providers are obliged to improve access to and within the structure of their building, particularly in situations where reasonable adjustment can be incorporated with relative ease. The Act states that service providers should think ahead to take steps to address barriers that impede disabled people. Conclusion 7.39 The Access Officer has raised no objections subject an informative reminding the applicant of the requirements within the Equality Act. This informative has been included in the recommendation for approval. Trees and Landscaping 7.40 Policy DMHB 14: Trees and Landscaping of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part Two (2020) states that all developments will be expected to retain or enhance existing landscaping, trees, biodiversity or other na tural features of merit, and will be required to provide tree surveys and protection plans where proposals might affect existing trees. It also states that development proposals will be required to provide a landscape scheme that includes hard and soft landscaping appropriate to the character of the area, which supports and enhances biodiversity and amenity. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.41 The site is not subject to specific tree protections. However, it is a public park and Metropolitan Open Land, and the stand of trees under which the proposed is located are considered to be of high value. 7.42 No Tree Survey or Tree Protection Plan have been submitted with the proposal to ensure the safety and protection of the onsite trees during the shifting of the portacabins and installation of the new footpath. As such, it is recommended that a tree protection plan is secured by condition. It is important to recognise that the portacabin would not include any foundations or additional excavation works that would lead to any potential dam age to existing roots. Similarly, the footpath to the cabin would have minimal impact. As such, Officers are satisfied the existing trees on site would not be harmed with the repositioning of the structure. With the inclusion of a condition to secure a tree protection plan and given the portable nature of the portacabin that does not re quire construction of foundations, it is expected any harm to surrounding trees can be avoided or minimised to be acceptable. Biodiversity Net Gain 7.43 As this application was submitted prior to February 12 th 2024, it is not subject to Biodiversity Net Gain requirements. Sustainability 7.44 Policy DMEI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020) requires all developments to make the fullest contribution to minim ising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the London Plan targets. 7.45 The proposed development is of a minor scale therefore whilst the principle of SI 2 (carbon reduction) is applicable, th is London Plan Policy applies more specifically to major scale applications. Th e applicant is therefore not required to submit an energy statement with the application or demonstrate a policy level of on-site savings. However, given that the proposal makes reuse of a por table building, rather than construction of a new building, it is considered to be a sufficiently sustainable form of development. 7.46 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). Land Contamination 7.47 Policy DMEI 12 of the Local Plan (2020) states that for sites which are identified as being at potential risk of land contamination a contaminated land report detailing the history of contamination on site, relevant survey work and findings should be submitted in support of the application. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.48 The application site is located on potentially contaminated land. However no habitable dwellings nor earthworks are proposed as the building is a portable structure that would sit on-top of the land, rather than constructed with foundations that would disturb the soil . Therefore, a survey is not required nor are conditions pertaining to the submission of further information. Fire Safety 7.49 Policy D12 of the London Plan states that all developments must achieve the highest standards of fire safety. 7.50 The application is situated within an area of open space and the multi-purpose room would be served by t wo external doors on two elevations. The building is modest in overall size and scale . As it is a single storey, one room building with two external access points, the LPA are satisfied, it would not lead to any fire safety and access/escape route concerns. Anti-social Behaviour 7.51 It is noted that a large number of representations have been received which raise concerns regarding anti-social behaviour, potential crime and community safety. Both previous legal and appeal decisions have confirmed that the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour should only be considered a material planning consideration in cases where evidence exists that the associated development would likely increase crime. 7.52 Whilst Officers do not dismiss the concerns raised by local residents on the potential impact in regard to anti-social behaviour and crime, there is no evidence to suggest that this would potentially take place. Furthermore, the applicant has made efforts to address such concerns with an Anti-Social Behaviour Management Plan. Mitigation measures have also been sought with the reduction of the number of portacabins, the location of hedging along the southern boundary which would provide a physical buffer. 7.53 The site is also gated which further deters potential crime within out-of-hours. The portacabin would also be cladded in a timber cladding painted green which subtly will act as a deterrent from Graffiti crime. Currently there does not appear to have been any graffiti and anti-social behaviour with the existing portacabins on site. 7.54 Whilst there is no guarantee that these mitigations would prevent any future anti- social activity within the site, they do provide some organic security measures without compromising the design. As such, the proposed development is not considered to compromise the security of the application site, adjoining sites or the wider community. 8 Other Matters Human Rights Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 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 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. Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.3 The proposal is for less than 100sqm of gross internal floor area and is therefore not CIL liable. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 On balance, the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area and would not give rise to any undue harm to neighbouring residential amenities or the local highway network. 9.2 The principle of the erection of the portacabin on the Metropolitan Open Land is supported as it w ould be ancillary to an established outdoor recreational use on the site and has been designed to minimise its impact on the openness and amenity of the Metropolitan Open Land through design and siting. It would provide additional facilities for a local volunteer club which provide a valuable service to the wider catchment area. 9.3 The proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that a contrary de cision should be taken. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents ta ken 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 nu mber at the top of this report and using the search facility. Planning appl ications 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 22899/APP/2023/2219 Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 10 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. 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 Site Location Plan, dated 02/01/2025 02B (Site Plans), dated 02/01/2025 03A (Proposed floor plan and elevations) dated 12/11/2024 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). 3. COM7 T Timeframe (Relocating portacabin 4 months) The hereby approved portacabin as identified on the proposed site plan drawing number 02B (Site Plans) dated 02/01/2025 shall be relocated from its existing position as identified on the existing site plan (same drawing number) within 4 months of the date of this decision and shall remain in situ and maintained as such until the use ceases or the portacabin is no longer required. REASON To safeguard the visual amenity of the Metropolitan Open Land, in compliance with policy EM2 of the Local Plan Part 1 (2012), policies DMEI 4 and DMEI 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2- Development Management Policies (2020), Policy G2 of the London Plan (2021) and the NPPF. 4. NONSC T Timeframe (Installation of cladding 4 months) The cladding materials as shown on the hereby approved drawing 03A (Proposed floor plan and elevations) dated 12/11/2024 shall be a feather boarded timber cladded material with a Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 10 green painted finish. The hereby approved materials shall be installed on the portacabin within 4 months of the date of this decision and shall be maintained as such until the use ceases and the portacabin is removed from the site. REASON To ensure that the development presents a satisfactory appearance in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 5 5. NONSC R Removal of second portacabin (Removal within 4 months) The second existing portacabin on site and as shown on the existing site plan drawing number 02B (Site Plans) dated 02/01/2025 shall be removed from the site in its entirety within 4 months of the date of this decision and the land restored to its former condition. REASON To safeguard the visual amenity of the Metropolitan Open Land, in compliance with policy EM2 of the Local Plan Part 1 (2012), policies DMEI 4 and DMEI 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2- Development Management Policies (2020), Policy G2 of the London Plan (2021) and the NPPF (2024). 6. NONSC R Removal of portacabin(Removal within 1 month of use ceasing) The hereby approved portacabin as identified on the proposed site plan drawing number 02B (Site Plans) dated 02/01/2025 shall only be used for the purpose stated in the application, ancillary to the model train use. It shall be removed from the site with the land restored to it former condition, when the portacabin is no longer required for its function. Its removal shall take place within 1 month of its ceasing to be used for its approved function. REASON To safeguard the visual amenity of the Metropolitan Open Land, in compliance with policy EM2 of the Local Plan Part 1 (2012), policies DMEI 4 and DMEI 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2- Development Management Policies (2020), Policy G2 of the London Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024). 7. COM8 T Tree Protection No relocation of the portacabin shall take place until the details have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority with respect to: 1. A method statement outlining the sequence of development on the site including any demolition, building works/relocation, footpath implementation and tree protection measures. 2. Detailed drawings showing the position and type of fencing to protect the entire root areas/crown spread of trees, hedges and other vegetation to be retained shall be submitted Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 10 to the Local Planning Authority for approval. No site clearance works or development shall be commenced until these drawings have been approved and the fencing has been erected in accordance with the details approved. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority such fencing should be a minimum height of 1.5 metres. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. The fencing shall be retained in position until development is completed. The area within the approved protective fencing shall remain undisturbed during the course of the works and in particular in these areas: a. No materials or plant shall be stored; b. No buildings or temporary buildings shall be erected or stationed; c. No materials or waste shall be burnt; and d. No drain runs or other trenches shall be dug or otherwise created, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. REASON To ensure that trees and other vegetation can and will be retained on site and not damaged during construction work and to ensure that the development conforms with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 8 8. A5 N New Hedging The hereby approved Hawthorn Hedging shall be completed within eight months of the development commencing (or such period as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) or prior to occupation of the buildings, whichever is the earlier period. The new planting and landscape operations should comply with the requirement specified in BS 3936 (1992) 'Nursery Stock, Part 1, Specification for Trees and Shrubs' and in BS4428 (1989) 'Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations (Excluding Hard Surfaces)'. Thereafter, areas of amenity space shall be permanently retained and any trees or other planting which die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased within a period of 5 years from the completion of development, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species in accordance with the details approved by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To ensure that the proposed development makes a satisfactory contribution to the preservation and enhancement of the visual amenities of the locality. 9. NONSC C Contaminated Land No contaminated soils or other materials shall be imported to the site. All imported soils for landscaping purposes shall be clean and free of contamination. All imported soils shall be inspected and tested for chemical contamination, and the results of this testing shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 10 REASON To ensure that staff and visitors to the development are not subject to any risks from soil contamination in accordance with Policy DMEI 13 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). I 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. I15 C Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work Nuisance from demolition and construction works is subject to control under The Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Clean Air Acts and other related legislation. In particular, you should ensure that the following are complied with:- A. Demolition and construction works which are audible at the site boundary shall only be carried out between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 hours Monday to Friday and between the hours of 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturday. No works shall be carried out on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. B. All noise generated during such works shall be controlled in compliance with British Standard Code of Practice BS 5228:2009. C. Dust emissions shall be controlled in compliance with the Mayor of London's Best Practice Guidance' The Control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition. D. No bonfires that create dark smoke or nuisance to local residents. You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Protection Unit (www.hillingdon.gov.uk/noise Tel. 01895 250155) or to seek prior approval under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act if you anticipate any difficulty in carrying out construction other than within the normal working hours set out in (A) above, and by means that would minimise disturbance to adjoining premises. 3. The Equality Act 2010 seeks to protect people accessing goods, facilities and services from discrimination on the basis of a 'protected characteristic', which includes those with a Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 10 disability. As part of the Act, service providers are obliged to improve access to and within the structure of their building, particularly in situations where reasonable adjustment can be incorporated with relative ease. The Act states that service providers should think ahead to take steps to address barriers that impede disabled people. I53 C Compulsory Informative (2) In dealing with the application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available detailed advice in the form of our statutory policies from Local Plan Part 1, Local Plan Part 2, Supplementary Planning Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application advice service, in order to ensure that the applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an application which is likely to be considered favourably. DMCI 2 New Community Infrastructure DME 4 Visitor Attractions DMEI 10 Water Management, Efficiency and Quality DMEI 4 Development on the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land DMEI 7 Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP D5 (2021) Inclusive design LPP E10 (2021) Visitor infrastructure LPP G2 (2021) London's Green Belt LPP G4 (2021) Open space LPP G6 (2021) Biodiversity and access to nature LPP G7 (2021) Trees and woodlands LPP S5 (2021) Sports and recreation facilities LPP SI12 (2021) Flood risk management LPP SI13 (2021) Sustainable drainage LPP T4 (2021) Assessing and mitigating transport impacts NPPF11 -24 NPPF11 2024 - Making effective use of land NPPF12 -24 NPPF12 2024 - Achieving well-designed places NPPF13 -24 NPPF13 2024 - Protecting Green Belt land NPPF15 -24 NPPF15 2024 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 10

Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Part 2 – Application Report Case Officer: Haydon Richardson 57533/APP/2023/3146 Date Application Valid: 31.10.23 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 17.01.25 Application Type: Full Ward: Belmore Applicant: Mr Hersch Sternlicht Site Address: 140 Fairholme Crescent Proposal: Creation of an extra bedroom to a 6 unit HMO (Class C4) to create 7 bedrooms (Sui Generis). 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 – January 15th, 2025 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 conversion of an existing 6 person (Use Class C4) house in multiple occupation (HMO) to a 7 person (Sui Generis) HMO. 1.2 The proposed development includes no alterations to the height, depth, width or design of the host dwelling. Furthermore, the sites layout, access and parking provisions would remain as existing. It is therefore considered that the proposal would have no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. 1.3 At present two parking spaces, exist at the site serving 6 occupants. The two parking spaces would be retained at the site to serve 7 occupants. Due to the minor increase in residential occupancy at the site and the fact that the London Plan encourages car free development, the provision of two car parking spaces is considered to be sufficient. 1.4 Furthermore, a Transport Assessment has been submitted in support of the development outlining how sustainable means of transport will be promoted at the site through the provision of cycle parking. The assessment also advises that like many surrounding roads, Fairholme Crescent has no parking restrictions in terms of double yellow lines. As such, if the de velopment were to result in the need for an additional parking space, the vehicle could be parked at the roadside, like other vehicles. 1.5 The sites parking situation would remain as existing, as such it would be unreasonable to request that the dropped kerb to the front of the site be extended. 1.6 Taking into consideration these points, the development is considered to cause no harm to the local highways network or its users. 1.7 Residents of the HMO would be provided with acceptable internal and external living accommodation and would also be within a short distance of public open space, shops and services. 1.8 Further to the above, the existing d welling is being used as a 6 person HMO lawfully (57533/APP/2024/2226). Taking into consideration that the proposed development would simply result in one additional person residing within an Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press existing HMO. The development would not cause any harmful increases in noise, disturbance or activity at the site, which would harm the amenities of neighbours. 1.9 It is concluded that the proposal comp lies with the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. 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 north side of Fairholme Crescent. The site comprises a semi -detached bungalow finished in brick and pebble dash. The building is set back from the road and has a front garden providing off street parking space. The rear garden of the site is a mixture of soft and hard landscaping. 2.2 The surrounding area is predominantly residential comprising single and two storey semi -detached properties. Properties vary in external materials but predominantly have pitched roofs and are set back from the road with off street parking. 2.3 The development site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 2 (low). Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application Property Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the conversion of an existing 6 person (Class C4) HMO to a 7 person (Sui Generis) HMO. This would be facilitated by the conve rting an existing first floor storage space into a bedroom and providing extra bins at the site. Figure 3: Existing and Proposed Floorplans – (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Existing Floor Plan Proposed Floor Plan 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 – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4.2 As noted in Appendix 2, the site was subject to an application (57533/APP/2023/1305) for the change of use of the dwelling house to a 7 bed HMO which was withdrawn. A subsequent certificate of lawfulness application 57533/APP/2024/2226 was submitted for the retention of an existing HMO which was approved dated 26/09/2024. 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 Four neighbouring properties were consulted on 7th November 2023. A notice was displayed at the site on 16th November 2023. 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 with 25 signatures was received on 05 /12/23 objecting to the proposed development. To oppose the creation of an extra unit (to make a 7 bedroom and 7 bathroom) in an existing 6 Bed HMO The rationale behind why the application should be approved is set out within this report and its summary. 3 individual letters of objection have been received Permission was recently refused at the site for a similar development on the grounds of over intensification. No application has been refused at the site for a similar development. The site’s planning history is set out in section 4 of this report. The site notice went up on 29/11/23. The site notice was placed on 16/11/23. The existing HMO is under construction and does not yet exist . The existing HMO is lawful and was in operation on the day of the Case Officer’s visit in February 2024. Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Only neighbours nearest to the development site were consulted on the application. The LPA’s statutory consultation requirements were carried out for this application. Additionally, a site notice was placed at the site so statutory requirements have been exceeded. There is no statutory requirement to consult more broadly than actioned. 7-14 people within the property and/or within its garden would cause excessive activity, noise pollution and disturbance harming neighbouring amenities. Issues regarding the developments impact on neighbouring amenities have been discussed at paragraph s 7.13-7.20 of this report. Each tenant will have a friend resulting in 14 people at the property. It was not designed for this level of occupation. The number of guests which may visit any property is not a material planning consideration. Furthermore, a condition has been recommended to restrict the permanent occupation of the building to 7 tenants. The proposed development is an overdevelopment of the site and is out of character. Issues regarding the developments visual impact have been discussed at paragraphs 7.13 -7.20 of this report. of this report. The presence of an upstairs kitchen is a fire hazard. The fire safety of the kitchen is a building control matter and not a material planning consideration . Furthermore, the kitchen already exists at the site and does not form part of the propose d development. The level of amenity provided for future residents would be poor due to no communal Issues regarding the standard of accommodation which Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press living area and a kitchen with no access to natural light would be provided for future residents has been d iscussed at paragraphs 7.34-7.39 of this report. The existing area has parking issues, this would be exacerbated by the proposed development, which provides insufficient parking for 7 -14 people. Issues regarding the developments impact on parking and the local highways network have been d iscussed at paragraphs 7.26 -7.28 of this report. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Access Officer This proposal has been reviewed against the requirements of the 2021 London Plan policy D7 which is not applicable to this application for an extra unit within the existing HMO. Conclusion: no objections raised from an accessibility perspective. Noted and included in the assessment of the application. Highways Officer The site is located in a PTAL 2 rated area meaning that there would be some reliance on the car to travel to and from the site. The proposal would require an extension to the existing crossover to provide access to 2 parking spaces. On the provision that the applicant applies to the local highway authority to extend the existing crossover, the 2 parking spaces to be provided are considered acceptable to serve the development. 7 cycle spaces would be provided however their current location is not considered to be acceptable. As such a condition pertaining to the submission of revised cycle parking details and the provision of 1 EVCP should be added to the decision notice. Noted, the relevant conditions are proposed to be added to the decision notice 7 Planning Assessment Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Principle of Development 7.1 Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) Policy DMH 1 seeks to safeguard existing housing stock including affordable housing and in particular family sized dwellings (3 bed dwellings and above). More specifically the policy states that the Council will grant planning permission for the subdivision of dwellings only where it would not result in detrimental harm to the local highway network, neighbour amenity and street scene and where adequate internal and external living standards can be achieved for future occupants. 7.2 The supporting text and specifically para graph 4.3 of the Hi llingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) provides guidance for the implementation of Policy DMH 1 and recogn ises Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), student accommodation and other uses falling into Use Classes C3 and C4 as providing a contribution towards local housing stock. 7.3 The site benefits from C4 use and therefore is an established HMO already. As the proposal involves the conversion of an existing HMO (up to 6 persons) to a larger HMO for up to 7 persons , there would be no net loss of the Borough's housing stock. 7.4 Policy DMH5 of the Local Plan Part Two includes 2 sets of criteria, for the purposes of this application only Part A is relevant as Part B refers to sites which are located within an area where the conversion to a HMO irrespective of whether they meet the definition of small or large, are restricted by an Article 4 Direction. The application site is not located in an area covered by an Article 4 Direction, therefore Part B is not relevant. 7.5 In relation to criterion A)(i) of Policy DMH 5, despite a relatively low PTAL rating of 2 the site is approximately 6 minutes walk from shops, services and bus routes on Kingshill Avenue. Additionally, Grange Park is located behind the site providing public open space for future residents (See Figure 4) . Taking into consideration these points, the site is considered to have adequate accessibility to local amenities and public transport in the context of Policy DMH 5. 7.6 Furthermore, Officers and Members of th e Committee need to consider the sites established use as an existing HMO which has been confirmed by Officers when visiting the site. As such it is only the one additional bedroom which is subject to the assessment of this application. The addition of 1 bedroom would not give rise to a significant increase in pressure on local services and occupiers will have access to the necessary infrastructure to meet every day living needs. 7.7 The detailed consideration in respect of criteria A)(ii) and A)(iii) is set out in relevant sections of this Committee Re port (below). Subject to compliance with these matters, it is considered that the principle of the development can be supported. Figure 4: Accessibility to Grange Park and Shops on Kingshill Avenue Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.8 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. 7.9 Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Pa rt One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) states that all new developments should achieve a high quality of design in all new buildings and the public realm contributes to community cohesion and a sense of place. 7.10 Local Plan Policy DMHB 11 states that all development, including extensions, alterations and new buildings will be required to be designed to the highest standards and, incorporate principles of good design including harmonising with the local context and considering the height, mass and bulk of adjacent structures. They should also ensure the use of high- quality building materials and finishes, and ensure that the internal design and lay out of development maximises sustainability and is adaptable to different activities. 7.11 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. 7.12 The proposed development includes no alterations to the height, depth and width of 140 Fairholme Crescent. No alterations are proposed to the front or rear elevations of the property and minor changes are proposed to the rear fenestration of the property. In terms of site layout, two parking spaces currently exist at the Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press front of the property. Two spaces, alo ngside bin storage, would be provided as part of the proposed development. Taking into consideration that there would be no alterations to the general size, scale and design of the host dwelling, that there would be no alterations to the site layout and that many properties store their bins close to the road, it is considered that the proposed development would cause no harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or surrounding area. 7.13 The proposal would therefore accord with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (2012), Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two- Development Management Policies (2020), Policy D3 of the London Plan and National Planning Policy Framework (2023). Residential Amenity 7.14 Policies DMH 5, DM HD 1 and DMHB 11 of the Hill ingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (202 0) seek to ensure a satisfactory relationship with adjacent dwellings with no unacceptable loss of outlook, amenity, daylight and sunlight to neighbouring occupiers. 7.15 Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021) re quires 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. 7.16 As mentioned above, there are no major physical changes proposed to the existing building as part of this planning application. By their limited nature, the proposed landscaping changes would not give rise to concerns of overlooking, overbearing or loss of light. 7.17 When compared with the existing 6 person HMO, the proposal represents an increase of one resident. The intensificatio n of the site will bring about limited additional comings and goings of people and associated impacts that arise with people living independently from one another. The increase of 1 additional person is considered to be modest and the total occupancy of seven residents is not too dissimilar to many of the large family dwelling houses in the area. 7.18 If planning permission is approved, a condition is recommended to ensure that no more than 7 occupants reside at the property. 7.19 For these reasons, it is considered that the addition of 1 additional occupant would not give rise to impacts upon neighbouring residential amenity that would warrant a refusal of the planning permission. 7.20 Therefore, given the proposal and site context, it is considered it would not unduly impact the residential amenity of th e adjoining properties, in terms of daylight/sunlight, outlook and overbearing effect, in accordance with Policies DMHD 1 and DMHB 11 o f the Hillingdon Loca l Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020). Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Highways and Parking 7.21 Policy DMT 2 states that proposals must ensure that safe and efficient vehicular access to the highway network is provided; they do not contribute to the deterioration of air quality, noise or local amenity ; have safe, secure and convenient access and facilities for cyclists and pedestrian; that impacts on local amenity and congestion are minimised; and there are suitable mitigation measures to address any traffic impacts. 7.22 Policy DMT 6 states 'Development proposals must comply with the parking standards outlined in Appendix C Table 1 in order to facilitate sustainable development and address issues relating to congestion and amenity. The Council may agree to vary these requirements when the variance would not lead to a deleterious impact on street parking provision, congestion or local amenity.' 7.23 For a HMO with up to 6 occupants, this would be 1 space per 2 occupants. For HMOs over 6 occupants, car parking requirements will be assessed through a transport appraisal. 7.24 There are no specific parking requirements for HMO's set out in the London Plan (2021). Parking 7.25 At present two parking spaces, exist at the site serving 6 occupants. The parking spaces are accessed via an existing crossover and the site’s parking forecourt is open. The two parking spaces would be retained at the site to serve 7 occupants, and the parking forecourt would remain open as existing . As the sites parking situation would be unaltered it is considered unreasonable to recommend a condition be added requiring that the drop kerb be extended at the front of the site. 7.26 Additionally, due to the minor increase in residential occupancy at the site (1 additional resident) and the fact that the London Plan encourages car free development, the provision of 2 car parking spaces is considered to be sufficient. 7.27 Furthermore, a Transport Assessment has been submitted in support of the proposed development. The statement outlines how sustainable means of transportation to and from the site would be supported by the provision of 7 secure cycle stores. Furthermore, like many surrounding roads, Fairholme Crescent has no parking restrictions in terms of double yellow lines, as such if the development were to result in the need for an additional parking space, the vehicle could be parked at the roadside, like other vehicles. 7.28 Taking into consideration the above the proposed parking provision is considered to be acceptable. Electrical Vehicle Charging Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.29 London Plan (2021) Policy T6 states 'Where car parking is provided in new developments, provision should be made fo r infrastructure for electric or other Ultra-Low Emission vehicles in line with Po licy T6 .1 Residential parking, Policy T6 .2 Office Parking, Policy T6.3 Retail parking, and Policy T6.4 Hotel and leisure uses parking'. 7.30 A condition securing the provision of 1 EV charging point is recommended should planning permission be granted. Cycle Parking 7.31 7 cycle parking spaces (1 per occupant ) are proposed within an enclosed and secure cycle storage unit to be located to the rear of the site. The provision and location of the facility is considered to be acceptable. Waste Collection 7.32 The submitted plans show that waste storage facilities would be sited next to the road, like other dwellings in the area. The location of the facilities is considered to be acceptable. Nevertheless, the London borough of Hillingdon does not operate a bin collection service. If planning permission is granted, a condition is recommended requiring full details of the design, location and sizes of all refuse and recycling storage facilities to be used at HMO. The applicant would be required to provide waste storage of an appropriate size for the service. Access 7.33 2 parking spaces exist at the site at present. The 2 spaces would be retained post development. As vehicles and people would access the site in the same way as existing and no changes are proposed to the site's access or parking arrangements, it is considered unreasonable to recommend a condition requiring that the drop kerb be extended at the front of the site. Quality of Internal accommodation for future residents 7.34 The proposed HMO comprises 7 bedrooms, the GIA of the internal accommodation within the building is set out below: 7.35 Bedroom 1: 10.6m2 (single bedspace) Bedroom 2: 10.6m2 (single bedspace) Bedroom 3: 10.7m2 (single bedspace) Bedroom 4: 12.1m2 (double bedspace) Bedroom 5: 11.3m2 (single bedspace) Bedroom 6: 12.1m2 (double bedspace) Bedroom 7: 10.8m2 (single bedspace) Communal Kitchen: 9.5m2 Communal Kitchen: 12.7m2 Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.36 At ground floor the internal layout of proposed HMO would be identical to the existing HMO. As such the ground floor layout of the HMO is considered to be acceptable. 7.37 One additional room would be added at first floor level. The resident of the room would have windows providing access to natu ral light and outlook, as well as access to communal kitchens and an en -suite (providing sanitary facilities). The resident is considered to be provided with an acceptable level of living accommodation. 7.38 Residents within the wider property wou ld have large single bedrooms or double bedrooms (with individual en -suites). They would have windows with reasonable access to outlook, light and privacy. Two communal kitchens exist within the HMO and provide communal space for residents. One of the kitchens is large enough for a table and chairs. It is therefore considered that future residents of the building would have satisfactory internal living accommodation. Quality of external accommodation for future residents 7.39 Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan - Part 2: Development Management Policies (2020) requires a minimum of 100sqm of outdoor amenity space for a dwelling house with 4 or more bedrooms. It is required to be well located, well designed and usable for the private enjoyment of the occupiers. 