Planning

Minutes HILLINGDON PLANNING COMMITTEE 15 January 2025 Meeting held at Committee Room 5 - Civic Centre Committee Members Present: Councillors Henry Higgins (Chair) Keith Burrows Elizabeth Garelick Gursharan Mand Jagjit Singh Philip Corthorne Darran Davies LBH Officers Present: Michael Briginshaw, Deputy Team Leader Chris Brady, Planning Team Leader Eoin Concannon, Planning Team Leader Katie Crosbie, Area Planning Service Manager - North Natalie Fairclough, Legal Advisor Roz Johnson, Head of Development Management and Building Control Michael Kemp, Deputy Team Leader Liz Penny, Democratic Services Officer Dr Alan Tilly, Transport, Planning and Development Team Manager 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) Apologies were received from Councillor Roy Chamdal with Councillor Philip Corthorne substituting and from Councillor Adam Bennett with Councillor Darran Davies substituting. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS COMING BEFORE THIS MEETING (Agenda Item 2) There were no declarations of interest. 3. TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3) RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 5 December 2024 be agreed as an accurate record. 4. MATTERS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OR URGENT (Agenda Item 4) None. 5. 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 of business were marked Part I and would be considered in public. 6. 22 BELMONT CLOSE, UXBRIDGE - 79130/APP/2024/1864 (Agenda Item 6) Erection of a detached house with 4 bedrooms and associated parking, amenity and bin/cycle stores (updated plans) Officers introduced the application, highlighted the information in the addendum and made a recommendation for approval. The lead petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee on behalf of the petitioners. Key points highlighted included: 1. The property developer had initially stated that the rear walls of the main house and the ground floor extension would not exceed the rear wal ls of the lead petitioner’s house or extension to minimise overlooking, but this promise had not been kept. 2. The developer had claimed that the petitioner’s building was incorrectly positioned relative to the ordinance survey map but had provided no evidence of this. 3. It was believed that the developer was only interested in adding significant space to each room to increase the property's value. 4. The petitioner had been confident Hillingdon Council would hold the developer accountable, but it appeared the Council may approve the build retrospectively. 5. The breach had been brought to the attention of the Planning Department, but no action had been taken. The petitioner had therefore been obliged to hire a solicitor. 6. Objections focussed on the position of all rear walls and the floor height of the building, impacting the lead petitioner’s privacy. 7. Residents request the Planning Committee defer their decision and visit the site to see the impact for themselves. 8. The raised floor heights compro mised the privacy of ne ighbouring gardens, and residents preferred that the floor levels be reduced rather than having a higher fence. 9. The ground floor bathroom was overlooked by a side door and window not in the original plans, exacerbated by the raised floor heights. 10. A covenant was requested to ensure the patio was lower than the house as per the plans and to ensure that the side window was obscured and non-opening. 11. The petitioner suggested that the building be demolished and rebuilt with lower floor levels and rear walls level with their rear walls. In response to questions from Members, it was clarified that the original plans had not been accurate. All floors in the new building were higher than on the plans which impacted the privacy of neighbours. The agent for the application was in attendance and addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included: 1. The agent confirmed that he had originally designed the house. 2. He addressed concerns about overshadowing, stating that the back of the garden was south-facing and would therefore not be affected by shadowing. 3. The ground floor side -facing window was higher than the neighbouring window, but the floor level was lower due to a larger window. 4. It had been agreed with the planning department that the fen ce would be 2.2 meters high to prevent looking in. 5. It was suggested that silhouettes through the window could be avoided by using a blind. 6. The agent affirmed that the building was not larger than originally planned and that the back wall was slightly further back than the neighbouring house. 1. The original site plan had been based on the Ordinance Survey as required by the Council. 2. The agent had tried without success to discuss the discrepancy with the neighbour. 3. The scaffold had been used to measure the dist ance between the houses, resulting in two different colours on the plan to show the Ordinance Survey vs reality. 4. The building size had been checked by the enforcement officer and matched the original planning permissions. 5. The agent offered to reduce the floor level by 50mm by using a thinner screed. 6. He explained that moving the building forward would result in seeing more of the garden. 7. The attic dormer room was obscured by the roof, preventing any overlooking. Ward Councillor Tony Burles was in attendance and addressed the Committee in support of petitioners claiming that the development had flouted the planning permission and was out of proportion. He recommended that the building be demolished. Councillor Burles confirmed that he had visited the site and advised the Committee Members to do the same before reaching a decision on the matter. Officers were invited to respond to the points raised. They empathised with residents and the petitioner, acknowledging the difficulty in understanding the plans due to multiple iterations across different applications. . The concern about the building extending beyond the rear elevation of the neighbouring property was addressed. It was noted that the replotting of the neighbouring property had resulted in a minor protrusion of 0.7 meter s at ground floor level. The committee report reflected this 0.7 -meter protrusion, and officers had considered whether this extension was harmful. It had been concluded that a 0.7 -meter extension was acceptable compared to the local plan allowance of 3.6 meters for a single-story rear extension. Ground levels were discussed, with officers noting a land level change and a difference of approximately 40 cm between the rear garden and the area around the building. The increase in fini shed floor levels was d eemed not significant enough to depart from policy or cause harm to neighbouring properties in terms of flooding. It was noted that the side elevation window had moved since the original planning application due to the inclusion of an air source heat pump. The window served a bathroom and was mostly obscurely glazed, with no policy position to protect non - habitable rooms from overlooking or overshadowing. Members heard that a 2.2m high fence had been installed to mitigate potential overlooking into the window. The request for a member site visit was addressed, with officers not seeing a departure from the original consent. It was noted that the application needed to be determined within a specific timeframe to avoid the risk of a non-determination appeal. Officers confirmed that the dwelling itself had been built in accordance with the plans, but the neighbouring property had not been plotted correctly, leading to a breach of planning control. The enforcement approach involved nego tiation and the submiss ion of a retrospective application to assess the acceptability of the proposal as built2. It was noted that the previous consent had been considered a fallback position, and the focus was on the differences between the previously ac cepted design and the current proposal. Members requested further clarification regarding the ground levels at the site. It was confirmed that there was a natural ground level change between the application site and the neighbouring property and that a di fference in height of a new development of up to 30 cm was not unusual. No concerns regarding flooding impact had been raised. Members were informed that there was no policy justification for refusal and refusal would be difficult to justify at appeal. In response to further questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that a compliance condition would secure all flooding matters. A further condition would ensure the side window and door would be obscure glazed. Officers did not feel a reduction in scre ed height was required but were happy to add this as a condition if deemed necessary by Members. The legal advisor noted that a site visit would not be advisable unless it was essential to enable Members to reach a decision due to lack of information curr ently available to them. Members raised no further queries or concerns. The officer’s recommendation, subject to the addendum, amendments to Conditions 3 and 8 as outlined by officers and the addition of a Condition in relation to the reduced finished fl oor levels was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to a mendments to Conditions 3 and 8 as outlined in the verbal update and the insertion of an additional Condition to address th e reduced finished floor levels as put forward by the agent in the meeting. 7. 72 HAREFIELD ROAD, UXBRIDGE - 25767/APP/2024/2484 (Agenda Item 7) 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. Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for approval. There was no addendum, but officers suggested an amendment to conditions to require that all windows shown as obscured o n the elevation plan be fitted with obscure glazes. It was also proposed that the reference to EV points be removed from Condition 5 as this was already covered sufficiently under Condition 9. A petition had been received in objection to the application and a written representation had been submitted which was read out for the attention of the Committee. Key points highlighted included:  Previous similar applications by the same applicant had been rejected multiple times.  The current application priori tised one- and two-bedroom dwellings, not aligning with the Council’s ethos of providing family-sized accommodation.  The property’s roof size was too large compared to the surrounding area and not in keeping with the area’s character and appearance.  Significant negative effects on neighbouring properties were noted, including reduced space, increased noise, and air pollution.  Additional traffic from a hypothetical increase from two to nine households would impact noise, air pollution, and traffic safety on Harefield Road.  The application increased the risk to existing residents and pedestrians from Braybourne Close crossing Harefield Road to go to Hermitage School.  No consideration had been given to the dangerous junction from Fairfield Road to Haref ield Road where cars would be unsighted to vehicles leaving the property.  The amount of green space would be reduced due to converting garden space to a car park and would not meet the minimum green space per person.  There would be a net reduction in tr ees, with reliance on trees from adjoining properties for cover.  There would be an inadequate number of car parking spaces (12 instead of the recommended 14).  Potential privacy issues from balconies overlooking surrounding properties were noted.  The lead petitioner urged the Council to consider the repeated rejections and appeals by the applicant and not to waste valuable time and resources on this application. The applicant was in attendance at the meeting and addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included:  The current application being presented was very different from the first iteration.  The scale of the building had been substantially reduced, with the height now much lower than its neighbour to the left and equal to the neighbour on the right.  The width had also been reduced to match the width of the buildings to the left.  The gaps left between the buildings were a minimum of 5 metres.  The building to the right was much wider and screened by a 65 -meter row of protected trees.  The rear projection had been reduced in depth significantly.  The previous application had been approved by the inspector, and the building being considered was the same size as the approved scheme.  The application proposed a car parking area to the rear, replicat ing the parking arrangements of the two neighbouring blocks of flats.  The parking area abutted the petitioner's property at the very end of their long garden.  Twelve car spaces were provided for the nine flats, supported by the Highways Officer.  The 2021 census showed that less than 50% of flat owners had access to a car or a van hence the amount of car spaces proposed was deemed suitable.  An undertaking with the Coun cil restricted future occupants from applying for parking permits on surrounding streets.  The two previous planning applications for nine flats on the site were comparable in terms of highways impact.  The appeals inspector had concluded that refusal on highways amenity grounds would not be justified.  The Council's Highways Officer had never rais ed any objection on highway safety grounds.  The development would only add two to three extra vehicle movements during peak hours.  The previous applications had been refused due to the scale of the building being considered overdevelopment and its impact on the street scene..  The criticisms had been taken on board and acted on constructively, gaining support from the inspector.  Creating seven much-needed extra dwellings was believed to benefit the area.  The improved scheme had the full support of the planning department.  An alternative site layout plan and revised BNG report had been submitted to the planning department. In response to questions from Members, the applicant confirmed that, although it was a requirement to include a replacement family dwellin g, one and two -bedroom apartments were much more desirable than a three -bedroom flat hence only one of the latter had been included in the scheme. Members sought further clarification in respect of the rear area and enquired whether a barrier would be installed to protect the community amenity green space. The applicant confirmed that a full landscaping plan would be submitted, and bollards could be installed if required. Ward Councillor Tony Burles was in attendance and addressed the Committee Members in support of petitioners. Councillor Burles expressed concern that the applicant was not building in accordance with the planning permission granted to him. He also highlighted the fact that Harefield Road was a very fast road and additional cars in the a rea would exacerbate the problem. Councillor Burles noted that there was a need for family accommodation in Hillingdon rather than additional flats. In response to further questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that the PTAL rating of the site wa s 1 which was considered poor. The Highways Officer in attendance confirmed that it was felt the number of parking spaces would not cause risk to the traffic within the area as Harefield Rd had a 30 mile an hour speed limit, street lighting and footways. M oreover, sight lines for vehicles pulling out onto the highway were protected. It was noted that the number of cars leaving the site was deemed to be insignificant and could be absorbed by the existing traffic flows. In reply to their requests for further clarification, Members heard that planning officers deemed the proposed development to be an efficient use of the site. In respect of tree retention, it was confirmed that all the t rees which were of visual amenity value and contributed to the character of the area would be retained on the site. Councillors enquired whether the previous refusal on appeal had been purely based on size and scale. It was confirmed that this was the case. Members requested the inclusion of a condition to protect the amenity space to the rear of the site as previously discussed. They raised no further questions. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously approved. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject t o a mendments to Conditions 5 and 6 as outlined in the verbal update, the amendment of Condition 5 (landscaping) to include details of a method to demarcate the communal amenity space from the shared accessway and completion of s106 agreement. 8. HARROW AND WEMBLEY SOCIETY MODEL ENGINEERS, ROXBOURNE PARK, EASTCOTE - 22899/APP/2023/2219 (Agenda Item 8) Part-retrospective provision of one portacabin with paint -finished timber cladding to provide a ticket office and community space. Officers introduced t he application, highlighted the information in the addendum and made a recommendation for approval. The lead petitioner was not in attendance but the agent for the application had submitted a presentation and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:  Members of the Harrow and Wembley Society Model Engineers had been members for about five years.  The railway consisted of about half a mile of track and had provided steam and electric rides for local people since 1978.  The area was r ented from Harrow Council and operated by volunteers from the Harrow and Wembley Society Model Engineers, a not-for-profit organisation.  The railway operated every Sunday afternoon during the summer and held special events over Easter, Halloween, and Christmas.  In 2024, the railway had carried around 4,000 passengers and attracted about 1,000 visitors on public holidays.  The site provided a destination for families, offering tables and benches for picnics.  The society ran various clubs for local people, inc luding a club for teenagers to learn technical skills.  They facilitated parties for scouts, Cubs, children with special needs and school visits, and hosted birthday parties.  