7.40 The existing 6 bed HMO has approximately 140sqm of communal external amenity space for 6 occupants. This would remain the same post development with 1 additional occupant. The amenity space provision is considered to be sufficient for the minor occupancy increase. It should also be noted that Grange Park is located within 5 minutes’ walk of the site providing accessible, outdoor space for any new or existing resident of the proposed HMO. It is therefore considered that future residents of the building would have satisfactory external living accommodation Accessibility 7.41 Policy D5 of the London Plan (2021) se eks 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'. 7.42 The proposal seeks to add one additional bedroom to an existing HMO, as the property has already been converted, remains as residential accommodation and does not propose additional extensions, the above policies would not be relevant. Notwithstanding this point the applicat ion has been reviewed by the Councils Accessibility Officer who has raised no objection. Trees and Landscaping Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.43 Policy DMHB 14 advises that all development will be expected to retain or enhance existing landscaping, trees, biodiversity or other features of merit. 7.44 The proposed development would result in no loss of trees and would therefore have no adverse tree impact. 7.45 Landscaping on the site would remain as existing (a mix of hard and soft landscaping). The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable. Ecology and Biodiversity 7.45 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 assessment s 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. 7.46 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. 7.47 Chapter 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity. 7.48 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. 7.49 The site is does not contain any signif icant 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. The sites existing mix of hard and soft landscaping would be retained at the site, as such the ecological value of the site would remain as existing. 7.50 As no additional extensions are proposed the development would meet the de- minimis exemption referenced within th e National Planning Policy Framework 2024. As such no further BNG or ecological information is required. 7.51 The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable. Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Air Quality 7.52 The application site is located within Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area and Planning permission is sought to change a 6bed HMO into a 7bed HMO. 7.53 The sites car parking provisions would remain as existing, as such there would be no additional vehicle movements to and from the site. Sustainable means of transport would be supported by new cycle parking provisions, discouraging the use emission generating transportation. The development would therefore have no adverse air quality impact. Drainage 7.54 The application site is located in Flood Zone 1 where there is a low probability of risk of flooding from rivers or seas. As such, all forms of development including residential development (which is classified as a 'more vulnerable use') are acceptable in this location, in terms of fluvial flood risk. 7.55 Planning permission is sought to change a 6bed HMO into a 7bed HMO. No extensions are proposed, and the site is not located within an area identified as being vulnerable to flooding therefore the development would not result in an increase of flood risk within the site or to those properties surrounding the site. The additional occupant would have no adverse drainage impact at the site. The proposed development is acceptable from a drainage perspective. 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 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. Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.3 Not applicable. The proposed development is not CIL liable. Hillingdon Planning Committee – January 15th, 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 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). 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 57533/APP/2023/3146 Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 6 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. HO1 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. HO2 A Accordance with Approved Details The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans numbered: 01 RV00 - LOCATION AND SITE PLAN 05 RV00 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS 06 RV00 - PROPOSED FRONT AND REAR ELEVATIONS 07 RV00 - PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION AND SECTION 08 RV00 - PROPOSED SITE PLAN REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020), and the London Plan (2021). 3. NONSC N Number of occupants The property shall only be used as a house in multiple occupation for no more than seven (7) individuals at any one time. REASON To ensure that the amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining property is not adversely affected in accordance with Policy DMH 5 and DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 4. HO5 N No additional windows or doors Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no additional windows, doors or other openings shall be constructed in the walls or roof slopes of the development hereby approved. REASON To prevent overlooking to adjoining properties in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 6 Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 55. H14 C Cycle Storage - details to be submitted No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until details of covered and secure cycle storage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle store(s) must provide storage for 7 cycles. Thereafter, the cycling facilities shall be implemented and retained in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development. REASON To ensure the provision and retention of facilities for cyclists to the development and hence the availability of sustainable forms of transport to the site in accordance with Policy DMT 5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 6. NONSC E Ev Charging No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until details of a single active electrical vehicle charging point (to be installed at the front of the site) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the EV charging point shall be installed and retained in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development. REASON To ensure sustainable transport is promoted at the site and the adequate EV charging is provided in accordance with Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021). 7. NONSC WWaste No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until full details of the design, dimensions and material finish of the proposed waste and recycling storage facilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the waste and recycling storage facilities shall be implemented and retained in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development. REASON To ensure the provision and retention of facilities for waste and recycling, and to safeguard the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Informatives 1. I70 L LBH worked applicant in a positive & proactive (Granting) In dealing with the application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 6 Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available detailed advice in the form of our statutory policies from Local Plan Part 1, Local Plan Part 2, Supplementary Planning Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application advice service, in order to ensure that the applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an application which is likely to be considered favourably. 2 2. 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). I53 C Compulsory Informative (2) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020) set out below, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and to all relevant material considerations, including The London Plan (2021) and national guidance. DMH 1 Safeguarding Existing Housing DMH 5 Houses in Multiple Occupation DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 16 Housing Standards DMHB 18 Private Outdoor Amenity Space DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP D14 (2021) Noise LPP D3 (2021) Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach LPP D6 (2021) Housing quality and standards LPP H9 (2021) Ensuring the best use of stock NPPF11 -23 NPPF11 23 - Making effective use of land NPPF12 -23 NPPF12 23 - Achieving well-designed and beautiful places NPPF9 -23 NPPF9 23 - Promoting sustainable transport Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 6 AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History 57533/APP/2002/1782 140 Fairholme Crescent Hayes INSTALLATION OF A REAR DORMER WINDOW (APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS FOR A PROPOSED USE OR DEVELOPMENT) Decision: 10-09-2002 General Perm.Devt. 57533/APP/2022/1236 140 Fairholme Crescent Hayes Erection of a single storey rear extension Decision: 30-06-2022 Approved 57533/APP/2023/1305 140 Fairholme Crescent Hayes Change of use from a single dwelling house to a 7 unit HMO (Sui Generis) for up to 7 people Decision: 17-10-2023 Withdrawn 57533/APP/2024/2226 140 Fairholme Crescent Hayes Retention of existing use as a HMO (Class C4)(Application for a Certificate of Lawful Development for a Existing Development). Decision: 26-09-2024 Approved Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 6 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 Part 2 Policies: DMH 1 Safeguarding Existing Housing DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking DMHB 16 Housing Standards DMHB 18 Private Outdoor Amenity Space DMH 5 Houses in Multiple Occupation DMHB 11 Design of New Development LPP D3 (2021) Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach LPP D6 (2021) Housing quality and standards LPP D14 (2021) Noise LPP H9 (2021) Ensuring the best use of stock NPPF11 -23 NPPF11 23 - Making effective use of land NPPF12 -23 NPPF12 23 - Achieving well-designed and beautiful places NPPF9 -23 NPPF9 23 - Promoting sustainable transport Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 6

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report – Application Report Case Officer: Emilie Bateman 42576/APP/2024/2465 Date Application Valid: 13.09.24 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 17.01.25 Application Type: Householder Ward: South Ruislip Applicant: Mr T McCabe Site Address: 100 Exmouth Road, Ruislip Proposal: Retention of a double storey rear and side extension with amendments to fenestration and height of existing single storey rear extension 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 – 15th January 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 re tention of a double-storey rear and side extension, along with amendments to the fenestration and the height of the existing single-storey rear extension. 1.2 Planning permission had previously been granted in April 2024 (42576/APP/2024/413) for the erection of a two-storey side/ rear extension which is of a similar design, scale and bulk to the as-built extensions. The main discrepancy from the previously approved scheme was the positioning of the neighbour dwelling at No. 102 Exmouth Road which did not reflect the positioning on-site, as well as modest discrepancies in the measurements. This current application seeks to regularise the proposed development with the neighbouring property footprint now accurately represented on the plans. 1.3 During the course of the assessment, site inspections were carried out at both the application site and the adjoining neighbouring property at No. 102 Exmouth Road, where Officers carried out detailed measurements and survey of the extension as- built and its relationship with the neighbouring property. T he amend ed plans received now represents an accurate reflection of the development “as built” in the context of the neighbours. 1.4 The application is subject to a petition containing 22 signatures in objection to the proposal. The concerns raised within the petition are set out in more detail in Section 6 of this report, but in summary refer to neighbouring amenity impacts. 1.5 Cumulatively, the proposed side and rear extensions are considered acceptable from a design perspective and would continue to appear subordinate in the context of the existing dwelling house and the wider street scene. Whilst it is recognised that the two-storey extension is not set in 1m in from the application site boundary, this was considered acceptable under th e original permission granted in April 2024. From surveying the character of the local area, it is evident that several extensions have extended out to the boundary of the site. The prevailing character along the street scene is quite varied and recent appeal decisions have also been allowed against this policy. Overall, the scheme is finished to a quality design, with matching materials and would not cause harm to the street scene. On this basis, the slight departure from the policy is considered acceptable. 1.6 The proposal would not cause significant harm to neighbouring amenity. The accurate footprint plans show that there would be a marginal breach of the 45- degree sightline of the nearest window serving the kitchen at ground floor of No. 102 Exmouth Road. However, this room is served by 2 additional windows which Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press do not breach the 45-degree sightline, and which ensure outlook is maintained to the rear garden. A Daylight and Sunlight Report was requested during the assessment stage and the findings of this report demonstrate full compliance with the BRE Daylight Sunlight standards for Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing. Privacy is protected with obscure glaz ing to side windows, and rear windows would not result in undue overlooking. In addition, the extension would not create a sense of enclosure for neighbouring p roperties. Consequently, the proposal does not result in harm to neighbouring residential amenity that would warrant a reason for refusal. 1.7 It is considered that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area or on highway safety. 1.8 Due regard has been given to local residents’ objections, including the petition against the application. However, it is concluded, that the proposal complies with the broad aims of the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. 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 application site comprises an end of terrace house situated on the north- eastern side of Exmouth Road. The house is a two -storey dwellinghouse with a single-storey, flat roof rear extension. The existing property has an existing rear extension and a partially constructed two-storey side/rear extension , subject to this application. 2.2 The street scene is residential in character and appearance comprising terraced properties. No. 102 Exmouth Road is located to the North of the application site and forms part of the adjacent terrace. No. 98 Exmouth Road is located to the South of the application site and forms part of the adjoining terrace. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application Property Figure 3: Extension (as built) to the front Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4: Extension as built taken from rear garden of 102 Exmouth Road 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the re tention of a double storey rear and side extension with amendments to fenestration and the height of existing single storey rear extension. 3.2 Planning permission had previously been granted in April 2024 for a similar scaled development. However, following an investigation from the Planning Enforcement Team, it was noted that the footprint of the neighbouring property at No.102 had been misrepresented on the previously approved drawings. Under the previous application, the projection of the two-storey element to the rear of No. 102 had measured approximately 1 .6m; however, the actual depth is 2.38m beyond this adjoining neighbouring property. This current application seeks retrospective permission to regularise the dwelling as-built. The neighbour’s footprint is now accurately depicted on the block plan and proposed plans . There are also minor changes to the footprint which have been depicted in the revised plans. 3.3 The two-storey side extension measures 2.63m in width (at ground and first floor level) and extends a depth of 9.3m, of which 3.330m is situated beyond the original rear wall of the dwelling. The first-floor side element is set back 0.5m from the existing front wall and is served by a hipped roof that is stepped down 0.5m from the main ridge line. As noted, the two storey rear extension projects 3.330m beyond the original building line and measures 5.2m in width. It is served by a hipped roof set down which again is set down from the main ridge line by 0.5m. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press The existing single storey rear extension inc ludes a flat roof and roof light with a maximum height of 3m. 3.4 The two-storey side extension is set from the site boundary by approximately 0.48m to the rear of the site which slightly increases to the front to approximately 0.6m. Approximately 1.130m is maintained between the flank wall serving the single storey side element of No. 102 Exmouth Road and the flank wall of the two- storey element to the front. The two-storey extension is treated with brick work to the front and render to the rear, both matching the existing arrangement. Figure 5: Existing ‘As Built’ Floorplans ( please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Figure 6: Existing ‘As Built’ 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. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4.2 Planning permission was granted in 2024 (ref. 42576/APP/2024/413) for the erection of a two-storey side/ rear extension which is of a similar footprint, scale and bulk to the as-built extensions. However, there was a discrepancy in position and measurements of the neighbour d welling (No.102) on the approved plan, including the location of the 45 -degree sight lines. Given the discrepancies, the current application was submitted to regularise the development as-built. 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 The adjoining neighbouring properties and South Ruislip Residents Association were consulted on 30th of September 2024. 6.2 Following revised plans and additional information (Daylight and Sunlight Assessment) a reconsultation took place which expired on 28th of November 2024. 6.3 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (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 signatures has been received against the application 1. The petition received wanted the Committee to fully consider overshadowing effects on the neighbour’s amenity, exacerbated by the original misinterpretation of the plans on the original application The revised application subject of this assessment is an accurate reflection of the proposed development in the context of the neighbouring properties. Site surveys have been undertaken by Planning Officers who have measured the extension as -built and its relationship with the common boundary at No.102 Exmouth Road. A site inspection has also been undertaken by Planning Officers at No. 102 Exmouth Road and measurements have been Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press taken to correlate the plans and ensure the built form is an accurate reflection of the site circumstances. This impact on daylight, sunlight and overshadowing are discussed in detail at paragraphs 7.27– 7.52 of this report Over 19 letters of objection have been received from a total of 4 individual households I. Inaccurate plans (dimensions, no north arrow etc.). Discussed at paragraphs 7.10 of this report. II. Error in drawing of rear building line of No. 102 previously approved plans. Disputes the claim that this was due to inaccurate OS site plan data. The error was not a result of misleading OS data but was at least in part due to failed decision making when preparing the plans in the most sensitive of areas. The current application aims to regularise the misrepresentation of the neighbouring property under the original approved application. Under this current application, Planning Officers have undertaken a detailed survey of the application site, measuring th e extension as-built and its relationship with the neighbours’ boundary. Measurements have also been undertaken at No. 102 Exmouth Road and the resultant plans depict an accurate reflection of the development as -built in the context of the neighbouring properties. III. Not in accordance with Local Policy (side extensions and 45- degree rule). Discussed at paragraphs 7.18 and 7.24-7.26 of this report. IV. Overshadowing/ loss of light. Discussed at paragraphs 7.27– 7.52 of this report. V. Overlooked / loss of privacy. Discussed at paragraphs 7.53 -7.56 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press VI. Overdevelopment – the development is too large as built. Discussed at paragraphs 7.9 - 7.20. VII. The development does not comply with policy DMHD1 where two storey side extensions should be set in a minimum of 1m from the side boundary. Discussed at paragraphs 7.13 - 7.16. VIII.Concerns regarding bathroom window having clear windowpane. Discussed at paragraph 7.55. IX. Boundary line dispute. This is not a material planning consideration and would be a civil matter between both neighbouring properties. Officers are satisfied that a site location plan has been submitted indicating the ownership of the site in red. Certificate A has been completed on the application form which confirms that the applicant has sole ownership of the part of land in question. There is no reason to doubt that the development is within the ownership of the applicant. X. Sense of enclosure. Discussed at paragraphs 7.24 – 7.26. XI. Guttering/Drainage concerns Drainage and guttering issues would not be material planning consideration s as part of this assessment. Drainage matters would be captured within a Building Regulations application. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that the development is set in from the site boundary with Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press sufficient space for guttering and drainage within the site curtilage itself. A letter was also received from a Daylight and Sunlight Consultant (Daylight Lab) on behalf of residents of a neighbouring property. The letter did not dispute the findings within the Daylight Sunlight report. It wished to make further observations which are summarised below : x Previous planning application was granted based on inaccurate drawing information - error in drawing the rear building line of No.102 on the previously approved plans, which is in fact set back by approximately 2.4m from the as-built extension at No.100 rather than the 1.6m originally suggested. x Loss of amenity to No 102 through reductions in sunlight exposure and increased sense of enclosure. x Expressed their view that all rear facing windows at No. 102 should be deemed a material consideration for sunlight testing (even windows facing slightly northern of due east or west) – based on their interpretation these windows would These matters are discussed further within the amenity section of the report in paras 7.47-7.52. Importantly, it is noted from the letter that the Daylight Sunlight Professional does not disagree with the findings which confirm full compliance with the BRE Daylight and Sunlight guidance. The letter respectfully asks that the APSH should be considered for all windows. However, the BRE guidance is clear that only windows 90-degrees due south should be tested for sunlight. As the neighbour ing property is situated to the north of the site, there is no requirement for this APSH test to take place. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press fail the Annual Probably Sunlight Hours and suffer greater losses in Winter Probable Sunlight Hours. x Also note that the overshadowing extends over the area of garden closest to the rear façade of No. 102 which is an important amenity. x Provided a shadow analysis. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The proposal is for an extension to an existing residential dwelling. As such, the principle of development is supported by national, regional, and local planning policies, subject to the considerations set out below. Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.2 Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2023) states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments will function well and add to the overall quality of the area. 7.3 Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (2012) requires that new developments achieve a high quality of design in all new buildings, alterations, extensions and the public 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 Two - Development Management Policies (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. 7.5 Policy DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) seeks to protect and improve the public realm. 7.6 Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) requires that alterations and extension of dwellings would not have an adverse cumulative impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene and should appear subordinate to the main dwelling. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.7 With regard to rear extensions, Policy DMHD 1 requires: i) single storey rear extensions on terraced or semi -detached houses with a plot width of 5 metres or less should not exc eed 3.3 metres in depth or 3.6 metres where the plot width is 5 metres or more; ii) single storey rear extensions to detached houses with a plot width of 5 metres or more should not exceed 4.0 metres in depth; iii) flat roofed single storey extensions should not exceed 3.0 metres in height and any pitched or sloping roofs should not exceed 3.4 metres in height, measured from ground level; iv) in Conservation Areas and Areas of Special Local Character, flat roofed single storey extensions will be expected to be finished with a parapet; v) balconies or access to flat roofs which result in loss of privacy to nearby dwellings or gardens will not be permitted; vi) two storey extensions should not extend into an area provided by a 45-degree line of sight drawn from the centre of the nearest ground or first floor habitable room window of an adjacent property and should not contain windows or other openings that overlook other houses at a distance of less than 21 metres; vii) flat roofed two storey extensions will not be acceptable unless the design is in keeping with the particular character of the existing house; viii)pitched roofs on extensions should be of a similar pitch and materials to that of the original roof and subordinate to it in design. Large crown roofs on detached houses will not be supported; and ix) full width two storey rear extensions are not considered acceptable in designated areas or as extensions to Listed Buildings or Locally Listed Buildings. 7.8 With regard to side extension s, Policy DMHD 1 requires: i) side extensions should not exceed half the width of the original property; ii) extensions to corner plots should ensure that the openness of the area is maintained and the return building line is not exceeded; iii) garages should reflect the size guidelines set out in Appendix C Parking standards; iv) two storey side extensions should be set in a minimum of 1 metre from the side boundary or in the case of properties in the Copse Wood and Gatehill Estates, at least 1.5 metres, but more if on a wider than average plot, in order to maintain adequate visual separation and views between houses; v) two storey side extensions to detached and semi-detached properties should be set back a minimum of 1 metre behind the main front elevation; vi) where hip to gable roof extensions exist, a two-storey side extension will not be supported; and vii) in Conservation Areas, single storey side extensions may be required to be set back. 7.9 The application proposes the retention of a two storey rear and side extension, including amendments to fenestration and height of the existing single storey extension. A similar scheme was recently approved on the application site (ref: 42576/APP/2024/413 dated 9th April 2024 ). The scheme was subsequently built out. However, the approved plans were in accurate with the footprint of the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press neighbouring property not accurately depicted on the drawings and a slight variation in the footprint. This application seeks to regularise the as-built scheme. 7.10 It is noted that the Planning Officer has been to site and the neighbouring dwelling. The Officer has confirmed that the measurements on the proposed plans, as well as the positioning of the neighbours’ extension at No. 102 Exmouth Road are accurately reflected within this revised application. 7.11 The double storey side extension has a maximum width of 2.630m, which results in a 1.13m gap between the wall of the side extension and the wall of the neighbouring side extension. The side extension marginally steps in and extends back to the depth of the rear wall of the pre-existing single storey rear extension, at both ground and first floor. The extension would not exceed half of the width of the original dwelling and would therefore conform in principle with policy requirements in terms of scale and width. 7.12 At first floor, the side extension is set in by 0.5m and is set down from the ridge by 0.5m. It is noted that the existing dwelling is a terraced property and as a result does not require to be set back by 1m from the front elevation, unlike two storey side extensions to detached and semi -detached properties as required by policy DMHD 1. 7.13 The two-storey side extension is not set in 1m from the side boundary. However, the immediate area has a plethora of examples whereby side extensions (both single and two storey) have been built-up to the mutual boundary. A survey of properties along the street shows that there is a variety of side extensions that have been completed over time. The following properties also have two storey side extensions that do not maintain a 1 metre set in from the side boundary. These include property Nos. 48, 56, 120, 142 and 160 Exmouth Road, along on the same side of the street as the application site. On the opposite side of the street, Nos. 47, 49, 97, 115, 129 and 135 all have two storey side elements that also do not strictly conform with the policy guidance. 7.14 Furthermore, there has been two allowed appeals in recent years at Nos. 48 and 129 Exmouth Road. Within paragraph 6 of the appeal decision ref. APP/R5510/D/19/3232054 (48 Exmouth Road), the Planning Inspector commented that although the scheme was not technically compliant with the 1 metre set in, the overall design of the extension allowed the scheme to maintain an openness between the neighbouring property at No. 50 Exmouth Road. The Planning Inspector also noted that a large proportion of properties on the street had extensions close to the boundary, stating the following: “However, in this case, the design of the first floor element, including the pitched roof design; the position 1m from the side boundary; and the set back from the main front wa ll, would ensure that a sufficient gap would be provided to No 50 to preserve the visual break between these neighbouring properties. Consequently, the buildings would continue to be viewed in the street scene as separate, distinct entities. Whilst the ground floor element would be close to the side Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press boundary, a large proportion of properties in the street scene have side extensions or garages that are close to the side boundary. The proposed development would not, th erefore, lead to a significant terracing effect or appear cramped or out of place in the street scene.” (Appeal Decision 48 Exmouth Road APP/R5510/D/19/3232054) 7.15 Unlike neighbouring examples, the application does retain an adequate gap between the site itself and the neighbouring dwelling, retaining side access. It is therefore considered that given the multitude of examples, a refusal on this basis would not hold up at appeal. In addition to this, application reference 42576/APP/2024/413 does hold some weight and is a material planning consideration given the marginal discrepancies between the previous application and that currently under consideration . The previou s application considered the extensions to be subservient and acceptable in terms of set in from the side boundary. 7.16 As such, it is considered that the proposed development would respect the architectural composition of the host dwelling, and it would not have a detrimental impact on the existing dwelling house and street scene. The overall design and scale would be sympathetic to the existing dwelling. It is considered, given its modest size and design, the proposed two storey side extension would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling, nor would it lead to a cramped form of development along the street scene. Given the prevailing character, the slight departure from the policy on two storey side extensions is therefore acceptable in this instance. 7.17 To the rear, the roof of the existing single storey rear extension has been amended and raised in height, with a flat roof and centralised roof light. The eaves of the flat roof measures 2.7m. At first floor the dwelling benefits from a 3.3m de ep rear extension which measures 5.2m wide , where it integrates with the single storey element which extends the remaining widt h of the property to the southern boundary with No. 98 Exmouth Road. 7.18 It is acknowledged that at ground floor the side/rear extension breaches the 45- degree sight line from the nearest kitchen window at No. 102 Exmouth Road. The breach is marginal as demonstrated on the plans and in addition to this, the kitchen benefits from a large secondary window which would not be obstructed. On this basis, it is acceptable in respect to design and impact on character and appearance. The impact on sunlight and da ylight is considered further in this committee report. 7.19 Given the acceptable depth, height and overall massing, the extension appears both proportionate and a subordinate addition to the original building. The set down from the roof and the overall roof form would be sympathetic to its original design. The two-storey rear extension would be a subservient addition that would not appear as an incongruous or over-dominant form of development when seen from the rear of the property. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.20 Overall, the proposal is considered to satisfactorily integrate with the appearance of the original dwelling, and considering the surrounding context of neighbouring development it would not unduly harm the character, appearance and visual amenities of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. As such, the development proposal would accord with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012), Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local plan - Part Two (2020). Residential Amenity 7.21 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that new developments should not result in loss of privacy, overlooking and loss of sunlight and daylight. 7.22 Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) requires that alterations and extension of dwellings do not result in an unacceptable loss of outlook to neighbouring occupiers. 7.23 The primary neighbours to consider in te rms of amenity impacts are No. 102 Exmouth Road and No. 98 Exmouth Road, located to the North and South, respectively. 45-degree sight line 7.24 As mentioned previously, it is acknowledged that at ground floor the extension breaches the 45 -degree sight line from the nearest ground floor window at No. 102 Exmouth Road, which serves the kitchen. The breach is marginal as demonstrated on the plans and in addition to this, the kitchen benefits from a large secondary window which would not be obstructed. These kitchen windows on the rear elevation of No. 102 Exmouth Road can be seen in Figure 4. On this basis, it is acceptable and would not lead to a sense of enclosure. The outlook from these windows would remain onto the rear garden without being compromised. The effect on sunlight and daylight is considered in the paragraphs below. 7.25 No. 98 Exmouth Road also benefits from a single storey extension which is sited next to the existing single storey rear ex tension at the application site. There are no concerns raised regarding the marginal increase in height of the adjacent single storey rear extension. 7.26 At first floor the extensions clear the 45-degree sight lines from the nearest habitable room windows at both Nos. 102 and 98 Exmouth Road. Daylight/Sunlight Assessment 7.27 Objectors have raised concerns regardin g the impact of the extensions on the adjacent neighbouring property at No.102 Exmouth Road. 7.28 The applicants have provided a Daylight/Sunlight (DLSL) Assessment to support the application. It is noted that an objection has been received in regards to the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press accuracy of these measurements, however, to confirm, the DLSL Assessment is based on the most recent drawing, of which the measurements were verified by the Planning Officer through a site survey at both the application site and the neighbouring property. 7.29 The Daylight/Sunlight Assessment has assessed the light impacts on the neighbouring propert ies at Nos. 98 and 102 Exmouth Road and has used the Building Research Establishmnet guide: Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice (2 022) which is the recognised standard for daylight and sunlight assessments. The BRE guidance provides numerical guidelines although it is emphasised that advice given is not mandatory and the guidance should not be seen as an instrument of planning policy, but these (numerical guidelines) should be interpreted flexibly. Figure 7: Windows tested at Nos. 98 and 102 Exmouth Road Daylight Impact 7.30 The daylight report has applied the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) to assess the neighbouring windows against loss of daylight. The BRE Guidelines stipulate at paragraph 2.2.23 that: If any part of a new building or ext ension, measured in a vertical section perpendicular to a main window wall of an existing building, from the centre of the lower window, subtends an angle of more than 25 degrees to the horizonal, then Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the diffuse daylighting of the existing building may be adversely affected. This will be the case if either: x The VSC measures at the centre of an existing main window is less than 27%, and less than 0.80 times its former value. x The area of the working plane in a room which can received direct skylight is reduced to less than 0.8 times its former value. In simpler words, the BRE Guidance advises that a room with 27% VSC or at least 80% of the former value , will be adequately lit. In cases where rooms are lit by more than one window, the average of their VSC should be taken. Table 2: Daylight impact assessment on tested windows demonstrating compliance with BRE guidance* * Extracted from pp. 7- 8, ‘Analysis of Site Layout for Sunlight and Daylight - Neighbouring Analysis’, dated November 2024, Stinton Jones Consulting Engineers. 