The society had about 75 members and had been featured in two BBC documentaries and a local podcast.  The clubhouse contained 11 carriages, 10 locomotives, workshop machinery, and a signal box.  Due to increasing demand and the aging members, they needed additional space and proposed using a portacabin. In response to their requests for clarification, Members were informed that there had previously been a Clubhouse on site. Harrow and Wembley Society Model Engineers had needed additional space and had been given permission by Harrow to install two portacabins on site. However, it had tran spired that they needed planning permission for these hence the decision to remove one. In respect o f antisocial behaviour, the Committee was informed that the portacabins had been on site for 16 months and, during that time, there had only been one tag on the back of the building. There was a presence on site at least two days a week and, though not lit, the site was completely fenced for added security. Officers confirmed that a consultation with the Metropolitan Police had not been deemed necessary. Councillors raised no further concerns or objections. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the amendments to Conditions 3, 4 and 5 as detailed in the Addendum Report and no materially significant representations received at the end of the public re -consultation (ends 17-01-25) as detailed in the Committee Report. 9. 140 FAIRHOLME CRESCENT, HAYES - 57533/APP/2023/3146 (Agenda Item 9) Creation of an extra unit in 6 unit HMO (Class C4). Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for approval. The lead petitioner had submitted a written representation and photos on behalf of petitioners objecting to the prop osal. The statement was read out to the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included: 1. Several issues had come to light over the past year, significantly impacting the quality of life for nearby residents. 2. Despite being approved as a 6 -bedroom HMO fo r studen ts, there were often more than six residents living at the property, sometimes including couples and children. 3. Frequent disturbances during evening hours disrupted the peace and quiet expected in a residential area. 4. Large amounts of rubbish were fr equently left on the driveway, leading to unpleasant smells and attracting vermin. 5. Multiple reports of marijuana being smoked at the property forced neighbours to close their windows due to the smell. 6. Parking was a significant issue, with several cars freq uently p arked at the property. 7. Rear access was constantly used, compromising the security of neighbouring properties and posing a significant safety risk. 8. The garden was often littered with rubbish and discarded mattresses, creating an ideal habitat for vermin. 9. Residents frequently cooked on the decking outside, which was unsanitary and posed a considerable fire risk. 10. The petitioner urged the Council to reject the application, stating that any further expansion would be detrimental to both the immediate nei ghbours and the wider community. The applicant and agent were not in attendance and no written submissions had been received. Members enquired what action had been taken by the Council’s licencing team regarding the complaints raised by residents. Offic ers explained that the planning process for HMOs differed from the licensing process. However, officers had conducted a search but had been unable to locate any reports of antisocial behaviour. Members were informed that the certificate in place was a Ce rtificate of Lawful Development hence there were limits to the planning controls that could be deployed. However, the development brought forward a site plan that included a location for rubbish bins. Officers had enforcement powers to undertake enforcement action should the bins not be placed in that location. Details of waste and cycle storage and EV charging points had been requested and officers had everything in their power in terms of proposing conditions on the development. In response to questions from th e Committee regarding fire safety, it was confirmed that the fire brigade regularly inspected the site. Members expressed concern regarding potential misuse of the units but were advised that a management plan would not be justified in this case. Councillors referred to the Case Officer’s visit to the site in February 2023 and enquired whether notice would have been given. Officers confirmed that they were not required to give notice but generally did to ensure they were able to gain access. The P lanning Officer had undertaken more than two visits but had not checked numbers of occupants. However, a condition was included to restrict the number of people residing in the property – visitor numbers would not be restricted. The Committee sought furt her details of parking arrangements at the site. It was confirmed that two parking spaces were available which was deemed sufficient. The Highways Officer advised Members that the London Plan was silent on parking standard for HMOs. The Local Plan indicated 3 spaces would be appropriate, but these were maximum standards. However, the Highways Officer highlighted the need for a condition to regularise the situation whereby cars were mounting the kerb to access the hard standing; this was illegal and caused d amage to the footway. An extension to the existing vehicular crossover was recommended. At the request of Members, it was agreed that officers would advocate for 7 bins to serve the 7 rooms at the development. These details would be duly assessed by the Case Officer and management. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the insertion of a new condition providing for an extension to the existing vehicular crossover and an amendment to Condition 7 (waste) to ensure the details demonstrated that the refuse storage provision would be of sufficient capacity to serve the approved number of maximum occupants. 10. 100 EXMOUTH ROAD, SOUTH RUISLIP - 42576/APP/2024/2465 (Agenda Item 10) Retention of a double storey rear and side extension with amendments to fenestration and height of existing single storey rear extension (retrospective) Officers introduced the application and made a r ecommendation for approval. Petitioners were in attendance and addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal. Key points highlighted included: 1. The case was complex, involving many unfortunate factors and a wrongly drawn plan by the applicant's architect. 2. The Council was accused of making an oversig ht and not applying local planning recommendations to set back the side wall of the rear double storey extension by 1m. 3. Their orientation to the extension was unique and critically positioned, but the Council had not applied the local recommendation. 4. The affected neighbours felt that the Council had not paid enough attention to the critical details of the planning application. 5. Residents had trusted the Council but believed they had been unfairly treated i n this case. 6. The petitioners requested the Councillor s reach a “no decision” on this application at this stage. 7. The planning officers' detailed report indicated that Councillors would be minded to approve the second application. 8. Residents hoped that, rath er than referring to DRE guidelines and sunlight/daylight calculations, Councillors would consider the simpler build guidelines and the Council's one-metre side boundary distance policy. 9. It was pointed out that previous appeals in the road in 2019 and 2020 had met the Council's requirements to be set 1m away from shared side boundaries at first floor level and created minimal overshadowing to neighbours. 10. The neighbours argued that other referenced two -storey side extensions were not relevant to the current application. 11. It was believed that a no decision would support the nearest neighbour and retain the approval granted earlier in 2024. 12. Petitioners highlighted the need to bring important circumstances in front of the elected Planning Committee. They felt it was virtually impossible for planning permission prev iously granted, whether by clerical miscalculation or planning policy oversight, to be revoked. 13. It was hoped that an identical planning decision would not be made within the suburbs of the Borough of Hil lingdon until changes to current planning guidance were merited. In response to questions from Members, petitioners confirmed that a ‘no decision’ was requested at this time. The applicant and agent for the application were in attendance and addressed t he Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:  The agent emphasised the pressure his clients had been under for the past six months.  He reported that neighbours had been aware of the proposed plans throughout the planning application stage, but co mplaints had only started when the first floor of the rear extension was being constructed.  The development was constructed in compliance with the approved drawings, despite a slight inaccuracy in the relationship with the neighbouring properties.  The agen t accepted responsibility for the inaccuracy but had expected the Planning Officer to pick up any relevant discrepancy during the site visit.  He questioned the validity of the petition, noting that over 20 signatures had come from just four households.  It was argued that the development did not affect the street scene and that his clients were prejudiced by the slightly inaccurate relationship.  The drawings had been corrected, a daylight and sunlight assessment completed, and everything now complied with th e guidelines and requirements of the planning department.  It was felt that a decision could and should be made at the meeting.  The applicant had invited neighbours to view the plans, but one neighbour had not attended the meeting.  He had faced objections after the second floor was being constructed, despite having shown the plans to neighbours.  It had been necessary to rush the construction for financial reasons and the applicants had invested all their life savings into the house.  The client was not in a position to amend the house and felt they were being unfairly dragged through the process.  The client hoped for a favourable decision to put the matter to rest. A written statement from Ward Councillors Richard Mills and Heena Makwana had been received a nd was read out to the Committee. The Ward Councillors noted that both the petitioner and the applicant had engaged with them on the matter and had been advised to work closely with officers to ensure all processes were followed correctly. Members of the C ommittee were respectfully requested to carefully con sider all the information presented to them by officers, the petitioner and the applicant to enable them to reach a fair and informed decision. In response to requests for clarification from Councillor s, it was confirmed that it was the applicant’s responsibility to submit a factually correct application with accurate plans. It was acknowledged that there had been a slight departure from the from the 1m rule which tried to ensure space between propertie s in respect of street character. Members heard that the development had been constructed in compliance with the approved drawings, despite a slightly inaccurate relationship with the neighbouring properties. The daylight and sunlight assessment had passed all the requirements. It was felt that the development retained a level of openness, with a 0.6 metre distance to the front and up to 1.1 metres at the upper floor level. The back reduced to 0.4 metres, slightly clipping the 45° test but overall, it was f elt that the development was acceptable. In response to further questions from Members, It was clarified that building control records were confidential and that applicants could use third -party registered building control approvers, meaning the Council might not have received the reports. Concerns were raised about planning enforcement. It was revealed that an enforcement investigation had been opened due to concerns about the footprint during the building stage. A site inspection had been carried out, an d a warning letter sent. Planning officers had also visited the site to ensure the accuracy of the plans. It was noted that a discrepancy had been discovered during the building process. An enforcement officer had visited the site. It had been noted that alterations from the approved plans were minimal; a stop notice had not been issued but a warning letter had been sent out. Members noted that the officers' recommendation had been based on the merits of the scheme, not its retrospective nature. No further concerns were raised. The officer’s recommendatio n was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed with 6 votes in support and one abstention. RESOLVED: That the application be approved. 11. 38 VARCOE GARDENS, HAYES - 79116/APP/2024/2794 (Agenda Item 11) Conversion of integral garage to habitable accommodation with alterations to fenestration. Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for approval. A petition had been received in objection to the applic ation. The lead petitioner had submitted a written representation and photos on behalf of the Hayes -Arena Residents’ Association, representing 261 households. The statement was read out for the attention of the Committee. Key points highlighted included: 1. Parking pressure - the propose d garage conversion would result in the permanent loss of an off -street parking space which would exacerbate parking stress in Varcoe Gardens thereby impacting public safety and the quality of life of residents. 2. Disruption of community character – the development would disrupt the uniform architectural design of Varcoe Gardens, which was a key feature of the estate’s character and aesthetic value. 3. Lack of disability justification and past rejections – the Hayes-Arena estate had granted garage conversions only once, for 85 Varcoe Gardens, and solely on the grounds of addressing disability -related needs. The current application lacked any such justification. Similar applications in the estate had been rejected in the past due t o increased parking pressure and disruption to community character—concerns that were equally relevant in this case. 4. Risk of overcrowding and potential HMO use – residents were concerned that the site would be converted to an HMO in the future. Allowing th is development would increase the risk of overcrowding and antisocial behaviour, negatively impacting the neighbourhood. 5. Precedents and community impact - the Hayes-Arena estate had experienced significant challenges due to the HMO at 12 Divine Way, which had led to increased emergency service visits and community disruptions. Residents feared that approving the current application may set a precedent for further profit-driven developments that undermined the community’s cohesion and quality of life. The agent for the application was also in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included: 1. It was confirmed that there was no intention of applying for an HMO. Members were assured that there was a clause in the deed preventin g further applications for an HMO. 2. The precedent for the area had been set by number 85, which had been approved under similar circumstances. 3. The planning team had assessed and found the proposal acceptable and had not set any new precedents. 4. The current internal parking space had been deemed insufficient for new models of cars, especially for disability-enabled cars. 5. The proposal retained one off -street parking space, and no further parking stress was anticipated. 6. The character and design of the buildings were maintained, with a similar approach to number 85. 7. The applicant reassured that the design would match the existing buildings. 8. Concerns about antisocial behaviour were addressed, and it was clarified that a single-family house would not result in more antisocial behaviour. 9. The appl icant had a full written agreement with the freeholders and estate management, ensuring alignment with the approval. 10. The application complied with local planning policies and the London plan. 11. The proposal respected the charact er of the area and addressed the specific needs of the homeowner. 12. There were no material planning reasons to refuse the application. Ward Councillor Kamal Kaur had submitted a brief written representation in support of petitioners which was read out for the attention of the Committee. In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed that the garage was underutilised and likely to decay over time. The proposal involved replacing the garage door with a window, which would match the existing property's development pattern. Members emphasised the importance of preserving the character and harmony of the terraced homes and suggested setting a condition to prevent the property from turning into an unlicensed HMO. Members raised no further concerns or obser vations. The officer’s recomme ndation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed with 6 votes in favour and one abstention. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the inclusion of a n ew condition removing permitted development rights to convert the dwelling into an HMO. 12. MINET JUNIOR SCHOOL, AVONDALE DRIVE, HAYES - 2297/APP/2024/2171 (Agenda Item 12) 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 Nur sery, Infant and Junior Schools) to make alterations, including changes to hard and soft landscaping, bin storage, and cycle storage (Part Retrospective and Part Proposed) Officers introduced the application, highlighted the information in the addendum a nd made a recommendation for approval. Members were in support of the proposal and raised no concerns. The officer’s recommendation was 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 Time Not Specified. These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of the resolutions please contact Democratic Services - Email: democratic@hillingdon.gov.uk on . Circulation of these minutes is to Councillors, Officers, the Press and Members of the Public.

Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Application Report Case Officer: Emilie Bateman 77170/APP/2024/1240 Date Application Valid: 08.05.24 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 14.02.25 Application Type: Full Ward: Northwood Applicant: Ms Diana Ehigiamusoe Site Address: 36 Moor Park Road, Northwood Proposal: Change of use from residential dwelling (Use (Use Class C2), to include a cycle and bin store. 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 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 1 Deferred at Planning Committee on 5 September 2024 1.1 This application was deferred at Planning Committee on 5 September 2024 given ambiguity surrounding the number of staff, shift times and impact on parking, and for members to conduct a site visit. Members Site Visit 1.2 A member site visit was carried out on 23 January 2025. This was held during the morning school drop-off times to provide context regarding the traffic and parking concerns raised in representations. However, it is noted that the proposed staff daytime shift starts prior to this, at 7.30am. The site and other properties within the street were also viewed from the footpath, to gain an appreciation of the character and visual amenity of the street scene. 1.3 The key matters looked at on the member site visit were: Impact on parking. The relationship between the proposal and adjacent properties. Impact on the character and appearance of the street scene. Staffing Considerations Review 1.4 Following the deferral, greater clarification was sought from the applicants regarding the number of staff and children that would be in the home. The applicants submitted a revised Management Plan Rev A following the with revisions to the morning shift start time of staff, which would now commence a full 45 minutes before the school drop-off times. 1.5 The Management Plan includes a staff rota which demonstrates during the day there would typically be 3no. support workers and 1no. manager on site, with 2no. support workers overnight (1no. manager on call). 1.6 The Management Plan further specifies that there would be a maximum of four staff members on site during the day shift, which would be secured by condition. Staffing would follow a rota system, with staff working in shifts to ensure continuous support. The home would be limited to accommodating a maximum of 4 children. The staff-to-child ratio would depend on the level of need of the individual child. Notwithstanding this, the planning permission Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press would be subject to a condition securing a maximum of four staff on the premises at any one time. This would mean that the proposed home would be unable to accommodate for example 4 children with needs that would require staffing above a 1:1 child to staff ratio. Scenarios on staff to child ratio has been presented within the main section of the report for reference. Consequently, the number of children accommodated at any given time would be adjusted (reduced from maximum 4 children) according to requirements to ensure that the staff-to-child ratio remains within the established limit of a maximum of four staff members on site. 1.7 The Management Plan includes further details regarding visitors to the home and should be considered alongside the updated Parking Plan, which includes an additional on-site parking space for visitors. Due to the nature of the proposal, unplanned visits would not be permitted. All visits to the home would be minimal in number and pre-arranged, ensuring effective management of on-site parking provisions. Visitors would include social workers and Ofsted care and typically would visit the home once every four to six weeks. Parking Management Review 1.8 Number 36 Moor Park Road benefits from a large front garden and driveway, with a detached garage. 1.9 Concerns were raised regarding the on-site parking arrangements, as the previously proposed configuration would result in vehicles being blocked in. Additionally, due to the uncertainty surrounding staffing numbers, there were concerns about the adequacy of on-site parking and the potential impact on on-street parking availability. 1.10 Following the deferral, a condition has been recommended to limit the number of staff on-site to a maximum of four at any given time. As a result, the on-site parking provision has been maintained at five proposed spaces, with four allocated for staff and one space set aside for visitors to the home. 1.11 The amended parking layout plan and tracking demonstrates that all five proposed parking spaces can be accessed and exited without obstruction. The revised plan and supporting documentation have been reviewed by the Highways Officer, who has raised no objections. 1.12 The updated parking plan would necessitate the removal of a small amount of soft landscaping to ensure sufficient access and egress for all vehicles. s Officers have reviewed the proposal and raised no objections, provided that a condition is applied to ensure that the works do not impact the mature tree on site. 1.13 The remainder of this Committee Report has been updated from the original report which was brought to the Planning Committee on the 5 September Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 2024. These updates reflect the additional information received and clarifications that had been sought post-committee deliberation / deferral. 2 Consultation Update 2.1 Since the deferral of this application, a 14-day re-consultation took place upon receipt of revised information. It is noted that two new petitions have been received with 111 and 80 valid signatures each. The outcome sought by the petitions is refusal. 2.2 site visit a couple of minor alterations have been submitted which include a revised layout of the proposed parking which now depicts the existing building with front bay windows, as well as parking layout modifications to demonstrate that the site could accommodate 5 no. on-site parking spaces with manoeuvring. A revised Management Plan was also provided with the staff shift starting time changed to 7.30am in the morning rather than the previous 8.00am. These changes are considered improvements to the scheme. Therefore, it was not necessary nor a requirement to re-consult on these minor revisions. 3 Executive Summary 3.1 Full planning consent is sought for the change of use from a residential dwellinghouse (C3 use class) to a ccare home for up to 4 children (C2 use class). 3.2 The application is subject to two additional petitions following the original petition containing 176 signatures in objection to the proposal. The two recent petitions contain 111 and 80 valid signatures each. The concerns raised within these petitions are set out in more detail in Section 8 of this report, but in summary include loss of residential use, impacts upon the local highway network and parking, crime and safety, noise and disturbance, environmental impacts and loss of character of the area. 3.3 The proposed development would result in a loss of C3 use class accommodation. However, a residential care home also serves as a form of residential accommodation for a specific section of the community. Furthermore, the proposed development would aid in meeting an identified need for C2 use class accommodation in the Borough and London as a whole. This has been demonstrated through the evidence provided by the applicant and the comments received from both the Planning Policy Team who accept the use would be considered an exceptional circumstance and weight is given to the Care Home policies within relevant sections of the Development Plan. This is a significant planning consideration which weighs in favour of the development. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 3.4 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. No significant external changes are proposed, and the property would continue to resemble a residential dwelling from the street scene, integrating with the local residential character. a maximum of 4 children controlled by condition. The overall scale of the proposal is modest and would be a small-scale residential care home rather than a larger commercial care home facility. A condition secured on the level of staff at the property at any given time (maximum 4 staff) would ensure it remains similar in scale to a residential property rather than an over-intensified commercial care home. 3.5 Sufficient information has also been provided to demonstrate that the off-street parking within the site can accommodate the needs of the staff and visitors without leading to disruption to the local highway. Follow-up site inspections by Officers have taken place on two separate occasions post-committee to assess the street parking. One inspection took place during the school drop-off hours, and officer observations confirmed that the parking pressures and congestion along the street during that time were modest with sufficient street parking still available. However, as there is sufficient off-street parking to accommodate staff and visitors, it is unlikely that the proposal would require the use of existing street parking. The proposal would not give rise to a material increase in trip generation and the Highways Officer has raised no objections subject to conditions, which have been adopted in this recommendation for approval. 3.6 The proposal would provide an appropriate living environment for future occupiers and would not unduly impact upon the residential amenity of neighbouring occupants. Sufficient internal space would be provided for both staff and prospective occupants of the proposed home. 3.7 A revised Management Plan, Noise Management Plan and Good Neighbour Policy has been submitted which demonstrates how the use would integrate within the local community without causing any significant harm to the wider neighbourhood in terms of comings and goings, noise and disturbance or anti- social behaviour. Given the modest size (maximum of 4no. children and 4 no. staff) of the proposal as well as the accompanying documentation, it is considered that the proposal would not cause any significant impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents or the wider community. 3.8 The overall scale, mitigation measures and conditions recommended would would not cause harm to the local character of the area, impact the wider community or neighbours amenity. It must however be noted that the Applicant would still require permission from Ofsted to run a Care Home from the property. This would include a vigorous assessment of the property and applicant suitability, including safeguarding measures to protect children. This assessment however would be outside the realms of the planning assessment. 3.9 Due regard has been given to residents s Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press against the application. However, it is concluded that the proposal complies 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. 4 The Site and Locality 4.1 The application site comprises a two-storey detached dwelling and detached single storey garage located within a generous plot along the northern side of Moor Park Road. The site is characterised by a generous front and rear private garden. The property is set-back from the highway with off-street parking to the front for up to five vehicles. 4.2 The site is covered by Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 141. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, characterised by mainly large, detached two storey dwelling houses which have been extended overtime and benefit from off-street parking. To the west of the site, St. Martins Preparatory School is situated (a couple of plots away from the site) which is a primary school for boys aged 3-13 years old. The application site is not located within a Conservation Area and there are no heritage designations nearby. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Block Plan Figure 3: Application Property and garage Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 4: On-street parking to front of site (restrictions between 1pm-2pm) Figure 5 Rear Elevation Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figures 6: Showing existing hardsurfacing, access arrangements and garage Figure 7: Demonstrating garage carparking space Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 5 Proposal 5.1 Planning permission is sought for the change of use from a residential dwelling (Use Class C3) to a c (Use Class C2). The proposed change of use would facilitate the provision of residential accommodation for up to 4 no. children between the ages of 12 and 17 years old. The intended service provider (New Chapters Homes) has set out within the revised Management Plan submitted post-committee, that there would be a maximum of 4no. staff on site at any given time, and 4no. children within the care home. It seeks to offer a care model that caters to the needs of local children in the Hillingdon area and its surrounds, enabling children to maintain connections with their community, friends, and family. 5.2 The proposed accommodation would be designed to provide specialised support for children facing emotional and behavioural challenges. The care provided would be 24 hours a day with a Senior Manager along with up to 3 other staff on site during the daytime hours and 2 staff members during the night period with a manager on-call. 5.3 Bedrooms would be provided on the first floor with the ground floor providing living space and reception areas associated with the care home. No extensions or external alterations to the building are proposed to facilitate the change of use. External cycle parking and a bin storage area associated with the proposed use would be situated along western side of the plot between the flank wall of the main building and the garage. 5.4 site visit some minor alterations have been submitted which include a revised layout of the proposed parking which now depicts the existing building with front bay windows, as well as parking layout modifications to demonstrate that the site could accommodate 5 no. on-site parking spaces with manoeuvring. A revised Management Plan was also provided with the morning staff shift starting time changed to 7.30am in the morning rather than the previous 8.00am. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 8: Proposed Elevations (please note larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Figure 9: Proposed floor plans (please note larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 10: Proposed Car Park Layout Plan (please note larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) 6 Relevant Planning History 6.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 6.2 It should be noted that planning permission was granted in 2022 (ref. 77170/APP/2022/1000) for a domestic extension comprising a side and front infill together with a roof conversion. This scheme has not been implemented to date and the current application does not incorporate this as a part of the design. The scheme provided extra internal living space and improved bedroom sizes. It does not lead to any additional bedrooms over and above the existing number of 5 no. bedrooms. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7 Planning Policy 7.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 8 Consultations and Representations 8.1 The adjoining neighbouring properties and Northwood Residents Association were consulted on 21st of May 2024 which expired on 12th June 2024. 93 letters of objection were received from a total of 74 individual households. Two petitions in objection to the proposal have also been received. These have 111 and 80 signatories, respectively. 8.2 Following receipt of revisions, a 14-day re-consultation took place, expiring on 28th of December 2024. An additional 62 objections were received with 35 being from the same residents. 8.3 It is noted that some representations were received after the consultation expiry date, however, all representations received have been considered. 8.4 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 111 signatures have been received against the application 1. No exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated requiring the loss of residential dwelling and commercial use. Discussed at paragraphs 9.1-9.20 of this report. 2. The proposed use is not suitable for a residential care home. Discussed at paragraphs 9.1-9.20 and 9.53-9.59 of this report. 3. Anti-social behaviour concerns. Discussed at paragraphs 9.87-9.97 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 4. Noise and disturbance. Discussed at paragraphs 9.30-9.52 of this report. 5. Out of character and loss of amenity. Discussed at paragraphs 9.17 and 9.27-9.52 of this report. A petition of 80 signatures have been received against the application 1. Parking and traffic concerns. Discussed at paragraphs 9.60-9.73 of this report 2. Pollution concerns with the additional vehicular movements and CO2 generation and other harmful gas emissions. The CO2 emissions would be similar to that of a typical C3 use. Also discussed at paragraphs 9.85 9.86. 120 letters of objection have been received from a total of 91 individual households I. Not in keeping and out of character. Inappropriate use in a residential street. Negative visual impact on the area. Change to a business which is different to the local character. Discussed at paragraphs 9.15-9.17 and 9.21-9.26 of this report. II. Reduction in residential accommodation. Discussed at paragraphs 9.1 to 9.20 of this report. III. Anti-social behaviour and safety concerns; there is a pre-school next door and would adversely affect the children; safety and security; crime will increase; history of the site used for drug dealing. Discussed at paragraphs 9.87-9.97 of this report. IV.Potential Social Problems - safeguarding concerns for children; impact on local children; disrupt local schools; Neighbourhood would Discussed and paragraphs 9.87-9.97 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press feel unsafe; older generation feel unsafe; lead to the increase in the emergency services. V.Traffic and parking concerns - lack of parking with very poor PTAL; constant flow of staff and visitors; not enough parking for the care workers; extra pressures with school adjacent the property; servicing of the building will cause parking and safety issues; constant traffic; emergency vehicles; concern regarding children using bicycles and the safety. Discussed at paragraphs 9.60-9.73 of this report. VI. Concerns regarding updated parking plan shift pattern crossover and does not show bay window. Amended drawings were received that show the bay windows included. The typical shifts are described in paragraph 9.41. VII.Environmental issues - Carbon Emissions from cars comings and goings; additional pollution. The CO2 emissions would be similar to that of a typical C3 use. Also discussed at paragraphs 9.85-9.86. VIII.Noise and disturbance - The existing road is very quiet, and the use would lead to an increase in noise and disturbance; noise from coming and goings; intensification of the site by at least 12 people expected; Potentially Discussed at paragraphs 9.30-9.52. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 24-hour access for visitors. IX.Poor internal and external facilities; do not show adequate toilet and washing facilities; no garden space; insufficient services for the care home; current property not fit for the use mould could impact on health of occupants; current infrastructure not designed to support the increase; no open spaces, recreational facilities or parks within easy walking distance; private garden not big enough; 21% of care homes below standards. Discussed at paragraphs 9.53-9.59. X. Concerns regarding the current state of the property (proposal does not reference refurbishment). The quality of the accommodation proposed is also discussed in paragraphs 9.53-9.59. Internal works which involve refurbishment of the existing interior can be carried out without the need of planning permission. While the proposal does not propose any extensions or refurbishment works which require planning permission, the home would also be assessed by Ofsted who would ensure the home is suitable for care home provision. XI. Concerns regarding the history of the applicant / company (including The applicant has provided a statement with regards to qualifications. It is not a Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press nature of privatising . material planning consideration to assess the history of the applicant or company. Any permission would also be subject to approval from Ofsted who would assess both the applicant and the property suitability and ensure all safeguarding measures are complied with. XII. Not being consulted. The statutory requirement for consultation has been undertaken. All adjoining neighbours and those who submitted an objection or representation have been consulted in the most recent round of consultation that closed on the 28 December 2024. XIII.Negatively impact property values. This is not a material planning consideration. XIV.Alternative locations should be considered. The planning application is required to be assessed on its own merits. XV.Concerns regarding expansion of the site. There are no proposed extensions to the property. Each application is assessed on its own merits. XVI.Overlooking / loss of privacy. Discussed in paragraph 9.29. XVII.Concern regarding future HMO or conversion into flats. The proposal does not propose an HMO or flats. XVIII.Lack of information regarding how many children, mixed or single sex. The management plan and supporting statements provides adequate information regarding the number of children and staff. The information on individual children and gender mix is not a Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press material planning consideration. XIX. Commercial nature of the proposal. Discussed at paragraphs 9.15-9.17. XX. Ambiguity regarding children and staffing numbers. The revised Management Plan provides details on this matter. In addition, a maximum 4no. children and 4no. staff would be secured by condition. XXI. Concerns regarding lack of control post- planning permission. Discussed in paragraph 9.46. It is noted that the measures would be secured by condition, and these are enforceable. XXII. Concerns regarding education of the children. This is addressed in paragraph 9.99. The education of the children would be a responsibility of a group of professional support workers which may include the carer, social worker, educational professionals and the child themselves. As stated in the management plan, each child would be individually accessed and may require different levels of care. The education of the individual child would depend on the individual circumstances and may involve home schooling. Irrespective, this is not specifically a material planning consideration. XXIII. Lack of community engagement from the applicant. The Local Planning Authority have carried out the statutory consultation required for an application of this scale. As the application is not a major development, there would be no general requirement for the applicant to carry out a community Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press engagement exercise prior to submission. XXIV. Not policy compliant. The application has been reviewed against national and local policies and found to be acceptable against the Development Plan as a whole. XXV. Ofsted encourages providers to locate their homes in areas where there is good schools and recreational facilities. The planning merits of the change of use are discussed within Section 9 of the report below. The application would also be subject to receiving Ofsted approval. Details of this is addressed at paragraphs 9.100 - 9.103 of this report. One representation was received in support of the proposal. a. Supportive of helping children who require care. Noted. Local MP 1. Noise concerns. Discussed at paragraphs 9.30-9.52. 2. Anti-social behaviour concerns. Discussed at paragraphs 9.87-9.97 of this report. Northwood Residents Association There is a school just three doors away. Given the intensive care to be provided, those in care could be a danger to the school children if they are able to leave the house without supervision, even if not permitted to do so. Also raises concerns that the level of care that is to be provided to future occupants will result in a Safety concerns of residents and children are discussed at paragraphs 9.87-9.97 of this report. Noise concerns are discussed with 9.30 9.52 of the report. The applicant has also provided both a Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press facility with the potential for 24 hour 7 days a week noise disturbance to adjoining residential properties including from comings and goings of staff, and it is considered doubtful that planning conditions could address such concerns. Noise Management Plan and Management Plan, the details of which have been conditioned. We remain concerned, like others who were in the room, that the applicant wouldn't answer possibly the most important question at the committee meeting, of how many carers there would need to be if all four children were highly needy, and the applicants only response was that it wouldn't happen. However, once planning consent is granted, there is nothing stopping them, or a successor company, from housing four highly needy children and the carers that go with that. The applicant has provided an updated management plan. In addition, the number of children and staff would be limited to four by condition. Such conditions on maximum staffing numbers have been used in education settings such as schools, which ensures that the use adopts to the limitations set out by the planning conditions. This condition is reasonable and enforceable. We do not believe that the traffic/parking Management Plan is an effective one. It is wholly dependent on staff travelling to and from the property other than by car, but there is no obligation on the applicant or staff to ensure that happens. The applicant is a commercial concern so is there for profit. This is discussed 9.60- 9.73 of this report. The parking management plan provides parking for 4 members of staff and 1 space. Amended plans have demonstrated that all 5 spaces can manoeuvre in and out of the space with ease without causing disturbance to the highway network. While some staff may use public transport, walking or cycling, the plan is based on the worst-case scenario. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Northwood Residents Association (Additional comments following further consultation) The applicant has not responded to the fact that they stated a reason for wanting Northwood as a location is the availability of schools. However, as has been pointed out, there are no state schools in Northwood for children of that age. It actually makes Northwood a relatively poor location, given the supervision needed for these children. The is discussed at paragraphs 9.98-9.99 of this report We continue to object on the same grounds as already submitted. The revised Management Plan still has the shortcomings already stated in previous objections. There is inadequate on-site car parking, and there are no state schools for children of this age in Northwood, notwithstanding the applicants assertion that there are. The other points of objection still stand. These issues have been highlighted above and discussed further within Section 9 of the report. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Highways Officer (Initial comments) 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 & DMT 6 and Policies T4, T5 and T6 of the London Plan (2021). Highways Officer (Follow-up comments 30.01.25) A full and detailed assessment of the material highways Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Following the receipt of an amended parking layout and tracking details, Officer has provided updated comments. The proposal would provide 5no. on-plot car parking spaces, one of which would be within a double garage. Taking into account these are maximum standards and that the London Plan 2021 Policy T6 Car Parking requires that developments should the minimum necessary parking parking spaces on-plot is acceptable. In response to concerns from residents that car parking may be displaced on-street, the Highway Authority has visited the site during the AM Peak and at the time when the pupils were being dropped off at a nearby school, even in this worst-case scenario there was no evidence of parking stress. The Highway Authority notes that none of the car parking space would be provided with electric vehicle charging points. The London Plan is unspecific upon the number of electric vehicle charge points that should be provided for this type of development but based on the standard for residential developments, one active electric vehicle charge point would be required. The London Plan Policy T5 Cycling requires that care homes provide 1no. cycle parking space per 5no. full time employees, the double garage vehicle provides suitable cycle parking. There are no highway objections to this proposal subject to a condition requiring that all car parking spaces are marked out and surfaced, and that one car parking space is provided with an active electric vehicle charge point. considerations are set out in paragraphs 9.60-9.74 of this report. Noise Planning Specialist Team Given the nature and context of the proposed development apparent from the information provided, I do not consider noise and vibration to be a material planning issue. Noted. Access Officer Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press The plans in respect of this proposed Change of Use from a residential dwelling to a children's care home have been reviewed. The dwelling, as existing, was constructed prior to mainstream adoption of accessible housing standards. Given that the accommodation at present is fundamentally inaccessible to wheelchair users, there would be no loss of accessible accommodation if approved. It is also noted that the Change of Use application does not propose alterations to the dwelling house, and there is no planning requirement to make the children's home accessible to wheelchair users. However, the applicant should be advised of their obligation to make reasonable adjustments within the ambit of the Equality Act 2010, and the following informative should be attached to any approval: INFORMATIVE: 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 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. Noted. The recommended informative has been included. Planning Policy Team The proposed use as Class C2 would result in the loss of the existing C3 use and a single-family dwelling for which there is a significant need in the borough. The loss of housing and any other negative impacts would need to be balanced against the proposed use and its benefits. The proposal would not lead to an over concentration of similar uses. The application would benefit from providing more information on the need for this use in this particular location. The applicant has provided information to demonstrate that the care home will be integrated into the residential surrounding. The applicant has provided a transport and noise assessment. Details of their operations and how care will be provided have also been provided. The established need for this form of accommodation is discussed within paragraphs 9.10- 9.13. It is also noted that follow up comments from the Policy Officer clarified that a residential care home also serves as a form of residential accommodation itself and this would help meet the exceptional circumstances Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press The proposal is relatively small-scale, and its operation is not expected to cause significant trip generation. The potential impact of the proposed use on residential amenity is not considered to be significantly greater than the existing C3 use. A key consideration to establish the acceptability of this proposal is whether the loss of family housing is in this location, also considering that the impact on residential amenity is likely to be minimal. It is also advised that the applicant provide more information particular location. Subject to receiving satisfactory information, the exceptional circumstances required by DMH1 to justify the loss of housing would be met. required to justify the loss of conventional C3 housing, as required by policy DMH1. Children's Social Care Team perspective, we know nationally and locally and there are great benefits for Hillingdon children looked after to be living in the borough. Providing that the arrangements proposed are approved by Ofsted as the regulators, the Social Care team would support the application from the perspective of residential homes sufficiency. This confirms that there is an established need for residential homes to alleviate pressure on accommodating Hillingdon children locally. Trees Officer No concerns regarding parking subject to condition securing method statement for work within the Root Protection Area (RPA) and details of the permeable hard surfacing. Noted. 9 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 9.1 Planning permission is sought for the change of use of a two-storey detached dwelling house (C3 use class children (C2 use class) Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 9.2 Policy DMH 1 of Local Plan seeks to resist the net loss of existing self-contained housing unless the housing is replaced with at least equivalent residential floorspace. 9.3 London Plan Policy H12 states: The delivery, retention, and refurbishment of supported and specialised housing which meets an identified need should be supported. The form this takes will vary, and it should be designed to satisfy the requirements of the specific use or group it is intended for, whilst providing options within the accommodation offer for the diversity of London's population, including disabled Londoners (see Policy D7 Accessible housing) within a wider inclusive community setting. It lists accommodation for young people with support needs as one of the key groups where there is a need. London Plan (2021) para 4.13.14 states there to be an under provision of C2 accommodation across London as a whole and references the need to provide an average of 867 care home beds per year until 2029 to meet demand. 9.4 Paragraph 63 of National Planning Policy Framework (2024) deals specifically with delivering residential accommodation which includes different forms of residential accommodation. It states thatwithin this context of establishing need, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies. These groups should include (but are not limited to) those who require affordable housing (including Social Rent); families with children; looked after children; older people (including those who require retirement housing, housing-with-care and care homes); students; people with disabilities; service families; travellers; people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their own homes. 9.5 Local Hillingdon Planning Policies do recognise the importance of care home provision. Policy DMH 8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states: A) The development of residential care homes and other types of supported housing will be permitted provided that: i) it would not lead to an over concentration of similar uses detrimental to residential character or amenity and complies with Policy DMH 4: Residential Conversions; ii) it caters for need identified in the Council's Housing Market Assessment, in a needs assessment of a recognised public body, or within an appropriate needs assessment and is deemed to be responding to the needs identified by the Council or other recognised public body such as the Mental Health Trust; iii) the accommodation is fully integrated into the residential surroundings; and iv) in the case of sheltered housing, it is located near to shops and community facilities and is easily accessible by public transport. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 9.6 Proposals for residential care establishments which fall under Use Class C2 must demonstrate that they would provide levels of care as defined in Article 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended). 9.7 The Planning Policy team had initially noted that the proposal would lead to a loss of one C3 residential dwelling which would normally be resisted unless there are exceptional circumstances, which may include a demand for another policy need within the Development Plan. Further clarification with the Policy Officer confirmed that the proposed use as a residential care home provides a form of residential accommodation which would help meet the exceptional circumstances required to justify the loss of conventional C3 housing. This need for a care home form of accommodation is also supported by the NPPF (Para 63), London Plan (Policy H12) and Local Plan Polices (Policy DMH8) and listed above. 9.8 are provided of the need for children homes in England across all regions. The statistics provided indicate that by the year ending 31 March 2023, the number of children looked after (CLA) by Local Authorities in England increased by 2% to 83,840 continuing an increase in recent years. Across the entire country, the data also reports that there were Although CLA would have other forms of accommodation and support from Local Planning Authorities, these figures do demonstrate a significant shortfall in places nationwide. increased are unevenly distributed with the Northwest region having the most st the London region has the fewest settings, specifically 164 homes which provide 787 children places to support the entire London region (Data taken from New Chapter Homes Management Plan figure as of March 2023). 9.9 The data does provide more context on the overall need for this form of residential accommodation, which is supported by the figures within Policy H12 provide great benefits for Hillingdon children and ensure they can be looked after and remain living within the borough. 9.10 supports the application subject to the property being approved by Ofsted regulators. Such facilities would ensure that local their own locality rather than having to move out of the borough. It supports family reunification and education of children and young people as well as contributing to the Council's strategy for developing services locally for local children. As such Officers are satisfied that part ii) of policy H8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) has been demonstrated through Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press evidence provided by the applicant and feedback from Social Care Team. 9.11 The proposed application would provide living accommodation for children between the ages of 12 and 17 years. A planning history search of the immediate area suggests that there are no similar uses within proximity of the site. The Policy Team have also accepted that the change of use would not lead to an overconcentration of C2 uses in the area. 9.12 The property is already existing, and the proposal would not involve any external changes that may impact the residential character. The current dwelling is a detached property on a large plot with sufficient space to the front and rear garden. It provides a leafy setting with large mature trees and hedging surrounding the curtilage to the front of the site and sufficient off-street parking to accommodate up to 4 staff members that would be on site during any one time. 9.13 The information submitted also confirms that the facility would meet Part B of policy DMH8 where the use would fall under the Use Class C2 defined in Article 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended). The company New Chapters Homes would run the facility, and their management plan confirms it would offer a care model that caters to the needs of local children in the Hillingdon area enabling them to maintain connections with their community, friends, and family 9.14 The proposal would cater for a maximum of four children from the ages of 12 to 17 with a focus on children facing emotional and behavioural challenges. The aim would be to provide a nurturing environment where children can find stability, guidance, and the resources they need to navigate life successfully, promoting their health and development and fostering positive outcomes. Commercial Care Home 9.15 Representations received raised concerns regarding the commercial nature of the use within a predominantly residential area. Whilst the Care Home does have a commercial element for it to function and manage in an appropriate manner, it would retain a residential character and aspect given its modest size. There are no changes proposed to the front of the site that would change the appearance and character of the site as anything other than a form of residential accommodation. 9.16 It would have a maximum of four children within the home at any time. The level of children and staff sleeping over would be similar to the amount of people allowed within a permitted residential C3(b) Care Use. A key material difference from a standard C3b use is that the care given relates to children and people numbers. As a C2 Care Home use, it would be modest in numbers of both staffing and children. Clarification had been sought by Members regarding staffing and New Chapter Homes have confirmed that the staffing on the property would have a maximum of 4 staff which would be secured by Condition. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press This would mean that the property would have a maximum of 8 people on site at any one time (4 carers and 4 children). On this basis, the commercial element is considered modest in scale and the proposal would be similar to a residential dwelling or a household where care is provided for residents that is allowed under permitted development. 9.17 The proposal would provide residential accommodation for a vulnerable section of Hillingdon local population. Given the modest numbers, the change of use would not impact the local character nor result in an intensive commercial development along this residential street. It would continue to resemble a dwelling house. As the situated within a detached property, noise levels are expected to remain within the typical levels expected from a dwelling house in a residential location. Noise associated with the use is discussed further within the amenity section of this report. Its overall location and scale would ensure that the use would integrate well within the residential surroundings. Access to local shops, community facilities and transport links would be within a short walking distance. Conclusion (Principle of Development) 9.18 The change of use would lead to the loss of one family sized residential unit. Safeguarding existing housing stock is a priority unless there are exceptional circumstances that would support any net loss. The provision of a care home for children provides a form of residential accommodation and this form of accommodation is highlighted within the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan as a form of housing accommodation where there is a need. The proposed c care home does therefore meet the exceptional circumstances test, and the Policy Team have recognised this within their additional comments provided. 9.19 Paragraph 4.5 of Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies states that exceptional circumstances may be existing which outweigh the loss of residential units and deliver other Local Plan policy objectives. As noted, there are other policy objectives in play both in the London Plan and Hillingdon Local Plan which require the delivery of sheltered housing and care homes to meet the need for this proposed form of residential accommodation. The Children's Social Care Team have confirmed that there is a need for such supported accommodation to serve the needs of Hillingdon children. This is supported by national and local data which shows the pressures on childcare provision and the need for additional facilities. 9.20 Taking into consideration all the above, the proposal is considered to comply with the objectives of the relevant planning policies. The principle of development is therefore acceptable. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 9.21 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, alterations, extensions and the public realm which enhances the local distinctiveness of the area, contributes to community cohesion and a sense of place.' 9.22 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 setbacks, rooflines, streetscape rhythm, for example, gaps between structures and other streetscape elements, such as degree of enclosure; architectural composition and quality of detailing; local topography, views both from and to the site; and impact on neighbouring open spaces and their environment. 9.23 No changes are proposed to the internal layout of the host property nor are changes proposed to the external finishes of the property. A cycle shelter has been proposed in the front garden area for up to five bicycles, which would be constructed of timber materials and sited next to the detached garage out of view from the street scene. The cycle parking shelter would measure 2.5m deep by 2m wide with a maximum height of 2m. Additionally, a bin store would be situated adjacent the cycle shelter, extending along the western flank of the property. This bin store would accommodate 3 large bins and would measure 2.7m in depth by 0.95m in width with a similar height of 2m. 9.24 Both the proposed cycle shelter and bin store would be finished in a timber frame design which would be discretely located to the flank and side of the property. Its overall location would not visually impact on the existing building and the wider street scene. Access would be maintained from the front of the property to the rear garden which is welcomed. 9.25 Further changes are proposed to the hard surfacing within the front garden to accommodate sufficient car parking. This alteration would involve a modest increase in hard surfacing. The overall character of the front garden would continue to have a leafy character with sufficient garden retained. Whilst there would be a loss of one tree to accommodate this parking, this tree is of a small size and not of significant value. The Trees Officer has reviewed the arboricutural report and raised no objections. This is addressed further within the Trees section of this report. From the street scene, the retention of hedging and protected trees along the front and side boundaries would ensure that the Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press balance of soft and hard landscaping is acceptable, retaining the leafy outlook that prevails along the street and in line with local policies. 9.26 Having regard to the overall location, materials and scale, the proposed cycle parking shelter and bin storage would appear subordinate and proportionate to their location and are considered acceptable. It is considered that the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. The proposal therefore accords with the objectives of Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One Strategic (2012) and Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020). Residential Amenity 9.27 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. 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. 9.28 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 9.29 Apart from the proposed bin storage, cycle parking shelter and formalised parking layout, there are no other external changes to the property which would lead to any adverse impact on the adjoining neighbouring properties in terms of daylight, sunlight, loss of outlook, sense of enclosure or overlooking concerns. Both proposed structures are located discreetly and would not cause any harm to the adjoining neighbours given their modest overall size and height. In terms of the use, there would be no loss of privacy or overlooking concerns over and above the existing circumstances. It must be noted that the property has no windows that cause window to window overlooking. The flank windows at first floor that face onto Nos 34a, and 38 Moor Park Road serve non-habitable rooms, either serving a toilet or stairwell. The secondary window serving the proposed staff reception at ground floor would be existing and set sufficient distance in from the boundary to not impact adjoining neighbours. As such, Officers are s residential amenity. Noise and Disturbance 9.30 The main amenity concern would relate to the use of the building and the potential impact this may have on the adjoining and wider neighbourhood in Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press terms of comings and goings as well as noise and disturbance from its use. This is noted throughout the consultation process where several concerns were raised regarding noise from the potential use and the coming and goings from the property. 9.31 The application is accompanied by several pieces of documentation detailing how the proposed children's care home would manage noise. These details document guidance for staff on managing noise as well as how the use would be managed and integrated within the community without causing disruption to the local neighbours or the wider area. The accompanying documentation includes: Management Statement for the Control of Noise Noise Management Plan Good Neighbour Policy Management Plan (Amended) 9.32 The Noise Management Plan submitted provides a supporting plan on how the use would operate. The purpose of this document is to: ensure that staff and children understand their obligations of living together and to ensure minimisation of disturbance to local residents by activities in and around the homeDetails and mitigation measures included within the document include: Educating staff about controlling noisy behaviour to comply with noise limits. Make a complaints procedure available; provide neighbours with contact information to report noise. Regular communication between house manager and the neighbours. Ensure double glazing remains installed on openings to minimise noise transmission. 9.33 The Good Neighbour Policyoutlines further good practice guidance that New Chapter Homes will integrate into their staff training. It provides information on policies that would enable the Care Home to become a good neighbour within the community. It sets out polices which the care home would introduce to establish positive links with the local community. These include maintaining a clear point of contact and complaints procedure and potentially considering involvement within a neighbourhood watch scheme. As part of integrating the use within the neighbourhood, maintenance of the property appearance and maintaining appropriate boundaries and fences to ensure privacy and security is maintained between adjoining neighbours. 9.34 Both the Noise Management Plan and Good Neighbour Policy demonstrate a willingness by the applicant to engage with potential issues that may arise from , as well as having an open form of communication available to the residents, were any issues to arise. Contact details including the timeframe for a response have been indicated within the documents. Whilst the procedure would not necessarily prevent potential noise Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press and disturbance, it does provide a format on how the company plan to engage with such issues if they did arise. A point of contact has been provided, and a complaints procedure is also included which would ensure that there is a procedure in place if any nuisance or anti-social behaviour were to occur. 9.35 It is also worth noting within the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990), under Section 79 of the Act, noise can be considered a statutory nuisance if it unreasonably interferes with the use or enjoyment of your property or is harmful to health. Further regulations outside the planning remit include the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 which give Local Authorities and Police powers to address anti-social behaviour including persistent noise nuisance. Both these regulations would be subject to procedures and assessments outside of the planning assessment. 9.36 As indicated in the consultation section of the report, the Cou Noise Officer has been consulted as part of the application and has raised no objection to the scheme nor envisages any noise concerns over and above the norm within a residential setting. Noise from staff/children (comings and goings) 9.37 Further concerns have been raised in representations about the comings and goings of staff and the potential disturbance from shift changes and servicing of the site. It has been demonstrated through the proposed site plan that there is sufficient onsite parking for up to 5 vehicles within the existing garage and the front curtilage of the site. Based on the number of staff both during nighttime and daytime shifts, there would be no need for street parking. This is also based on the worst-case assumption that all staff would require a car parking space which may not be the case. 9.38 The majority of movement on-site would be contained within the building and within the site frontage. Whilst children may play in the rear garden, it is not considered that this would lead to additional noise and disturbance beyond that which would arise from an active family unit undertaking normal play or recreation-based activities in their gardens. The children would be under the supervision of staff trained to respond to situations where undue noise and disturbance is generated. The activity within the building itself is also unlikely to give rise to undue audible noise or disturbance. The submitted Noise Control Plan also demonstrates that staff would be trained to actively work to keep noise levels to a minimum, including prohibiting loud music from home at any time, day or night, encouraging children to enjoy the garden while ensuring that excessive noise avoided. 9.39 A revised Management Plan provides clarity on the proposed staffing arrangements and visitation. Page 10 of the Management Plan confirms that the 9.40 The document also gives a staff schedule which would involve a three-day shift pattern which aims to promote consistency for the children, for stability and

Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 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 77097/APP/2024/2693 Date Application Valid: 11.10.24 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 23.01.25 Application Type: Full Ward: West Drayton Applicant: Mr J Singh Site Address: 13 Oak Avenue, West Drayton Proposal: Erection of a two storey, 2-bed attached dwelling with associated cycle storage 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 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory section 106 legal agreement to secure the heads of terms set out below, and subject to the conditions as set out in Appendix 1. Legal Agreement required to secure: 1. Obligation to ensure self-build status for Biodiversity Net Gain exemption 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two storey, 2-bed attached dwelling with associated cycle storage and amenity space. 1.2 The new dwelling would be formed by extending to the side of the existing property with an upward extension which would meet the rear building line of the existing property at both first floor and ground floor level. The built form to facilitate the provision of a new dwelling is relatively modest and partially exists already. Due to the orientation of the properties in the street scene, which funnel around a square shaped and modestly sized piece of soft landscaped open space, the extension would not be visible from within the street scene. As such the development is considered to have an acceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the area. 1.3 In terms of principle, the proposed dwelling would be constructed on garden land. Garden land is excluded from the definition of previously developed land and therefore the application site is not considered to be brownfield. Officers have reviewed the design and conclude that the additions which facilitate the provision of a new dwelling are moderate in scale and would not result in detrimental harm to the character and appearance of the area, to neighbour amenity or the local highway network. As such the proposal would conform with the Councils garden land development policy. Furthermore, the proposal would retain the existing 4-bedroom property on site and provide a new 2-bedroom dwelling that would contribute to local housing stock. As such the principal of development is supported. 1.4 Whilst no additional parking is proposed, the site does not benefit from off-street parking at present. The applicant has provided a parking survey which demonstrates that there is sufficient space on street to absorb potential parking generated by the development. This has been reviewed by the Highway Authority who have raised no objection. 1.5 Further to the above, the proposed 2 bed dwelling has been carefully designed to ensure that it causes no loss of light, privacy or outlook to neighbouring properties Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press and that future residents of the property are provided with a good standard of living accommodation. 1.6 For the reasons mentioned above, it is concluded that the proposal complies 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 comprises a two storey, end of terrace dwelling and is located on the east side of Oak Avenue. 2.2 The property has been finished in brick and tiling. It has a single storey side extension, part single, part two storey rear extension and rear dormer. The dwelling is set back from the main road, in a pedestrianised area, next to a green and within the corner of the residential enclave. 2.3 Properties within the area are terraced and semi-detached, their material palette varies slightly but they are predominantly of similar appearance to the property on the development site. 2.4 The development site has PTAL Rating of 1A (Low) and is located upon potentially contaminated land. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application Property (furthest terrace to the left) Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Front Elevation of the Property 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two storey, 2-bed attached dwelling with associated cycle storage and amenity space. Existing Floor Plans Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Proposed Floor Plans Existing Elevation Plans Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Proposed Elevation Plans Figure 4: Existing and Proposed Plans (please note larger version of plans can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 The relevant planning history is set out in Appendix 2 and comprises of various applications for residential extensions including an appeal for a rear extension which was subsequently allowed in 2023. 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 Thirteen neighbouring properties were consulted on 29th October 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 30 signatures was received on 21/01/25 Objection to the erection of a two bed house being attached to 13 Oak Avenue. The approved building work Numerous extensions have been approved at the site (see section 4 of this report) and thus the Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press objecting to the proposed development. at the property has already doubled its living area and caused noise and inconvenience to neighbours for over a year. carrying out of the approved works is lawful. 