7.31 The potentially affected windows of the neighbouring dwelling at No. 102 Exmouth to the north, have been tested for reductions in light because of the two -storey rear extension. A total of six windows wer e tested at this property and all six windows have passed the VSC test. 7.32 The nearest ground floor window which is closest to the extension at W2 showed a slight reduction in daylight values from 38.07% to 34%. As this would remain over the 27% requirement under the BRE guidelines, it therefore meets the VSC criteria. Similarly, the second ground floor window serving this kitchen (W3) was also tested and the proposed VSC results demonstrate that the percentage light is well above 27% threshold with a figure of 37.87%. These windows would retain an acceptable 89 percent (W2) and 9 8 percent (W3) of their pre- development daylight values. 7.33 The dining room window at No. 102 Exmouth Road (W6) is set further away from the extension and no changes to the dayl ight provision has occurred, retaining 100 percent of the pre-development daylight. At first floor W4 serves a bathroom (non-habitable room) and W5 serves the first- floor bedroom. This bedroom window (W5) remains at a 38.94% daylight value, which is well above the 27% requirement to be considered adequately lit. The impact to this bedroom would be Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press a 2 percent loss of daylight, retaining 98 percent of its pre-development value. The assessment confirms that all potentially affected windows at No. 102 Exmouth Road meet the BRE Criteria for daylight provision and is acceptable. 7.34 On the southern boundary is No. 98 Exmouth Road. Given the existence of a single storey extension, only two window s on the first floor were identified for testing. As this property already passed the 45 -degree test, there were no concerns regarding daylight and sunlight. Nevertheless, both windows tested passed the VSC test and would retain sufficient daylight well above the 27% value. 7.35 Overall, the daylight assessment confirms that all windows tested meet the VSC criteria set out in the BRE guide: Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice (2022). As su ch, Officers are satisfied that the two- storey extension would not lead to an unacceptable loss of daylight to either neighbouring property. Sunlight Impact 7.36 The effect on sunlight has been evaluate d through the Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH) test. This tests sunlight to windows of habitable rooms which fall within 90-degrees due south of the development and calculates how many hours in a year a window would receive direct s unlight. The BRE Guidelines state that sunlight will be adversely affected if after the development, sunlight received in a year is less than 25% of APSH (or less that 5% annual probable sunlight hours between 21st September and 21st Marc h). Where a development causes a reduction below these values, the reduction should not be greater than 20% of its former value. 7.37 Paragraph 3.2.3 of the BRE Guidelines is quite clear in the windows that need to be assessed for loss of sunlight. It states “To assess loss of sunlight to an ex isting building, it is suggested that all main living rooms of d wellings and conservatories, should be checked if they have a win dow facing within 90 degrees of due south. Kitchens and bedrooms are less important, although care should be taken not to block too much sun. Normally loss of sunlight need not be analysed to kitchens and bedrooms.” ( Quotation from Building Research Establishment guide: Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice (2022) page 24) 7.38 As such, it is important to emphasise that there is no requirement within the BRE Guidance to analyse North-facing windows for sunlight. It is only windows within 90 degrees of due south that should be tested. Therefore, the only window to be assessed for sunlight impacts at No. 102 Exmouth Road is W1. This window is situated at first floor level along the flank wall. Whilst this window most likely serves the stairwell (non -habitable room), the results of the testing nevertheless demonstrate that this window complies with the sunlight requirement. Specifically, this window would still receive an APSH of greater than 25 percent for the whole year (66 percent) and a Winter PSH of greater than 5 percent (16 percent). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Table 3: Impact on sunlight to applicable neighbouring windows, demonstrating compliance with BRE guidance* * Extracted from p. 8, ‘Analysis of Site Layout for Sunlight and Daylight - Neighbouring Analysis’, dated November 2024, Stinton Jones Consulting Engineers. 7.39 Further to this and as already noted, the window serves a hallway which is a non- habitable room and as such, the impact on sunlight would not be assessed in the same way as for example a living room space. On these findings, Officers are satisfied that the proposed extension would comply with the BRE guidance and not lead to an adverse loss of sunlight to the main habitable rooms of No. 102 Exmouth Road over and above the existing circumstances. This is largely due to the neighbouring property site orientation. 7.40 With regards to No. 98 Exmouth Road, as the two-storey rear extension would be outside the 45-degree line of the nearest windows of this neighbouring property, there is no requirement for a sunlight analysis to be carried out for this neighbouring property. 7.41 Therefore, the only window to be assessed for Sunlight is W1 at No. 102, which passes the BRE guidance and therefore the impact of the development is acceptable. Sunlight to Garden 7.42 Another concern that has been raised from the representations received, is the level of overshadowing to the rear garden at No. 102 Road from the proposed development. The Daylight and Sunlight Assessment has also undertaken a review of the level of sunlight received to both neighbouring properties. 7.43 In paragraph 3.3.17 of the BRE Daylight Sunlight Guidance document it states: It is recommended that for it to appear adequately sunlit throughout the year, at least half of a garden or amenity area should receive at least two hours of sunlight on the 21 March. If as a result of new development, an existing garden or amenity area does not meet the above, and the area that can receive two hours of sun on 21 March is less than 0.8 times its former value, then the loss of sunlight is likely to be noticeable. (Quotation from Building Research Establishment guide: Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice (2022) page 29) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Table 4: Daylight impact assessment on tested windows demonstrating compliance with BRE guidance* * Extracted from p. 8, ‘Analysis of Site Layout for Sunlight and Daylight - Neighbouring Analysis’, dated November 2024, Stinton Jones Consulting Engineers. 7.44 The submitted Daylight and Sunlight Assessment demonstrates that sunlight amenity to both neighbouring gardens at Nos. 98 and 102 Exmouth Road would retain adequate sunlight on March 21 st. For No. 98 Exmouth Road, the lit area would not alter from the existing circumstance, meaning that the extension would have no impact on sunlight to their garden. 7.45 The findings for No. 102 Exmouth Road show that prior to the extension, 82% of the existing garden received at least 2 hours of sunlight on 21st March. This would fall to 76% of the garden receiving sunlight on this day, with the extension built. Whilst it is accepted that there would be a slight increase in overshadowing , this would still be well within BRE guidance which advises at least 50% of the garden to be acceptable. The level of sunlight value for the neighbour’s garden at No. 102 Exmouth Road would remain above 80% (0.8 times its former value) of their original sunlight value (at 92%). 7.46 Whilst there is a slight increase in overshadowing from the pre-existing garden conditions, this would not be uncommon for proposed development works of this nature. Given that this overshadowing is modest and is within the guidelines set out in the BRE guidance, the impacts of overshadowing to the garden at No. 102 Exmouth Road is acceptable and would not represent a justifiable ground to refuse the application. Representations from third parties and residents on Daylight Sunlight Assessment 7.47 Representations were received regarding the accuracy of the DLSL assessment and if the assessment should have been bas ed on a 3D model rather than the plans. However, given the significant margins of compliance and taking into account what rooms the windows serve , and if there are secondary windows serving the rooms, the findings indicate that the results would not materially differ with the use of such technologies. As such, requesting 3D analysis would not be proportionate or reasonable. 7.48 A further letter was received during the consultation stage from The Daylight Lab representing a neighbouring property as their “formal objection to the scheme”. The Daylight Lab commented on the detail within the applicant’s Daylight Sunlight Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press report. The Daylight Lab letter confirmed that they “do not dispute the overall findings of the submitted Daylight & Sunlight Assessment, in so much as the overarching aims of the BRE guidance are met and daylight tests were found to produce acceptable results ”. However, they “ wish to draw attention to the limitations of sunlight testing, whereby any window that faces even slightly north of due east or west and/or does not serve a living room is ignored. ” Rather, they “believe that sunlight test results to al l the rear facing windows at No.102 should be deemed a material consideration”. Were these windows to be assessed, the Daylight Lab concluded that they would fa ll below the APSH criteria and winter testing. Similarly, the letter highlighted the overshadowing of the garden area closest the neighbour’s rear façade as representing an important area of amenity being closest to the garden access door and kitchen. 7.49 The points raised within the letter are duly noted. However , the Building Research Establishment guide: Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice (2022) is the recognised standard for sunlight and daylight assessments across most Local Planning Authorities in England and Wales. This is also set out in the Local Plan. 7.50 Para 5.41 of of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that: The Council will aim to minimise the impact of the loss of daylight and sunlight and unacceptable overshadowing caused by new development on habitable rooms, amenity space and public open space. The Council will also seek to ensure that the design of new development optimises the levels of daylight and sunlight. The Council will expect the impact of the development to be assessed following the methodology set out in the most recent version of the Building Research Establishments (BRE) “Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: A guide to good practice”. Consequently, there is no justification for departing from the established and recognised methodology and testing (nationally and locally) for assessing sunlight and daylight impacts of a development. 7.51 As the Daylight Sunlight report submitted by the Applicant is assessed against the methodologies within the BRE Daylight S unlight guidance and as outlined within the Local Plan, it would not be reasonable to require the kitchen windows to be tested for sun light given they would not be positioned 90- degree due south. Similarly, garden sunlight would meet th e methodology and testing set out in the BRE guidance which are not disputed by Day light Lab. As such it would not lead to a significant decrease in the outdoor amenity space to warrant a refusal, given it meets the BRE tests. 7.52 In spite of the comments received from the third party Daylight Sunlight professional, the Local Planning Author ity are satisfied that the development would not cause detrimental harm to either neighbouring amenities (Nos. 98 and 102 Exmouth Road) from a daylight and sunlight perspective. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Privacy 7.53 Objectors also raised concerns regarding privacy resulting from the side elevation windows and first floor rear elevation windows. 7.54 It is noted that the side elevation windows serve a WC/shower room and ensuite at the ground and first floors. These are obscurely glazed, as confirmed on the site visit. Notwithstanding this, a condition will be added to ensure they remain as obscured glazing and non-opening below 1.8 metres from floor level. 7.55 The first floor rear elevation window serves a bedroom and would have similar views and outlook as the pre/existing first floor rear elevation and is acceptable. It is noted that the other first floor rear elevation window serves a bathroom and is shown to be obscurely glazed. Notwithstanding this, there would be no concerns with undue overlooking should it be clear glaz ed, given that it overlooks the rear garden of the application site. It is also noted that there is no policy to demand obscured glazing sp ecifically for bathrooms , where there would not be any concerns with neighbouring amenity impacts . Consequently, it is not considered necessary to condition this rear elevation window to be obscure glazed. In addition, the adjacent neighbour to the rear of the site (No. 119 Queens Walk) has a separation distance in excess of 38 metres, window to window. 7.56 For the reasons outlined above, it is co ncluded that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenity in compliance with policies DMHD 1 and DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Living Conditions – Application Property External Amenity Space 7.57 The property would retain over 100sq.m of private amenity space post development to meet the standards set out in Table 5.3 of Policy DMHB 18 (Private Outdoor Amenity Space) of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2: Development Management Policies (2020). The proposal, therefore, would not undermine the provision of external amenity space, in accordance with Policy DMHB 18 and Policy DMHD 1 of the Development Plan. Internal Amenity 7.58 It is considered that all the proposed habitable rooms would maintain an adequate outlook and source of natural light, therefore complying with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021). Highways and Parking 7.59 Policy DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) seeks to ensure that developments provide acceptable levels of car parking in line with the Council's Parking Standards (Appendix C Table 1). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.60 The former garage was converted to a habitable room under a previous planning permission (ref. 42576/APP/2018/774 dated 9th April 2024). As such, the parking provision would remain unchanged by the proposals. The proposal would, therefore, be in accordance with Policy DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020). 8 Other Matters 8.1 Human Rights 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 Deve lopment Plan and Central Government Guidance. 8.2 Equality 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. 8.3 Local Finance Considerations and CIL Not applicable. The proposed development is not CIL liable. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 On balance, it is considered that the proposed development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area or adversely impact the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal would accord with the overarching objectives of the Development Plan. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval subject to 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2024 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 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 42576/APP/2024/2465 Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 6 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. HO1 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. HO2 A Accordance with approved The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on Drawing Numbers: 100ER/P101 Rev B and shall thereafter be retained/maintained for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020), and the London Plan (2021). 3. HO4 M Materials The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building and shall thereafter be retained as such. REASON To safeguard the visual amenities of the area and to ensure that the proposed development does not have an adverse effect upon the appearance of the existing building in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 4. HO5 N No additional windows or doors Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no additional windows, doors or other openings shall be constructed in the walls or roof slopes of the development hereby approved. REASON To prevent overlooking to adjoining properties in accordance with policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 5. HO6 O Obscure Glazing Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 6 The side windows facing 102 Exmouth Road shall be glazed with permanently obscured glass to at least scale 4 on the Pilkington scale and be non-opening below a height of 1.8 metres taken from internal finished floor level for so long as the development remains in existence. REASON To prevent overlooking to adjoining properties in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 6 6. HO7 N No roof gardens Access to the flat roof over the extension hereby approved shall be for maintenance or emergency purposes only and the flat roof shall not be used as a roof garden, terrace, balcony, patio or similar amenity area. REASON To prevent overlooking to adjoining properties in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 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). I53 C Compulsory Informative (2) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020) set out below, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and to all relevant material considerations, including The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London consolidated with alterations since 2011 (2016) and national guidance. DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 18 Private Outdoor Amenity Space DMHD 1 Alterations and Extensions to Residential Dwellings DMT 6 Vehicle Parking Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 6 LPP D3 (2021) Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach LPP D6 (2021) Housing quality and standards NPPF12 -23 NPPF12 23 - Achieving well-designed and beautiful places H Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 6 AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History 42576/APP/2018/774 100 Exmouth Road Ruislip Conversion of garage to habitable use, single storey side/rear extension and alterations to roof of existing single storey rear extension Decision: 15-05-2018 Approved 42576/APP/2024/413 100 Exmouth Road Ruislip Erection of a two storey side/ rear extension Decision: 09-04-2024 Approved Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 6 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 Part 2 Policies: DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 18 Private Outdoor Amenity Space DMHD 1 Alterations and Extensions to Residential Dwellings DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP D3 (2021) Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach LPP D6 (2021) Housing quality and standards NPPF12 -23 NPPF12 23 - Achieving well-designed and beautiful places Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 6