7 individual letters of objection have been received 77097/APP/2024/2694 was withdrawn at short notice and therefore my objection will not be noted. Objections received for 77097/APP/2024/2694 would have been considered under that application had it not been withdrawn. All objections received for this application have been taken into consideration. The development is for profit. This is not material planning consideration. The proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the site. The existing dwelling has already been extended. The resulting dwelling would be visually out of character and harmful to the areas appearance. The existing extensions at the property are lawful. The impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area has been assessed from paragraph 7.14 to 7.27 of this report. The proposed development would harm neighbouring amenities, causing a loss of light to residential windows and gardens. It would also cause a loss of privacy and would have an adverse impact on the mental health of nearby residents. The impact of the proposed development on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties has been assessed from paragraph 7.28 to 7.40 of this report. Boundary fences have been erected splitting the sites garden - the development has therefore commenced without permission. The erection of boundary fences is lawful under Part 2, Class A of the General Permitted Development Order. The existing dwelling has been converted into a large HMO (with up to 13 people). The applicant has confirmed that the property is being rented out to a single family and therefore it is still in Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press C3 Use. Furthermore, no evidence has been submitted to substantiate this claim. The intensified residential use of the site has resulted in excess litter and bins. Litter at the site resulting from the previously approved development or occupants of the approved dwelling is not material planning consideration. Both of the resulting dwellings would be provided with adequate waste facilities. No notification was received regarding other development at the site last year. This is not a material consideration for this application. Applications which do not require a public consultation. Construction has already caused excessive noise and disturbance to residents. The safety of residents has also been compromised through poor site management and lack of consultation on building works. As seen with the section 4 of this report, several developments have been approved at the site and thus those developments and associated disturbance, whilst a nuisance are permitted (within the remits of planning). The safety of labourers has been compromised as they do not have sufficient equipment to move heavy materials. This matter is not a material planning consideration. Use of fireworks too close to the neighbouring boundaries has caused disturbance. This matter is not a material planning consideration. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Access Officer comments have been discussed from Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press This proposal for the erection of 2 bed, 2-storey dwelling, has been reviewed with reference to London Plan Policy D7. No accessibility concerns are raised subject to conditions pertaining to level access and compliance with the relevant Part (M) Building Regulations. paragraph 7.62 to 7.63 of this report. Contaminated Land Officer Having considered the submitted application in relation to our land contamination record, please be advised that we have no objection to the proposed development. However, our land contamination record shows the proposed development site to be on a potentially contaminated land site formerly used and identified as Nursery/Orchard, as well as within 250m of landfill buffer. No objection subject to a condition pertaining to the submission of a Contaminated Land Survey. comments have been discussed from paragraph 7.78 to 7.79 of this report. Highways Officer The proposal does not involve the provision of on- plot parking therefore the proposal as presented would be car free. Cycle storage for 2 bicycles is shown on the proposed site plan and this complies with the London Plan standards. The site plan also illustrates bin storage to be provided at the front of the new dwelling. As the proposal would not provide parking for the new dwelling and the absence of parking controls on roads surrounding the development, a parking stress survey has been provided. The survey demonstrates there to be adequate space on street to observe any parking overspill generated by the development. As the existing dwelling does not benefit from on plot parking spaces no parking is required to be retained for this property. Taking the above points into account, the development would not have a detrimental impact on highways and would encourage future occupants to more sustainable modes of transport. The scheme would provide adequate bin and cycle storage, and there is sufficient kerbside parking comments have been discussed from paragraph 7.41 to 7.55 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press available within the locale to meet the needs of any future occupants without detrimentally impacting on existing parking pressures. No objection subject to conditions pertaining to further cycle parking design details and submission of a construction management plan condition. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development New Housing and Garden Land Development 7.1 The site comprises an end of terrace dwelling and land within its curtilage. The site is located within an established residential area. 7.2 The National Planning Policy Framework has a requirement to encourage the effective use of land. 7.3 London Plan (2021) Policy H2 states that well designed housing schemes on small sites should be actively supported. The Hillingdon Local Plan details how small-scale sites will make a significant contribution to housing supply. 7.4 Policy DMH 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) 'Garden and Backland Development' states that "there is a presumption against the loss of gardens due to the need to maintain local character, amenity space and biodiversity". 7.5 Garden land is excluded from the definition of previously developed land therefore the proposal would not amount to the redevelopment of a brownfield site. As such, for the principle to be considered acceptable the applicant must demonstrate accordance with Policy DMH 6. This would include a design which appears more intimate in scale within the street scene, safeguards the amenities of neighbouring properties and does not result in a detrimental impact upon the local highway network. 7.6 The proposal seeks to construct a new dwelling onto the side of the existing dwelling at 13 Oak Avenue. This would involve a proportion of the rear and side of the garden being lost. 7.7 The proposal involves an upward extension in line with the existing front elevation and steps out 1.9 m when setback 3 m from the front. The orientation of the property means that the side projection would be modest in scale and would not be prominently visible from within the street scene. 7.8 The two-storey element would extend up to the rear building line of the existing dwelling at the upper floor level. The ground floor element would also meet the rear building line of the existing dwelling on site. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.9 The proposal would not extend beyond the existing front and rear building lines which are established by the existing property at the site. Where there is additional width proposed, it is set back substantially from the front elevation therefore limiting any views from within the street. Given the lack of available views, the retention of the existing building lines and the scale of the extensions proposed, it is considered that the proposal would present a form of development which is viewed as intimately scaled. 7.10 Furthermore, the proposal would not result in a reduction in the residential amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing or loss of outlook and would not give rise to significant harm upon the local highway network. As such it is considered that principle of development is supported, and the application complies with Policy DMH 6 of the Local Plan and the principle of development. Housing Mix 7.11 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. 7.12 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. 7.13 The proposal comprises of 1 new two-bedroom dwelling. The proposed dwelling housing mix and is therefore considered acceptable and in compliance with Policy DMH 2 and London Plan Policy H10. Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.14 Paragraph 135 of the NPPF (2024) states 'Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments are designed to their function whilst contributing to the overall quality of the area. Furthermore, it states that development proposals should demonstrate a design led approach, respond to local character, establish a strong sense of place whilst optimising the sites potential for development. 7.15 Policies D1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) require development proposals to be of high quality and to enhance the local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness. 7.16 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. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 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, plus ensure that the internal design and layout of development maximises sustainability and is adaptable to different activities. 7.18 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 design criteria as to how this would be achieved. 7.19 The proposed new dwelling would retain the existing front building line which is established by the existing side extension. An upper floor extension built in line with the ground floor would be constructed extending 9.5 m in depth at first floor level. A two-storey side projection is also proposed which is set back from the main front elevation by 3 metres and would measure 1.9 metres in width. At ground floor level a modest single storey rear element would extend in line with the existing rear elevation at No.13. The proposed dwelling would be characterised by a gable ended roof which would measure 7.3 m in height and would step down towards the rear first floor projection. 7.20 The dwelling would be of similar height and depth to the existing dwelling, as such it would not appear oversized or out of scale. In terms of design, the dwelling would have a pitched roof and flush front elevation like other dwellings within the terrace block, it would also be finished in similar materials. 7.21 Although the stepped front elevation is not common within the street scene, this element of the proposal is setback significantly from the front elevation in order to appear more modest in scale and to fit the sites constraints. Furthermore views of this part of the development would be almost entirely hidden from within the street scene. 7.22 Further to the above, the entirety of the new dwelling would be located within a pedestrianised area, away from the main road, in a corner, between the flank walls of 13 and 11 Oak Avenue, where it would have limited to no impact on the character and appearance of the area. Additionally, part of the structure already exists in the form of a single storey side extension, therefore part of the development already exists, lessening the visual impact of the proposed works. The dwelling has also been designed to be subordinate to the host dwelling and other properties in the terrace, whilst still respecting its primary features (materials, building lines, ridge line, pitched roof). The resulting site frontage would comprise a mixture of lawn and hardstanding like other properties within the area. 7.23 It should be noted that two storey side additions have been granted planning permission and constructed within the surrounding area. They are also in more prominent locations (1 South Road 34588/APP/2020/1498, 106 Porters Way - Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 72945/APP/2017/2090). The proposed development would therefore not be out of character. 7.24 Upon review of the proposal, Officers considered that additional articulation was required to the front elevation. The applicant has submitted amended plans incorporating windows within the proportion of the front elevation which is set back 3 metres from the main front building line. This provides an improvement to the elevation which is hidden from street scene views but did appear to be lacking articulation. 7.25 Noting that this is an application for a new dwelling and not a set of householder extensions, the additions do appear to be modestly scaled when compared with the scale of the existing dwelling. Furthermore, the bulk of the main front elevation, or certai development above what exists already is considered to be subordinately design and would not present a significant impact upon local character which could be justified as a reason for refusal. 7.26 Officers consider the revised plans to improve the articulation of the front elevation to result in a design which can now be supported. 7.27 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 (2024). Residential Amenity 7.28 Paragraph 135 of the NPPF (2024) states 'Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.' 7.29 Policies DMHD 1 and DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) seek to ensure a satisfactory relationship with adjacent dwellings with no unacceptable loss of outlook, amenity, daylight and sunlight to neighbouring occupiers. 7.30 Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021) requires that proposals minimise noise pollution and Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (2012) promotes the maximum possible reduction in noise levels and seeks to ensure that noise impacts can be adequately controlled and mitigated. 7.31 The proposed dwelling would be sited alongside 13 Oak Avenue and would be designed with front and rear building lines which do not extend beyond the existing host dwelling. Given the existing and proposed identical building lines officers can confirm that the additional built form would not breach the 45-degree line of sight drawn from any of the front or rear facing habitable room windows. The new dwelling Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press would provide some views into the rear garden of No.13; however, such views are mutual and common not only within this terrace block, but within most residential areas. 7.32 The new dwelling and No.13 will share an access that will provide occupants and visitors with a sole access point to the front entrance of the properties. Sufficient space exists at the front of the site for privacy screening, and this would be secured via condition should the application be determined for approval. 7.33 Based on the above points, officers conclude that the proposal satisfactorily safeguards the residential amenities of the existing property at No.13. 7.34 The new dwelling would not extend beyond the front or rear elevation of No.11 Oak Avenue, as such it would cause no loss of light or outlook to its primary windows. Notwithstanding this point, the dwelling would face the flank wall of No.11 at a distance of approximately 7.5m. The flank wall has no windows at first floor and two small windows at ground floor. One of the windows serves a bathroom and is obscure glazed, as such the development would cause no loss of light, privacy or outlook to the non-habitable space. 7.35 privacy planting (see figure 5). Due to its position, the factors mentioned above the kitchen window receives limited light and has limited outlook. Due to the separation distance between the new development and window, the proposal would not cause any harmful impact on light or outlook, especially as the primary sources of light and outlook to the kitchen come from its rear facing window. At present, the front elevation windows of No.13 already provide views towards the aforementioned dwelling, with 1 forward facing habitable room window would cause no harmful increase in privacy loss to No.11. To ensure that the privacy of No.11 Oak Avenue is further protected, a condition is also recommended to restricting the insertion of any additional first floor windows. Taking into consideration these points the proposal would cause no significant harm to the amenities of the occupiers of No.11. 7.36 To ensure that the privacy of No.11 Oak Avenue is further protected, a condition is also recommended to restrict the insertion of any additional first floor windows. Taking into consideration these points the proposal would cause no significant harm to the amenities of the occupiers of No.11. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 5: 11 Oak Avenue ground Floor side windows 7.37 The new dwelling would be in excess of 30m from properties to the north and east of the site, due to the separation distance it would have no adverse impact on amenities of those neighbours in terms of loss of light, outlook or privacy. 7.38 One additional 2 bed property would not result in a significant increase in activity or people movements at the site. 7.39 To ensure that construction is managed in a way which limits nuisance and disturbance to neighbours, a condition is recommended requiring a construction management plan to be submitted and approved by the LPA prior to any works taking place at the site. 7.40 For these reasons and given the site context, it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly impact the residential amenity of the adjoining properties, in terms of daylight/sunlight, outlook, privacy and overbearing effect, in accordance with Policies DMHD 1 and DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020). Highways and Parking Access 7.41 The application site forms part of a square of properties plotted around the outside of a piece of public open space comprising of soft landscaping and tree planting. The properties are bounded by boundary fencing which separates the private residential boundaries and the public footpath. None of the properties which front Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press the open space benefit from on-plot parking therefore no vehicle access to the site exists and one is not proposed. Parking 7.45 According to the TFL Webcat system which is used to measure a sites sustainability across London, the site has a PTAL Rating of 1A meaning that there would be a higher than moderate level of reliance on the motor vehicle to travel too and from the site. 7.46 The London Plan (2021) requires that a maximum of 1.5 parking spaces be provided for 2 bedroom dwellings in this location. As there is no existing vehicle access to the property boundary and no opportunity to provide one, no parking space is to be provided for the proposed dwelling. With regard to the existing dwelling, as no existing parking is provided the applicant is not required to demonstrate that adequate parking for the existing dwelling is retained. 7.47 In the absence of on-plot parking space provision, it should be noted that there are some formal parking spaces at the southern end of the open space. These spaces are not subject to any parking restrictions. Similarly, the entirety of Oak Avenue is free from parking restriction meaning that vehicle parking generated by the development is likely to be absorbed on street. For the development to be considered acceptable the applicant must demonstrate that there is sufficient parking availability on street. 7.48 In support of the application the application has submitted a Parking Survey Report. The report concludes that on survey days parking stresses were at 61.21% and 62.93%. Thus, indicating that there is sufficient space on the adjacent highway to accommodate the parking needs of future occupiers (should they own a car) without exacerbating existing parking pressures or leading to roadside parking. 7.49 Additionally, the development site is within walking distance from bus stops on Porters Way to the north. Mulberry Parade (also to the north of the site) has a small parade of commercial units that would support the day-to-day needs of future residents and discourage car use (see figure 6). Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 6: walking distance to shops and bus stops 7.50 Taking into consideration these points the development is considered to cause no harm to the local highways network. The parking required to serve the new development can be sufficiently absorbed on street and this arrangement is no different to the existing properties in this area of Oak Avenue. Electrical Vehicle Charging Points 7.51 As the development does not provide parking there is no provision for EVCP proposed. Cycle Parking 7.52 The Published London Plan (2021) Table 10.2 Maximum Cycle Paring Standards requires dwellings with two or more bedrooms to have a minimum of 2no. cycle parking spaces. Drawing reference 1031-11_Rev05 Rev 06 indicates 2 cycle parking spaces (1 per occupant) are proposed which complies with the London Plan. A condition is recommended to ensure that the facilities are provided and appropriately designed. Waste Storage and Collection 7.53 It should be noted that The London Borough of Hillingdon operates a kerbside bag collection as opposed to a wheeled bin collection. As this proposal comprises of a single family dwellinghouse, future occupiers would be expected to store waste within the site and then place it kerbside on the day of collection. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.54 Drawing ref 1031-11_Rev05 Rev 06 show that waste storage facilities would be provided for the new dwelling but not the existing dwelling. The bin storage details plan does not match the proposed site plan. 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 the site (for both dwellings). 7.55 Overall, subject to the aforementioned conditions, it is concluded that the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress, and would not raise any measurable highway safety concerns, in accordance with the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020), Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 and Policies T4, T5 and T6 of the London Plan (2021). Quality of Residential Accommodation (Internal and External) 7.56 Regarding internal accommodation, Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) sets out the requirements for the gross internal floor area of new dwellings at a defined level of occupancy. Table 3.1 of the London Plan (2021) set outs the same gross internal area space standards set out in the technical housing standards - nationally described space standard (2015). Policy DMHB 16 of the Local Plan (2020) Aligns with this policy. 7.57 The above policy states that two storey, 2 bed, 4 person dwellings should provide future residents with a minimum internal floor space of 79sqm. The proposed drawings illustrate that 101sqm of internal floor space would be provided, exceeding requirements in the London Plan. The internal floor to ceiling height would be 2.5m as required by the London Plan (2021). Each habitable room within the property would have access to natural light and outlook through the position of windows and doors. Overall, it is considered that the new dwelling would provide future residents with an acceptable standard of internal living accommodation which exceeds the minimum standards. 7.58 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 and that 60sqm be provided for 2 bedroom dwellings. 7.59 The boundary of the site is awkward and forms a triangular shape towards the rear. the rear facing windows of either existing or proposed property more difficult. Officers have considered two sets of plans in order to reach a position where the design of the rear gardens could be supported. 7.60 Whilst the quantum of space to be provided for the new dwelling and that to be retained to serve the existing dwelling forms part of the assessment it is equally as important to assess the quality. Noting Drawing ref 1031-11_Rev05 Rev 06 illustrates a policy compliant quantum of amenity space for each unit, however it is clear the design would not meet the requirements of Policy DMHB 18 which requires amenity space to be usable, well designed and well located. As such Officers Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press consider that an amenity space provision to serve No.13 which falls modestly short of the 100qm requirement (82.sqm) would be more usable, better designed and better located than simply providing the policy required quantum. 7.61 Furthermore, residents of No.13 would have access to the modest open space to the front of the site. In addition, it should be noted that the new dwelling would benefit from a modest overprovision of private amenity space. As such on-balance, the development would accord with Policy DMHB 18 of the Local Plan. Accessibility 7.62 Policy D5 of the London Plan (2021) seeks to ensure development proposals achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design. Policy D7 of the London Plan (2021) requires at least ten percent of dwellings to meet Building Regulation requirement M4(3) 'wheelchair user dwellings', with all other dwellings meeting Category M4(2) 'accessible and adaptable dwellings'. 7.63 The Councils Access Officer has been consulted on the application and has no objection to the proposed development in terms of accessibility subject to conditions pertaining to the requirement for step free access to be provided and compliance with the relevant Part (M) Building Regulations. Trees and Landscaping 7.64 The proposed development would result in no loss of trees and would therefore have no adverse tree impact. In the event that planning permission is granted, a condition is recommended to ensure that the sites trees are retained and replaced if damaged. 7.65 Landscaping on the site would remain similar to existing (a mix of hard and soft landscaping). If the application is approved, a condition has been recommended to ensure that appropriate planting, boundary treatments and surfacing is introduced. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable. Biodiversity Net Gain 7.66 Biodiversity net gain is a way of creating and improving biodiversity by requiring development to have a positive impact ('net gain') on biodiversity. 7.68 In England, biodiversity net gain is required under a statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by the Environment Act 2021). This statutory framework is referred to as 'biodiversity net gain' in Planning Practice Guidance to distinguish it from other or more general biodiversity gains. 7.69 Under the statutory framework for biodiversity net gain, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met ("the biodiversity gain condition"). This objective is for development to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.70 There are exemptions and the BNG planning condition does not apply to planning permission. Self-build and custom build developments are exempt from having to meet BNG Requirements in the following circumstances. The development must consist of no more than 9 dwellings, be on a site that has an area no larger than 0.5 hectares, consist exclusively of dwellings that are self-build or custom housebuilding as defined in section 1(A1) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015. 7.71 The applicant has stated that the development is a self-build project and therefore the development is exempt from having to fulfil the BNG requirements set out below. In the event that planning permission is approved, a legal agreement will be secured to ensure that the development is self-build. Ecology 7.72 The site does not contain any significant 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. Like the existing site, the resulting site would have a mixture of hard and soft landscaping, as such the ecological value of the site would be similar 7.73 In the event of an approval, an informative would be secured advising that should protected species be found at the site, the applicant(s) must fulfil their duties under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. 7.74 The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable. Air Quality 7.75 Local Plan Policy DMEI 14 states: Policies SI 1 of the London Plan (2021), EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) and DMEI 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) are all directly relevant to the proposal. These policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix, and in summary, seek to safeguard and improve air quality to protect existing and new sensitive receptors. 7.76 The application site is located within Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area. Whilst there would be no parking provision retained on site for the existing dwelling or provided for the proposed dwelling it has been demonstrated that there is adequate space on street to absorb the potential parking requirements for this development (as set out in paragraphs 7.45 to 7.50 of this report). As such it cannot be confirmed by Officers that the proposal would not give rise to additional trip generation. Notwithstanding this point the level of trips would be de-minimis and would not give rise to a noticeable contribution towards poor air quality. Furthermore, as a minor application it would not be justifiable or meet the relevant test to impose obligations or conditions to secure mitigation in lieu of such limited potential harm. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.77 As such the proposal is not considered to give rise to an increase in poor air quality therefore the application complies with the above policies. Contamination 7.78 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. 7.79 Land contamination record shows the proposed development site to be on a potentially contaminated land site formerly used and identified as Nursery/Orchard, as well as within 250m of landfill buffer. The application is not supported by a Contamination Officer has suggested that conditions be imposed to secure further land contamination information post determination. Subject to this condition, no objection is raised. Drainage 7.80 Policy SI12 and SI13 of the London Plan (2021) require, in summary, that flood risk is minimised and mitigated, and that surface water runoff is managed close to source. 7.81 The site lies within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Risk Map. This means the site is classified as being at low risk and defined as having a less than 1 in 1,000 probability of fluvial and tidal flooding. As such, there are no restrictions on development, including more vulnerable uses such as Use Class C3 (dwellinghouses), in this location, in terms of fluvial and tidal flood risk. 7.82 In the event of approval, a sustainable water management scheme would be secured by condition to ensure compliance with Policies DMEI 9 and DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) and Policies SI 12 and SI 13 of the London Plan (2021). Sustainability 7.83 Policy DMEI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020) requires all developments to make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the London Plan targets. 7.84 The proposed development is of a minor scale therefore whilst the principle of SI 2 (carbon reduction) is applicable, the London Plan Policy applies more specifically to major scale applications. The applicant is therefore not required to submit an energy statement with the application or demonstrate a policy level of on-site savings. Notwithstanding this point, the modern construction of the development would be considered as providing sufficient energy savings itself and therefore the development would comply with the principles of the carbon saving development plan policies. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Airport Safeguarding 7.85 Due to the limited scale of the proposed works, no cranes would be needed for construction, nor would the building itself (once constructed) impact on air traffic. Furthermore, the site is a considerable distance from Heathrow and aviation space and therefore it would have no adverse impact on aviation functionality. The development is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of Airport safeguarding. Fire safety 7.86 Policy D12 (Fire safety) of the London Plan (2021) says that in the interests of fire safety and to ensure the safety of all building users, development proposals must achieve the highest standards of fire safety. 7.87 Due to the nature of the development and its limited scale, appropriate measures to ensure that the building and its residents are safe in the event of fire would be secured at building control stage through the necessity to comply with Approved Document B Fire Safety of the Building Regulations (2010). 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 8.3 The Council adopted its own Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on August 1st 2014 and the Hillingdon CIL charge for residential developments is £95 per square metre of additional floorspace. This is in addition to the Mayoral CIL charge of £60 per square metre. CIL rates are index linked. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13 February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 8.4 Paragraph 6 (1)(d) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) states that a conversion from one into two or more dwellings is not 'development' for the purposes of CIL. The development is CIL liable. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 On balance, the proposed development would have a satisfactory impact on the character and appearance of the area and would not give rise to any undue harm to neighbouring amenities, or the local highway network. Additionally, adequate living accommodation would be provided for future residents. The proposal would retain the existing family sized dwelling and contribute to the borough's housing stock. 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 (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.

Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Application Report Case Officer: Mitchell Heaven 78998/APP/2024/2281 Date Application Valid: 20.11.2024 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 20.02.2025 Application Type: Full Ward: Ruislip Applicant: London Borough of Hillingdon (Capital Programme and Works Team) Site Address: Ruislip Lido, Reservoir Road Proposal: Replacement of existing 2 x single storey toilet facilities buildings at Willow Lawn and Woody Bay with 2 x single storey toilet and changing facilities buildings, and associated works and landscaping. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 6 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (the Council is the Applicant) Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 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 replacement of two existing public toilet facilities at Ruislip Lido with two new larger facilities with improved capacity and services to meet visitor demand. Ancillary access works and landscaping are also proposed. 1.2 The application site is Ruislip Lido, a water reservoir with an artificial beach, extensive trails, playgrounds, Ruislip Lido Railway and other community facilities. application. The Woody Bay public toilet block site is located on the south-east corner of the Lido, and the Willow Lawn public toilet block is located on the western edge of the Lido. The two public toilet facilities service visitors to the Ruislip Lido. 1.3 Both sites are on Green Belt land, located on potentially contaminated land, located within a Nature Conservation Site Grade 1, and located within the Ruislip Motte & Bailey archaeological priority area. Both sites are adjacent to, but not located within, the Ruislip Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest. Neither of the sites are subject to flooding risk. 1.4 The site is subject to the following planning history: - Approved: The existing Willow Lawn toilet block was granted planning permission in 2012 under application reference 1117/APP/2012/1785. - Approved: More recently, a planning application under reference 1117/APP/2017/2188 for the demolition of a workshop building associated with the Lido Railway and construction of a replacement workshop building was approved in 2017. 1.5 The applicant has worked cooperatively with the Local Planning Authority (LPA). In response to LPA feedback during the processing of the application, they have provided a revised scheme reducing the roof pitch and height of both proposed buildings. 1.6 As Hillingdon Council is the applicant, this minor application must be referred to the Planning Committee for determination. 1.7 The main issues which shall be addressed within this Committee Report relate to the appropriateness of the development in the Green Belt, impact on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area, and impact on local biodiversity. 1.8 This Committee Report seeks to provide a comprehensive assessment of the full application and supporting documentation. All material planning considerations have been considered, and it is recommended that planning permission is granted, subject to conditions. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site is Ruislip Lido, a reservoir and artificial beach located on the edge of Ruislip Woods. Two areas of works are proposed under the application. The Woody Bay public toilet block site is located on the south-east corner of the Lido, and the Willow Lawn public toilet block is located on the western edge of the Lido. The two public toilets service visitors to the Ruislip Lido. Figure 1: Location Plan (Ruislip Lido). Woody Bay Toilet Block Location Willow Lawn Toilet Block Location N Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Contextual aerial of Ruislip Lido. Figure 3: Woody Bay existing Site Plan (Proposed demolition in red). Willow Lawn Toilet Block Location Woody Bay Toilet Block Location Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 4: Woody Bay contextual aerial. Figure 5: Existing Woody Bay toilet block. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 6: Panoramic view of existing Woody Bay toilet block and surrounds. Figure 7: Willow Lawn Existing Site Plan (Proposed demolition in red). Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 8: Willow Lawn contextual aerial. Figure 9: Existing Willow Lawn toilet block. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 10: Existing side elevation of Willow Lawn toilet block as viewed from main vehicle entrance. 2.2 The sites are located on Green Belt land and are potentially affected by land contamination according to the CouncilGIS. Both sites are located within Ruislip Lido which is an addition to a Nature Conservation Site Grade 1. They are also located within the Ruislip Motte & Bailey archaeological priority area. 2.3 Both sites are adjacent to Ruislip Woods (a site of Special Scientific Interest) however no works are proposed within the woods. Additionally, neither site is identified as being subject to flooding either from stormwater runoff or from the Reservoir. 2.4 The wider site consists of the Ruislip Lido and associated uses which includes cafes, Ruislip Lido Woodland Centre, Ruislip Lido Railway, Ruislip Lido Beach and various paths and recreational areas. 2.5 The sites are surrounded by Ruislip Lido related land and the Ruislip Woods. The closest non-public land is located over 150 metres away from either site. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 The application proposes the replacement of the two existing public toilet facilities at the Willow Lawn and Woody Bay sites with two new public toilet and changing room facilities. These would be in the same location as the existing buildings, which are proposed for demolition. The current facilities are not large enough to manage peak demand in the summer and do not include family changing facilities, ould significantly increase the capacity of the toilet facilities, improving visitor experience, and would be fully inclusive, meeting all visitors needs including male and female toilets, family changing rooms, accessible toilets, plant rooms and storage areas. 3.2 Both new proposed toilet blocks would be single storey, constructed out of brick with zinc roofing and steel doors. Materials have been chosen for their durability and longevity. Colours of the materials have yet to be determined and therefore provision of detailed materials is recommended to be secured via condition of consent in the event of an approval. 3.3 The application also proposes to improve the access arrangements to the facilities and proposes supplementary landscaped areas. Detailed landscaping design has not been provided as part of the application, and provision of a detailed landscaping scheme is recommended to be secured via condition of consent in the event of an approval. 3.4 No tree removal would occur as part of the application. However, demolition and construction works is proposed in proximity to several mature trees on the site. Supporting arboriculture reports have been provided with the application. 