1 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th of January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Part 2 – Application Report Case Officer: Daniel Ambrose 79116/APP/2024/2794 Date Application Valid: 21.10.2024 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 24.01.2025 Application Type: Householder Ward: Hayes Applicant: Mr Issacharof Site Address: 38 Varcoe Gardens, Hayes Proposal: Conversion of integral garage to habitable accommodation with alterations to fenestration. 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) 2 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th of January 2025 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 This householder planning application pr oposes alterations to No. 38 Varcoe Gardens in Hayes and includes the conversion of the garage to habitable use. 1.2 Cumulatively, the proposed conversion and alterations are considered to comply with the objectives of the rele vant planning policies and the proposal would not give rise to any significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or streetscene in which the site is situated. 1.3 The proposal would have an acceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenity and would not adversely affect highway safety , or cause harm in other respects. 1.4 Due regard has been given to local residents’ objections, however it is concluded that the proposal complies with the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. 1.5 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 application property is a three storey mid-terrace dwelling situated within the new residential estate, Varcoe Gardens. In terms of its frontage, the property is characterised by an entrance and garage door at ground floor level with a juliette balcony and window to the upper floor levels (refer to figure 1 below). 2.2 The surrounding area is residential. Dwellings within this area are predominantly of uniform design / appearance. The application dwelling is finished in render and brick and has a tiled pitched roof, characteristic of the area. 2.3 The application property includes a front and rear garden, providing off street parking accessed via a vehicular cross-over. 2.4 The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Rating Level of 1 (poor). 3 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th of January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application Property 3 Proposal 38 Varcoe Gardens 4 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th of January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3.1 The application proposes the conversion of integral garage to habitable accommodation with alterations to fenestration (proposed plan shown at Figure 4 and 6 below). Figure 3: Existing Elevations (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) 5 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th of January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4: Proposed Elevations Figure 5: Existing Floor Plan Figure 6: Proposed Floor Plan 6 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th of January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to t he consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Five neighbouring properties were consulted on 29th October 2024. 6.2 Representations and a petition were received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full c opies of the res ponses have been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response 4 individual letters of objection have been received. I. Concerns that the property will be used as an HMO The use of the property as an HMO is not part of the 7 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th of January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press current planning application. II. Parking Stress Discussed at paragraph 7.14 of this report. III. Disrupt the uniform architecture and streetscene Discussed at paragraphs 7.2 – 7.9 of this report. IV. Lack of disability justification Discussed at paragraphs 7.8 of this report. V. Loss of privacy / overlooking to neighbouring properties Discussed at paragraphs 7.10 – 7.12 of this report. VI. Concern about construction impact Contractors will be required to adhere to all regulations to limit this impact on neighbours. A petition of objection with 20 signatures was received. VII. Parking Stress Discussed at paragraph 7.14 of this report. VIII. Disrupt the uniform architecture and streetscene Discussed at paragraphs 7.2 – 7.9 of this report. IX. Lack of disability justification Discussed at paragraph 7.8 of this report. X. Concerns that the property will be used as an HMO The use of the property as an HMO is not part of the current planning application. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Highways The planning permission is sought for conversion of integral garage to habitable accommodation. The property is a terraced dwelling and benefits from a driveway. In accordance with London Plan 2021 Policy T6.1 Residential Parking , if this was a new development there would be 0.75 car parking space be allocated. As this is an existing dwelling and on Noted. This matter is discussed at paragraph 7.14 of this report. 8 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th of January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the basis that when the development is built out there would still be off street parking available, there are no objections from the Highways Authority for this proposal. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The proposal is for conversions and alterations to an existing residential dwelling. As such, the principle of development is supported by national, regional and local planning policies, subject to the considerations set out below. Character and Appearance 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 DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) advises that all development will be required to be designed to the highest standards and incorporate principles of good design. Policy DMHB 12 of the Hill ingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that development should be well integrated with the surrounding area. 7.4 Policy DMHD 1 of the Hi llingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that alterations and extension of dwellings should not have an adverse cumulative impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and should appear subordinate to the main dwelling. 7.5 Policy DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that development should be well integrated with the surrounding area. 7.6 The proposed conversion of the integral garage to habitable accommodation would involve replacing the existing gar age door on the front elevation with a window of a similar style to the existing windows on the property to facilitate the use of the room as a step-free additional living space. 7.7 There is one other garage conversions within the Estate at no. 85. The Estate itself is very uniform in its design with all the three storey terraced dwellings including an integral garage at ground floor. This being the case the proposal would cause some visual harm to the unifo rmity of the area, however given that 9 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th of January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press no.85 has benefited from conversion, officers do not see a reason to warrant refusal due to its modest and architecturally sympathetic design. 7.8 The applicant has advised that there is a need for an additional living space on ground floor level at the property on medical grounds. However, the proposals are considered to be acceptable, as set out in this report, independently of that assertion. A condition will be added to ensure that the building materials and windows match the existing property. 7.9 Overall, the current proposal is considere d to satisfactorily integrate with the appearance of the original dwelling and taking into account the surrounding context of neighbouring development it would not harm the character, appearance and visual amenities of the area. As such, the development proposal would accord with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012), Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local plan - Part Two (2020). Residential Amenity 7.1 0 Policy DMHD 1 of the Hi llingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that planning applications relating to alterations and extensions of dwellings will be required to ensure that: ii) a satisfactory relationship with adjacent dwellings is achieved; and v) there is no unacceptable loss of outlook to neighbouring occupiers. 7.1 1 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. 7.1 2 There would be no harm to the amenities of the neighbouring properties as no overlooking would be created, and as no additional floorspace is created, there would be no loss of light, loss of outloo k, nor would it be overbearing. The host would still retain their parking space to the front of the property, therefore no additional parking strain would be created. Highways and Parking 7.1 3 Policy DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that development proposals must comply with the parking standards outlined in Appendix C Table 1 in order to facilitate sustainable development and address issues relating to congestion and amenity. 7.1 4 The existing driveway would be retained to accommodate at least 1 vehicle with on street parking being available also, in accordance with adopted Council 10 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th of January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press parking standards, additional parking provision would not be required as adequate parking remains. Trees and Landscaping 7.1 5 The proposal would maintain the existing use of the site frontage for parking provision. As such, the 25% soft landscaping stipulation in Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) would not be appropriate to impose as a planning condition in this case. 7.1 6 The existing site benefits from a large rear garden with mature vegetation and the proposed extensions are being built upon existing hard standing areas with no existing landscaping being affected. No other significant issues are raised in respect of trees and / or landscaping. Air Quality 7.1 7 The site does not lie within the Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area, nevertheless the proposal raises no significant issues in this regard due to the nature of the proposed development (householder development). Drainage 7.1 8 The site is not identified as at particular risk from flooding or drainage issues. Drainage will be satisfacto rily controlled through the Building Regulations in this case. 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. Local Finance Considerations and CIL 11 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th of January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 8.3 Not applicable. The proposed development is not CIL liable. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 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. 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 79116/APP/2024/2794 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 5 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. HO1 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. HO2 A Accordance with approved The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers: EX-L001, P-P001, P-P002, P-P003, P-P004, P-E001, P-E002, P-E003 and P-S001. REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020), and the London Plan (2021). 3. HO4 M Materials The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building and shall thereafter be retained as such. REASON To safeguard the visual amenities of the area and to ensure that the proposed development does not have an adverse effect upon the appearance of the existing building in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 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). Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 5 I53 CCompulsory Informative (2) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020) set out below, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and to all relevant material considerations, including The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London consolidated with alterations since 2011 (2016) and national guidance. DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHD 1 Alterations and Extensions to Residential Dwellings DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP D6 (2021) Housing quality and standards Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 5 AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 5 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 Part 2 Policies: DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHD 1 Alterations and Extensions to Residential Dwellings DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP D6 (2021) Housing quality and standards Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 5

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report– Application Report Case Officer: Becky Smith 2297/APP/2024/2171 Date Application Valid: 12.08.2024 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 17.01.2025 Application Type: S73 Ward: Wood End Applicant: Department for Education Site Address: Minet Junior School, Avondale Drive, Hayes Proposal: An application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary Condition 2 (Approved Drawings) of planning permission reference 2297/APP/2021/2704, dated 17 -09-2021 (Extensions, remodelling and refurbishment of the existing Nursery, Infant and Junior Schools) to make alterations, including changes to hard and soft landscaping, bin storage, and cycle storage (Part Retrospective and Part Proposed). 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 has a financial liability) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 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 was granted for extensions, remodelling and refurbishment of the existing Minet Nursery, Infant and Junior Schools under planning permission reference 2297/APP/2021/2704, dated 17 th September 2021. The current planning application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 seeks permission to vary Condition 2 (Approved Drawings) of this permission to make alterations. These alterations involve changes to hard and soft landscaping, bin storage, and cycle storage. 1.2 No neighbouring objections or comments were received during public consultation on the application, which included letters, a site notice and a press notice. Following receipt of revised plans to secure landscape enhancements, no objections were received from any internal and external consultees , including Sport England. 1.3 It is considered that the principle of these changes and the associated visual impact when viewed from the street scene are acceptable. It is therefore concluded, taking all matters into account, that planning permission should be granted subject to conditions set out within Appendix 1. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 Minet School is located on the north s ide of Avondale Drive and comprises one and two storey buildings situated within large grounds largely comprised of open playing fields. Please see Figure 1 which shows the extent of the site outlined in red. 2.2 The school is surrounded by residential properties in Hughes Road to the north, Avondale Drive to the south, Hitherbroom Road to the west and Abbotswood Way to the east, which gives the area an overall residential character and appearance. 2.3 The site forms part of the designated Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area. The Hitherbroom Park Nature Conservation Area of Grade 2 importance is located immediately to the north of the site. A tree preservation area (TPO 320) is also designated to the south of the site on land at Bourton Close and Avondale Drive. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) 2.4 Photographs of the site are show in Figures 2, 3 and 4 as follows. Figure 2: Photograph of the Application Site – Bin Storage Area Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Photograph of the Application Site – Fencing and Gates Figure 4: Photograph of the Application Site – Previously removed pond 3 Proposal Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3.1 Planning permission was granted in 2021 for extensions, as well as the remodelling and refurbishment of the nursery, infant and junior schools at the site (ref. 2297/APP/2021/2704, dated 17-09-2021). This application seeks to make minor material amendments to the hard and soft landscaping , bin storage and cycle storage. This would require Condition 2 (approved drawings) to be varied under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A list of the proposed alterations is contained in paragraph 7.11. Figure 5: Proposed Site Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Figure 6: Proposed Bin Store Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) 4 Relevant Planning History Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4.1 Application ref. 2297/APP/2021/2704 – Full Planning permission was granted in 2021 for extensions, remodelling and refurbishment of the existing Nursery, Infant and Junior Schools 4.2 Application ref. 2297/APP/2023/751 – An application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was approved in 2023 to vary Condition 2 (Approved Drawings) of planning permission reference 2297/APP/2021/2704, dated 17 -09-2021, for extensions, remodelling and refurbishment of the existing Nursery, In fant and Junior Schools, to allow the existing hall roof to be replaced. 4.3 Application ref. 2297/APP/2024/1212 - Non-Material Amendment to planning permission ref: 2297/APP/2021/2704 was refused in 2024 as it was considered that there was insufficient information provided within the submission to establish whether the proposed changes were non-material in order to comply with Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 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 A total of 236 neighbouring properties were consulted by letter dated 28-08-2024. The consultation period ended on 18-09-2024 and no neighbouring objections were received during the consultation period. 6.2 Internal and statutory consultee respons es received on the application are summarised in Table 1 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Internal and Statutory Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Urban Design Officer Comments 26-09-2024 1. Rubber crumb is proposed within the root protection zone (RPZ) of two trees along the northern boundary, where previously it had been 'rough ground'. Concern is raised regarding excavating so close to the trunk where it could be avoided. Please revert to the original plan. 2. The existing pergola structure is to be relocated. It is preferable to leave this structure in situ rather than Comments taken into consideration and revisions sought to address concerns. Revised plans received. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press requiring additional footings within the green space. 3. The addition of a canopy needs to be explained with a scaled drawing. 4. Both the location of the bin and cycle store removes additional green space. It would be preferable for the bin and cycle stores to be located within existing hardscape. There is potential for either the bin store or cycle spaces in the southwest car pa rk between the entrance and substation. 5. The addition of planting beds around the buildings are accepted. 6. The removal of the pond is accepted. 7. The Tiger mulch around the existing trees is accepted. However, concern is raised that the existing trees grills and seating is a more practical solution as the mulch may not stay in place. Urban Design Officer Comments 06-11-2024 1.The proposal for the climbers up the revised railing is welcomed, however, the depth of the troughs needs to be minimum of 450mm to support these plants. It is recommended that part of the surface is cut away to deliver a planting bed 400mm in width to allow the plants to be planted into the ground. 2.The drawing also seems to now show a fence around the car park. Is this a new addition? There should be an additional hedge to lessen the visual impact of this. The location of the other hedge is welcomed. 3. The omission of the rubber crumb is supported. 4. It is also noticed that the proposals include a 2.4m boundary fence in front of the existing. This would result in a fence that gradually declines and falls apart as they won’t be able to maintain it. They should remove the old fence. In respect of point 1, a revised plan was provided increasing the depth of the proposed troughs to 450mm to address the U rban Design Officer’s concerns. In respect of point 2, the fence around the car park is existing and therefore no additional hedging was requested in response to this. In respect of point 3, this is agreed and considered to be resolved. In respect of point 4, the planning agent has confirmed the pre -existing fence was removed. This is acceptable. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press To conclude, all comments have been addressed. Sport England Comments 27-11-2024 The Proposal and its Impact on the Playing Field The proposed amendments to the approved scheme that affect playing field land appear to be as follows: x A new location of polytunnel on the eastern playing field, x Cycle parking provision on the western playing field, and x What appears to be three trees on the western playing field (to the east of the northern Football pitch shown). Assessment against Sport England’s Playing Fields Policy: The proposed amendments highlighted above result in less natural playing field land than originally approved. However, all these elements are located in areas that are unlikely to impact either playing fields ’ ability to accommodate playing pitches or materially impact the usability of the playing field(s) as a whole. Sport England is, therefore, satisfied that there is limited, if any, material impact on the playing field compared to the approved scheme . Consequently it considers the scheme to still broadly meet Exception 3 of its Playing Field Policy. Sport England’s Position: Given the above, Sport England raises no objection to the application because it is considered to broadly accord with Exception 3 of our Playing Fields Policy. If this application is to be presented to a Planning Committee, we would like to be notified in advance of the publication of any committee agenda(s), report(s) and committee date(s). Please notify Sport England of the outcome of the planning application. Comments n oted Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development Education 7.1 Paragraph 100 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) states that it is important that a sufficient choice of early years, school and post -16 places are available to meet the needs of existi ng and new communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requi rement, and to development that will widen choice in education. The current application will support the upgrade and refurbishment of an existing school to bring it up to modern day needs for local residents. 7.2 Policy S3 of the London Plan (2021) seeks to ensure there is a sufficient supply of good quality education facilities to meet demand and offer educational choice. 7.3 Policy CI1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) seeks to ensure that community and social infrastructure is provided in Hillingdon to cater for the needs of the existing community and future pop ulations by supporting extensions to existing schools and the development of new schools and youth facilities. 7.4 Policy DMCI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) states that proposals for the refurbishment and re-use of existing premises for community facilities will be supported. 7.5 Under the original planning application (ref. 2297/APP/2021/2704) submission for this site, it was noted that the school was in a poor state of repair with temporary classrooms being used to support the main function of the school. Consent was granted for comprehensive refurbishmen t, remodelling and extensions to the school to provide a good quality learning environment for both the infants and junior schools. Great weight was attached to the school improvements and the principle of development was strongly supported. 7.6 The current application is submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary Condition 2 (Approved Drawings) of planning permission reference 2297/APP/2021/2704 to make alterations including changes to hard and soft landscaping, bin storage and cycle storage. The principle of these alterations is accepted, subject to the detailed consideration of all other material planning considerations covered elsewhere within this report. Impact on Playing Field 7.7 Sport England's Playing Field Policy and Guidance (2018) confirms that Sport England will oppose the granting of plan ning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or would pr ejudice the use of, all or part of a playing field, unless one of five exceptions applies. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.8 The proposed relocation of the polytunnel would occupy a small area of land on the edge of the school’s playing field. Accordingly, the proposal prejudices the use, or leads to the loss of use, of land being used as a playing field or has been used as a playing field in the last five years, as defined in The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (Statutory Instrument 2015 No. 595). Consultation with Sport England is therefore a statutory requirement. 7.9 The proposed development results in encroachment onto the playing field. However, having considered the nature of the playing field and its ability to accommodate a range of pitches, it is not considered that the development would reduce the overall sporting capability of the site. Consequently, Officers are of the view that the proposal broadly meets except ion E3 of the playing fields policy, in that: “The proposed development affects on ly land incapable of forming part of a playing pitch and does not: reduce the size of any playing pitch; result in the inability to use any playing pitch (including the maintenance of adequate safety margins and run -off areas); reduce the sporting capacity of the playing field to accommodate playing pitches or the capabili ty to rotate or reposition playing pitches to maintain their quality; result in the loss of other sporting provision or ancillary facilities on the site; or prejudice the use of any remaining areas of playing field on the site.” This being the case, Sport England have not objected to the application. Design Impact on Character and Appearance 7.10 Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One – Strategic Policies (2012) and Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part Two – Development Management Policies (2020) aim to ens ure development is designed to the highest standard and incorporate principles of good design, with DMHB 11 setting out specific guidelines for this. 7.11 As outlined above, this application is submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary Condit ion 2 (Approved Drawings) of planning permission reference 2297/APP/2021/2704. Specifically, the proposed alterations to the school are as follows: - Relocation of the Infant and Junior School bin store location. - Installation of a single gate within Inf ant School leading to the bin store / service yard. - Installation of single and double gates within Junior School leading to the bin store / service yard. - Installation of new planting beds to the Infant and Junior School. - Adaptation to the Infant School fence line and planters. - Infant school area tarmac replaced. - Stainless steel bollards inst alled within the car park. - Installation of permeable asphalt to the car park. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press - Cycle hoops relocated within the Junior School playground. - Installation of an additional canopy to the existing library building within Junior School. - Relocation of polytunnel within the playing field. - Installation of additional fire escape with associated paving and removal of pond. 7.12 The proposal also initially included the installation of rubber crumb to the north of the application site. However, d uring the course of the application, it was requested by the Urban Design Officer that the installation of rubber crumb to the north of the application site be removed, due to the projection into the root protection zone of several trees. This was agreed by the applicant and this part of the proposal was removed. 7.13 Part of the proposal includes the reloca tion of the Infant and Junior School bin stores from their existing location to the southeast of the site, located in front of the existing grounds keeper’s house. The re ason stated for this relocation of the bin store is to improve the hygiene stand ards and improve fire safety, given the current arrangement limits access from a number of classrooms in the event of a fire. 7.14 Whilst the need for the relocation is recognised, it is considered that the proposed location is not optimal given the loss of soft landscaping to the front of the existing grounds keeper’s house, to be replaced with permeable tarmac. The fencing and gates of the bin store are characterised with a natural wooden finish, enclosing the bins so that they are not visible. 7.15 During the course of the application, following comments from the Council’s Urban Design Officer comments, additional soft landscaping has been included on site in order to offset the loss of soft landscaping to accommodate the bin store. This additional soft landscaping includes the following: - 35 linear metres of additional hedging - 11 metres of climbing planters to the front façade of the bin store 7.16 Following this inclusion of additional hedging and climbing planters to mitigate the loss of soft landscaping, the proposed new bin store would be considered acceptable on balance. Given the bin store is located within the site, it is not visible from the street scene along Avondale Dr ive or any other public vantage points outside of the school. It is therefore considered that the proposed bin store would not result in any significant harm to the character or appearance of the street scene or wider area. 7.17 The installation of the single gate within the Infant School and the single and double gates within the Junior School would provide new access to the proposed bin store. The materials of the proposed new gates would match the existing metal fencing and would therefore be considered acceptable in design terms and would Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press not result in any significant harm to the character or appearance of the site or wider street scene. 7.18 The installation of new planting beds to the Infant and Junior School, adaptation to the Infant School fence line , installation of a new canopy to the library and planters and relocation of the cycle hoops would also be considered acceptable in design terms. 7.19 The replacement of the tarmac within the Infant School and the installation of permeable asphalt to the car park is considered acceptable in design terms, given the similar nature to the existing materials. The replacement of this hard standing would therefore not result in any harm to th e character or appearance of the site or wider area. 7.20 The proposal also includes the addition of stainless-steel bollards to the car park. The reason for this is to meet Building Control requirements and provide an enhanced level of protection to pedestri ans. The reason for the inclusion of the stainless-steel bollards is supported and it is considered that their inclusion would not result in any significant harm to the character or appearance of the site and would be acceptable in design terms. 7.21 The proposal includes the provision of an additional fire escape with associated paving and removal of the existing pond. Given the location and nature of the existing pond, which is not visible from any public vantage points, its removal would be considered acceptable. Another reason for the removal of the pond has been stated as due to concerns around safety. This reasoning is accepted. 7.22 Finally, the proposal also includes the relocation of the polytunnel within the playing field. Given the siting within the playing field, Sport England were consulted on the proposal and raised no obj ection, given that it is considered to comply with Exception 3 of Sport England’s Playing Fields Policy. Their comments state that the proposed amendment would result in less natural playing field. However, the element affected would be in areas that are unlikely to impact either playing fields ability to accommodate pl aying pitches or materially impact the usability of the playing field as a whole. On this basis, the relocation of the polytunnel is considered acceptable in design terms. 7.23 Overall, the external soft and hard lands caping amendments set out within this application are considered minor alterations and would not be significant changes when viewed from the street scene. Given the inclusion of the additional hedging and planters which of fset the loss of soft landscaping resulting from the proposal and specifically the relocation of the bin store, the proposal overall would be accepted in design terms and is not considered to result in any significant harm in terms of character or appearance. The proposed development is considered to accord with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdo n Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) and Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Access Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.24 Matters relating to access have already been established by grant of the original permission. There has been no material change in site circumstances to suggest that the previous assessment is no longer valid. Security 7.25 Matters relating to security have already been established by grant of the original permission. There has been no material change in site circumstances to suggest that the previous assessment is no longer valid. Sustainable Waste Management 7.26 Matters relating to sustainable waste management have already been established by grant of the original permission. T here has been no material change in policy and/or site circumstances to suggest that the previous assessment is no longer valid. Fire Safety 7.27 Policy D12 of the London Plan (2021) states that all major development proposals should be submitted with a Fire Statement, which is an independent fire strategy, produced by a third party, suitably qualified assessor. The statement should detail how the development proposal will function in fire safety terms. 7.28 As changes have been made for a fire safety reason, an amended Fire Statement needs to be submitted for consideration. This is proposed to be secured by Condition 10. Subject to this condition, the proposed would accord with the requirements of Policy D12 of the London Plan (2021). Residential Amenity Impact on neighbours 7.29 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hill ingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies (2020) ensures that proposals do not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight, sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. This policy is supported by Paragraphs 5.38, 5.40 and 5.41 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Polic ies (2020) which sets out how development should ensure that is does not impact neighbouring privacy, outlook and daylight and sunlight. 7.30 The closest residential neighbours to the proposed new bin store are Nos. 21 and 23 Avondale Drive to the south of the application site. These neighbours are situated approximately 50 metres away from the proposed bin store. Neighbouring properties along Hitherbroom Road are situated approximately 80m away to the west and neighbouring properties along Hughes Road are situated approximately 140m away to the north. Given the separation distance between the proposed bin store and residential neighbours, it is not considered that there would be any harm in terms of access to daylight, sunlight, outlook or overbearing effect. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.31 The other soft and hard landscaping changes proposed within the site including the planters, installation of gates, rep lacement of hard landscaping, removal of pond, is not considered to have any impact on the amenity of any residential neighbours, in terms of access to daylight, sunlight, outlook or overbearing effect. 7.32 Overall, given the nature and siting of the proposed works, it is not considered that the proposal would have any significant impacts on the amenity of neighbouring residents. The proposal therefore accords with the requirements of Policy DMHB 11, part B), of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Transport Highways, Parking and Pedestrian Safety 7.33 Policy DMT 2 of the Local Plan: Part Two (2020) notes development proposals must ensure that safe and efficient vehi cular access to the highways network is provided to the Council's standards and Policy DMT 6 of the Local Plan: Part Two (2020) states that development proposals must comply with the relevant parking standards. 7.34 The application proposes minor changes including the replacement of the hard landscaping within the car park and playground of the school. The application also proposes the installation of new stainless -steel bollards which aim to improve pedestrian safety on site. 7.35 Overall, it is considered that the proposal would not materially impact the vehicular and highways network and would have no impact on parking. It is also considered that the proposal would improve safety for pedestrians on site which would be supported. O ther matters relating to highways, car parking and pedestrian safety have already been established by grant of the original permission and there has been no material change in site circumstances to suggest that the previous assessment is no longer valid. 7.36 The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies (2020). Environmental Issues Noise 7.37 Matters relating to noise have already been established by grant of original permission and there has been no material change in policy and/or site circumstances to suggest that the previous assessment is no longer valid. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Air Quality 7.38 Matters relating to air quality have already been established by grant of original permission and there has been no material change in policy and/or site circumstances to suggest that the previous assessment is no longer valid. Trees, and Landscaping 7.39 Policy DMHB 14 of the Local Plan: Part Two (2020) notes all developments will be expected to retain or enhance the existing landscape, trees, biodiversity and natural features of merit. Planning applicat ions for proposals that would affect existing trees will be required to provide an accurate tree survey showing the location, height, spread and species of trees. 7.40 The application site benefits from trees around all boundaries, either on, or off site. It is noted that these trees are not specifically protected under a Tree Preservation Order or a Conservation Area, despite this , they are considered an asset to the street scene and providing valuable visual amenity. 7.41 The proposals set out within this application are not considered to impact any trees within the site or surrounding land, in accordance with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies (2020). The proposal does , however, result in the loss of some soft landscaping to accommodate the proposed bin store to the front of the grounds keepers house, which would not be preferable. 7.42 However, during the course of the appl ication, amendments were sought to include additional hedging and climbing plan ters, aiming to offset the loss of soft landscaping to accommodate the bin stores. On the basis of this additional soft landscaping to be provided on site, it is not considered that the loss of soft landscaping would be a robust or reasonable reason for refusal of this application. 7.43 Condition 7 is proposed to secure the implementation of the submitted landscaping details to ensure the proposed enhancement measures will be sufficiently successful. Since the development has already commenced and is part retrospective, Condition 1 requires the landscaping scheme to be fully implemented within six months of the grant of permission. Subject to these conditions, it is considered that the proposal would accord with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Lo cal Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies (2020). Biodiversity 7.44 Biodiversity net gain does not apply to section 73 permissions where the original permission which the section 73 relates to was granted before 12 February 2024. The original permission was granted on 17th September 2021 and as such, biodiversity net gain is not relevant to the consideration of this application. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Flood and Water Management 7.45 Matters relating to flood and water ma nagement have already been established by grant of the original permission. T here has been no material change in policy and/or site circumstances to suggest that the previous assessment is no longer valid. Sustainability 7.46 Matters relating to sustainability have already been established by grant of the original permission . T here has been no material change in policy and/or site circumstances to suggest that the previous assessment is no longer valid. 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 Deve lopment 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. Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.3 Not applicable. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 This application is submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary Condition 2 (Approved Drawings) of planning permission reference 2297/APP/2021/2704 to make alterations, including changes to hard and soft landscaping, bin storage, and cycle storage. The principle of these changes and the associated minimal visu al impact when viewed from the street scene are acceptable. The changes proposed are considered to constitute minor material amendments and it is concluded, taking all ma tters into account, that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th January 2025 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 appl ications 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 2297/APP/2024/2171 Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 11 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. COM3 T Time Limit The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the 17th September 2021. The landscaping scheme hereby permitted and pursuant to condition 7, shall be implemented in its entirety within 6 months of the date of this planning 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 be retained in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plan numbers: MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-0001 Rev P01 MIN-JMA-00-GF-DP-A-PL11 S1 Rev. P01 MIN-JMA-00-01-DP-A-PL11 S1 Rev. P01 MIN-JMA-00-RL-DP-A-PL-11 S1 Rev. P04 MIN-JMA-00-GF-DP-A-PL12 SI Rev. P01 MIN-JMA-00-01-DP-A-PL12 SI Rev. P01 MIN-JMA-00-RL-DP-A-PL-12 S1 Rev. P05 MIN-JMA-00-ZZ-DE-A-PL01 S1 Rev. P04 MIN-JMA-00-ZZ-DE-A-PL02 S1 Rev. P04 MIN-JMA-00-ZZ-DE-A-PL03 S1 Rev. P04 MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-1000 Rev C13 MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-2008 Rev C02 MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-2009 Rev C02 MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-3000 Rev C05 MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-3004 Rev C07 BX47 - Semi Domed Sheffield Stainless Steel Bollard Specifications REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Local Plan: Part One Strategic Policies (2012), Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) and the London Plan (2021). 3. COM5 G General compliance with supporting documentation The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the following has been completed in accordance with the specified supporting plans and/or documents: Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 11 Design & Access Statement; Construction Phase Health and Safety Plan (CPHSP); Arboricultural Impact Assessment dated May 2021; Ecological Assessment dated January 2021; Drainage Strategy dated March 2021; Covering Letter dated July 2021; Planning Statement dated July 2021; Energy Statement dated March 2021; Flood Risk Assessment dated April 2021; Ambient Noise Assessment dated Dec 2020; and Air Quality Assessment dated February 2021. Thereafter the development shall be retained/maintained in accordance with these details for as long as the development remains in existence REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Local Plan: Part One Strategic Policies (2012), Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) and the London Plan (2021). 4 4. NONSC A Accessibility Details pertaining to inclusive accessibility were approved under application reference 2297/APP/2021/4551 (dated 21st July 2022). The development shall be retained/maintained in accordance with these details for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON To ensure an Accessible and Inclusive development for everyone in accordance with Policy D5 of the London Plan (2021). 5. COM10 T Tree to be retained Trees, hedges and shrubs shown to be retained on the approved plan shall not be damaged, uprooted, felled, lopped or topped without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. If any retained tree, hedge or shrub is removed or severely damaged during construction, or is found to be seriously diseased or dying another tree, hedge or shrub shall be planted at the same place or, if planting in the same place would leave the new tree, hedge or shrub susceptible to disease, then the planting should be in a position to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and shall be of a size and species to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be planted in the first planting season following the completion of the development or the occupation of the buildings, whichever is the earlier. Where damage is less severe, a schedule of remedial works necessary to ameliorate the effect of damage by tree surgery, feeding or groundwork shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. New planting should comply with BS 3936 (1992) 'Nursery Stock, Part 1, Specification for Trees and Shrubs' Remedial work should be carried out to BS BS 3998:2010 'Tree work - Recommendations' and BS 4428 Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 11 (1989) 'Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations (Excluding Hard Surfaces)'. The agreed work shall be completed in the first planting season following the completion of the development or the occupation of the buildings, whichever is the earlier. REASON To ensure that the trees and other vegetation continue to make a valuable contribution to the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and to comply with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 6 6. COM8 T Tree Protection Details pertaining to tree protection were approved under application reference 2297/APP/2022/556 (dated 3rd May 2023). The development shall be retained/maintained in accordance with these details for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON To ensure that trees and other vegetation can and will be retained on site and not damaged during construction work and to ensure that the development conforms with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 7. COM9 L Landscape Scheme The landscaping scheme shall be carried out in complete accordance with the following plans: MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-1000 Rev C13 - Site Layout Plan MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-2008 Rev C02 - Bin Store Details MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-2009 Rev C02 - Planter Fence Details MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-3000 Rev C05 - Planting Plan MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-3004 Rev C07 - Planting Plan Two The development shall be retained/maintained in accordance with these details for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON To ensure that the proposed development will preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and provide adequate facilities in compliance with policies DMHB 11, DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 8. NONSC A Automatic Lighting Measures shall be be put in place to ensure that lights, including car park lighting, are automatically turned off when the buildings are not in use. REASON To safeguard residential amenity in accordance with policies DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 11 Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) and to reduce energy demands in accordance with Policy SI 2 of the London Plan (2021). 99. NONSC B Boiler Plant The development hereby approved, shall replace existing boiler plant with low NOX (<40 mg/kWh) boilers as part of the refurbishment works. REASON To improve air quality within the Air Quality Management Area in accordance with Policy DMEI 1 and DME 14 of the Local Plan: Part Two (2021) and Policy SI 1 of the London Plan (2021). 10. NONSC F Fire Strategy Report Within 3 months of the date of this planning permission, an updated Fire Strategy Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out and maintained in full accordance with the approved details. REASON: To ensure that the development meets Fire Safety Standards in accordance with policy D12 of the London Plan (2021). 11. NONSC C Construction Compound Details pertaining to the construction compound were approved under application reference 2297/APP/2022/556 (dated 3rd May 2023). The approved details shall be implemented and maintained throughout the duration of the demolition and construction process. REASON To protect the amenities of neighbouring residents in accordance with Policy DHMB 11 of the Local Plan: Part Two (2020). 12. NONSC M Materials to Match Existing The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building and shall thereafter be retained as such. REASON To safeguard the visual amenities of the area and to ensure that the proposed development does not have an adverse effect upon the appearance of the existing building in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) 13. NONSC D Demolition and Construction Management Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 11 Details pertaining to the Demolition and Construction Management Plan were approved under application reference 2297/APP/2022/556 (dated 3rd May 2023). The approved details shall be implemented and maintained throughout the duration of the demolition and construction process. REASON To safeguard the amenity of surrounding areas in accordance with Policy DMHB11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). I 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. I63 E Equality Act The Equality Act 2010 seeks to protect people accessinggoods, facilities and services from discrimination on thebasis of a 'protected characteristic', which includes thosewith a disability. As part of the Act, service providers areobliged to improve access to and within the structure oftheir building, particularly in situations where reasonableadjustment can be incorporated with relative ease. TheAct states that service providers should think ahead totake steps to address barriers that impede disabledpeople. 3. The following plans have been APPROVED: MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-0001 Rev P01 MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-1000 Rev C13 MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-2008 Rev C02 MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-2009 Rev C02 MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-3000 Rev C05 MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-3004 Rev C07 BX47 - Semi Domed Sheffield Stainless Steel Bollard Specifications 4. The following plans have been SUPERSEDED: Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 11 MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-1000 Rev C15 MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-2009 Rev C01 MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-0005 S1 Rev. P03 MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-3000 D1 Rev. P03 MIN-UBU-XX-GF-DR-L-3001 D1 Rev. P03 5 5. The Council is aware of the presence of land, situated approximately 270 metres from the boundary of the subject site. The materials in the landfill had limited potential to emit gas. However, the current risk of gas migration is considered minimal due to the age of the landfill. It is recommended that the temporary structure/s are suitably placed to minimise the possible entry of any migrating landfill gas/ground gas. 6. Considerations in relation to gas pipeline/s identified on site: Cadent have identified operational gas apparatus within the application site boundary. This may include a legal interest (easements or wayleaves) in the land which restricts activity in proximity to Cadent assets in private land. The Applicant must ensure that proposed works do not infringe on Cadent's legal rights and any details of such restrictions should be obtained from the landowner in the first instance. If buildings or structures are proposed directly above the gas apparatus then development should only take place following a diversion of this apparatus. The Applicant should contact Cadent's Plant Protection Team at the earliest opportunity to discuss proposed diversions of apparatus to avoid any unnecessary delays. If any construction traffic is likely to cross a Cadent pipeline then the Applicant must contact Cadent's Plant Protection Team to see if any protection measures are required. All developers are required to contact Cadent's Plant Protection Team for approval before carrying out any works on site and ensuring requirements are adhered to. Email: plantprotection@cadentgas.com Tel: 0800 688 588 7. Given the nature of the proposed application, it is possible that a crane may be required. We would, therefore, draw the applicant's attention to the requirement within the British Standard Code of Practice for the safe use of Cranes, for crane operators to consult the aerodrome before erecting a crane in close proximity to an aerodrome. This is explained further in Advice Note 4, 'Cranes' (available at http://www.aoa.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/Advice-Note-4-Cranes-2016.pdf) I53 C Compulsory Informative (2) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Hillingdon Local Plan (2012 and 2020) set out below, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and to all relevant material considerations, including the London Plan (2021) and national guidance. Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7 of 11 DMCI 1 Retention of Existing Community Sport and Education Facilities DMCI 1A Development of New Education Floorspace 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 7 Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 4 Public Transport DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP D4 (2021) Delivering good design LPP D5 (2021) Inclusive design LPP S3 (2021) Education and childcare facilities LPP S4 (2021) Play and informal recreation LPP S5 (2021) Sports and recreation facilities LPP SI13 (2021) Sustainable drainage LPP SI2 (2021) Minimising greenhouse gas emissions LPP SI8 (2021) Waste capacity and net waste self-sufficiency LPP T2 (2021) Healthy Streets LPP T4 (2021) Assessing and mitigating transport impacts LPP T5 (2021) Cycling LPP T6 (2021) Car parking NPPF12 -24 NPPF12 2024 - Achieving well-designed places NPPF14 -24 NPPF14 2024 - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flood and coastal change NPPF15 -24 NPPF15 2024 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment NPPF2 -24 NPPF2 2024 - Achieving sustainable development NPPF4 -24 NPPF4 2024 - Decision making NPPF8 -24 NPPF8 2024 - Promoting healthy and safe communities NPPF9 -24 NPPF9 2024 - Promoting sustainable transport H Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 8 of 11 AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History 2297/APP/2021/2704 Minet Junior School Avondale Drive Hayes Extensions, remodeling and refurbishment of the existing Nursery, Infant and Junior Schools Decision: 16-09-2021 Approved 2297/APP/2023/751 Minet Junior School Avondale Drive Hayes An application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary Condition 2 (Approved Drawings) of planning permission reference 2297/APP/2021/2704, dated 17-09-2021, for extensions, remodeling and refurbishment of the existing Nursery, Infant and Junior Schools, to allow the existing hall roof to be replaced. Decision: 09-08-2023 Approved 2297/APP/2024/1212 Minet Junior School Avondale Drive Hayes Non-Material Amendment to planning permission ref: 2297/APP/2021/2704, dated 08-07- 2021 (Extensions, remodelling and refurbishment of the existing Nursery, Infant and Junior Schools), in order to amend Condition 2 (Accordance with Approved Plans). Decision: 18-07-2024 Refused Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 9 of 11 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.CI1 (2012) Community Infrastructure Provision PT1.EM5 (2012) Sport and Leisure PT1.EM6 (2012) Flood Risk Management PT1.EM7 (2012) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PT1.EM8 (2012) Land, Water, Air and Noise Part 2 Policies: DMCI 1 Retention of Existing Community Sport and Education Facilities DMCI 1A Development of New Education Floorspace 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 7 Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 10 of 11 DMT 4 Public Transport DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP D4 (2021) Delivering good design LPP D5 (2021) Inclusive design LPP S3 (2021) Education and childcare facilities LPP S4 (2021) Play and informal recreation LPP S5 (2021) Sports and recreation facilities LPP SI13 (2021) Sustainable drainage LPP SI2 (2021) Minimising greenhouse gas emissions LPP SI8 (2021) Waste capacity and net waste self-sufficiency LPP T2 (2021) Healthy Streets LPP T4 (2021) Assessing and mitigating transport impacts LPP T5 (2021) Cycling LPP T6 (2021) Car parking NPPF2 -24 NPPF2 2024 - Achieving sustainable development NPPF4 -24 NPPF4 2024 - Decision making NPPF8 -24 NPPF8 2024 - Promoting healthy and safe communities NPPF9 -24 NPPF9 2024 - Promoting sustainable transport NPPF12 -24 NPPF12 2024 - Achieving well-designed places NPPF14 -24 NPPF14 2024 - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flood and coastal change NPPF15 -24 NPPF15 2024 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment H Hillingdon Planning Committee - 15th January 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 11 of 11