3.5 During the processing of the application the Local Planning Authority (LPA) identified that the buildings were overly tall and out-of-keeping with the natural character of the area. 3.6 The applicant has proactively responded to the feedback from the LPA to amend the scheme by reducing the roof pitch of the proposed facilities from 45-degrees to 40-degrees, thereby reducing the height of both buildings. The roof pitches were not reduced any further by reason that maintenance access with minimum floor to ceiling heights is required for a water tank to be contained within the roof space of the Woody Bay replacement toilets. The 40-degree pitch would also help to minimise debris such as leaves, sticks and bird feathers from sticking to the roof. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 11: Woody Bay existing Site / Floor Plans (for comparison) Figure 12: Woody Bay Proposed Site / Floor Plans Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 13: Woody Bay existing Elevations (for comparison) Figure 14: Woody Bay Proposed Elevations Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 15: Willow Lawn existing Site / Floor Plans (for comparison) Figure 16: Willow Lawn proposed Site / Floor Plans Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 17: Willow Lawn existing Elevations (for comparison) Figure 18: Willow Lawn Proposed Elevations Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 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 The Willow Lawn toilet block was originally granted planning permission in 2012 under application reference 1117/APP/2012/1785. 4.3 More recently, under planning application reference 1117/APP/2017/2188 the demolition of an existing workshop building associated with the Lido Railway and construction of a replacement workshop was approved in 2017. 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 38 neighbouring properties were consulted by letter dated 25.11.24 with the consultation period expiring on 16.12.24. A site notice was advertised on 02.12.24 (expired on 24.12.24) and a press notice advertised on 11.12.24 (expired on 04.01.25). Two representations against the application were received and are detailed in Table 1 below. 6.2 Internal and external consultations were also sent out and a summary of the comments received are noted below in Table 2 of this Committee Report. 6.3 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response Resident / Public Representations (2 received - Against) Opposes the financial spending of the Council, and requests the money is spent on management of the Lido. The expenditure of Hillingdon Council is not a material planning consideration. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Opposes the potential increase in visitors due to better facilities. The principle of the application is discussed at paragraph 7.6 and traffic generation impacts at paragraph 7.24 of this report. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Council Access Officer: This application for replacement toilet facilities has been reviewed with reference to London Plan policy D5. The proposed design features 4 accessible toilet facilities and a Changing Places cubicle. No accessibility concerns are raised. Conclusion: acceptable. The Access Officer is supportive of the application. Highways Officer: There are no highway objections to this proposal subject to inclusion of a condition on any approval requiring a full and detailed Construction Logistics Plan to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of development. The recommended condition has been adopted by the planning officer and included in this recommendation for approval. Council Urban Design Officer: The Urban Design Officer reviewed the application and initially raised concerns with the originally proposed exaggerated 45-degree roof pitch. They also noted concerns with the proposed zinc roofing, visibility of utilities, the proposed access ground levels and lack of detailed landscaping information. Additional information was subsequently provided by including revised drawings which reduced the roof pitch to 40-degrees. Subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions, the urban design officer is supportive of the application. The comments from the Urban Design Officer have been considered. The planning officer has worked with the Urban Design Officer to draft the recommended conditions to ensure acceptable design outcomes. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Council Trees Officer: Identified concern regarding the proximity of works to one mature tree on the Woody Bay site. Additional information was provided by the applicant in response to the Tree O . Subsequently the officer is supportive of the application subject to inclusion of tree protection conditions. The recommended condition has been adopted by the planning officer in this recommendation for approval. Council Contaminated Land Officer: There are no Contaminated Land objections to this proposal subject to inclusion of a land contamination informative on the application for how to manage unexpected land contamination. The recommended informative has been adopted as a condition within this recommendation for approval. Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS): On the basis of the information provided, we do not consider that it is necessary for this application to be Archaeological Advisory Service. GLAAS were consulted based on the site location within an archaeological priority area. They identified no reasons for concern. Natural England: No objection subject to appropriate mitigation being secured via recommended planning condition. Natural England were consulted based on the sites proximity to Ruislip Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest. The recommended condition has been adopted by the planning officer in this recommendation for approval. Environment Agency: No comment on the application. The Environment Agency were consulted based on the sites proximity to Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press the Ruislip Lido. They reviewed the application and considered it not necessary to comment. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The principle for the public toilet uses on the site is established through the existing use. However, as the site is located on Green Belt Land, the principle of erecting the new buildings 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 Metropolitan Open Land will not be permitted unless there are very special circumstances 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 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 Policy G2 of the London Plan (2021) states that Green Belt should be protected from inappropriate development, but subject to national planning policy tests, the enhancement of the Green Belt to provide appropriate multi-functional beneficial uses for Londoners should be supported. 7.5 Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) 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. 7.6 The proposed toilet blocks would support the outdoor recreational uses of Ruislip Lido and therefore is not inappropriate development The new facilities would address existing capacity issues by expanding their capacity. The toilets would provide step-free access and a complete array of toilet facilities for men, women, mobility-impaired and families. This would ensure that the Ruislip Lido is more accessible and amenable for all Londoners. Any additional visitors to the site created by the provision of new toilet facilities (induced demand) would be Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press extremely low and would not unduly harm the amenity of the area or of neighbouring properties. 7.7 It is also considered that the openness of the Green Belt Land would be maintained. The two proposed toilet facilities would replace existing toilet blocks and would be in the same location as the existing buildings. They would also be single storey and compact. This would also ensure the openness of the Green Belt is preserved by locating the buildings in existing built-up areas and replacing existing buildings. 7.8 Overall, the principle of the proposed development is accepted and complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy G2 of the London Plan (2021), Policy EM2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One (2012) and Policy DMEI 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020). Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.9 Chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) seeks to prevent inappropriate development and ensure the openness of the land is not harmed. 7.10 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 G2 requires that the Green Belt be protected from inappropriate development. 7.11 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). 7.12 The two proposed replacement toilet blocks would be located on the footprints of the existing blocks and would be slightly larger than the existing toilets to achieve the necessary capacity for enhanced provision. They would be clad with brick and have standing seam zinc roofing. Glass block windows and aluminium rooflights would provide daylight to the buildings. The entry doors would be constructed out of steel and PPC aluminium panels would provide unlit signage on the walls. The proposed colours of the materials have not been confirmed. Therefore, a condition of consent has been included requiring provision of a materials palette (with adequate supporting information including colours) be submitted to the LPA for review and approval prior to works commencing. 7.13 During the assessment of the application, revised drawings were submitted in response to LPA feedback reducing the pitch of the roofs from 45-degrees to 40- degrees, and by consequence also reducing the maximum heights of the buildings. These amendments addressed concerns of excessive height and Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press resultant poor visual outcomes. The amended 40-degree roof pitches would be less prominent while still maintaining the functionality of the higher pitched roofs with regards to debris clearance and internal height clearances for water tanks. 7.14 The Council Urban Designer has reviewed the revised scheme and is supportive of the proposal. The Urban Designer initially raised concerns regarding the exaggerated roof form, quality/appropriateness of materials, screening of utilities and necessity of ramps for access. The applicant responded to these comments with amended plans and/or additional information such that the Urban Designer could support the proposal subject to the application of appropriate conditions. These conditions relate to securing provision of a landscaping scheme and a materials palette. The conditions recommended by the planning officer in this report were reviewed by the Urban Designer and confirmed that their concerns have been adequately addressed. 7.15 Overall, the design of the scheme is of a high-quality and supported. The proposed location of the replacement toilet blocks on top of the existing footprints (proposed for demolition) would minimise visual impacts on the surrounding Green Belt land, maintaining the openness of the area. The proposed buildings are compact in form, single-storey and rectangular, and efficiently provide a much greater array and quality of facilities for public use than the existing buildings. By re-utilising the existing building locations, changes to the overall environment are minimised and the sprawl of built form on the site is avoided. As such, it is considered that the openness of the Green Belt land would be maintained by the new buildings. 7.16 The limited scale, single-storey height and location of the proposed replacement buildings would ensure they sit comfortably in the surrounding environment. The reduced roof pitch has addressed the initial exaggerated form of the roofs and simultaneously reduced the building heights. While the 40-degree pitch is still high, it would aid in clearing debris from the roofs as well as enabling minimum floor to ceiling heights to achieve in-roof water tanks. Overall, the scale of the proposed replacement public toilet buildings considered acceptable. 7.17 The proposed materials are high-quality and durable, and necessary for the functional nature of the building and exposed environment location. It is considered the materials, whilst modern and not in keeping with adjacent older buildings, would clearly depict the purpose of the buildings as functional/public toilets and are therefore considered to be acceptable. 7.18 Both buildings would be provided with step-free access, ensuring the toilets are accessible for all forms of mobility, and the toilets provide male, female, accessible and family toilets and changing rooms ensuring all the needs of the local community and Lido visitors are met. 7.19 New landscaping areas are proposed around the buildings. However, details of the landscaping, including planting specification and hard materials have not been provided at this stage. As such, it is recommended that landscaping details and maintenance is secured by way of condition on the decision notice. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.20 Overall, the proposed replacement toilet blocks would sit comfortably on the Green Belt land and would maintain the openness, appearance, and character of the area. The proposed scale has been minimised, and the proposed replacement buildings would be located on top of the existing building footprints, minimising any encroachment. The proposed materials would ensure an acceptable external finish that is visually attractive and fit-for-purpose. 7.21 It is considered that the proposed development would comply with the overarching aims of the NPPF (2024), Policies D3 and G2 of the London Plan (2021), Policy BE1 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). Neighbouring Residential Amenity 7.22 Due to the remote location of the sites within the public Ruislip Lido reserve and significant separation distances from residences, there are no neighbouring residential sites whose amenities may be adversely affected by the proposal. Highways and Parking 7.23 The application has been reviewed by the Highways Officer who does not raise any objections to the proposal subject to the adoption of a condition requiring the submission of a Construction Logistics Plan for approval prior to commencement. This condition has been included in Appendix 1. 7.24 The proposal does not include any change to existing parking provision or access arrangements. It is considered that any increased traffic generation created by the provision of new toilet facilities would be negligible in highways terms and would not notably change traffic movements. Accessibility 7.25 Each toilet block would provide level, step-free access to accessible toilets, as well as a Changing Places cubicle (larger accessible toilets for severely disabled people with equipment such as hoists, privacy screens, space for careers etc). As such, the application is considered acceptable with regards to accessibility. The application has been reviewed by the Access Officer who does not raise any concerns. Trees and Landscaping 7.26 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 natural features of merit, and will be required to provide tree surveys and protection plans where proposals might affect Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 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. 7.27 Policy G7 of the London Plan (2021) states that woodlands should be protected and maintained, and development proposals should ensure that, wherever possible, existing trees of value are retained. 7.28 The site is not subject to specific tree protections. However the larger site is a public reserve and on Green Belt land, and there are multiple mature trees of high value located within proximity of the proposed development sites. The sites are also adjacent to Ruislip Woods. 7.29 A Tree Survey and Arboriculture Report has been submitted with the proposal for both the Woody Bay and Willow Lawn sites. The Council Trees Officer reviewed the submitted information and initially identified concern over the proximity of works to a mature Oak tree near the Woody Bay site. 7.30 The applicant responded to the Trees information confirming that an arboriculturalist would be engaged in the detailed design of the building foundations to mitigate any potential impacts on this identified tree. 7.31 The Trees Officer confirmed that subject to inclusion of appropriate conditions, which the Tree Officer has reviewed and approved of, they are supportive of the application. These conditions are included in Appendix 1. 7.32 Given the proximity to Ruislip Woods, Natural England were also consulted on the application. They confirmed they have no objection to the proposal subject to securing appropriate mitigation (in the form of a condition requiring submission of a Construction Environmental Management Plan) to ensure the construction works do not adversely harm the Ruislip Woods. Such a condition has been included in this recommendation for approval in Appendix 1. 7.33 As such, subject to inclusion of the recommended conditions, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable and would comply with Policy G7 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Biodiversity 7.34 Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021) states that development proposals should manage impacts on biodiversity and aim to secure net biodiversity gain. This should be informed by the best available ecological information and addressed from the start of the development process. 7.35 The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal for the sites supported by a site walkover survey and a desk-top study. The sites are located Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press in proximity to woodland and open water habitats and therefore the report recommends provision of a Construction Environment Management Plan to be secured by way of condition. The report also recommends a provision of a Construction Lighting Plan to be secured by way of condition to mitigate any impacts from construction lighting. 7.36 The report identifies that the sites do not support any protected species directly, including not providing any opportunities for nesting birds or roosting bats, and due to their modified hardstand nature, does not provide suitable foraging habitat for bats or other species. 7.37 The report identifies there could be potential harm to foraging bats during construction. However, the report notes there is unlikely to be any severance impacts and any other impacts can be appropriately mitigated to avoid harm to bats. 7.38 Natural England were consulted on the application. They confirmed they have no objection to the proposal, including no concern over harm to bats, subject to securing appropriate mitigation (in the form of a condition requiring provision of a Construction Environmental Management Plan) to ensure the construction works do not adversely harm the local biodiversity. 7.39 As such, with the application of appropriate conditions, any impacts to local biodiversity are mitigated in accordance with Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021). Biodiversity Net Gain 7.40 Under Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021), developers must deliver a Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) of at least 10%. This means a development will result in more or better-quality natural habitat than there was before development. 7.41 The applicant has submitted a Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment in support of the application. The report confirms various enhancement recommendations that could be feasibly accommodated on the sites to achieve BNG compliance with a proposed strategy that would achieve a 21.12% net gain. 7.42 However, in the absence of a detailed landscaping scheme containing the recommended enhancement measures, conditions are included requiring the provision of a detailed landscaping scheme as well as an updated biodiversity net gain assessment to the Council for review and approval prior to commencement of works. A condition requiring the submission of a habitat management plan has also been included. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Sustainability 7.43 Policy DMEI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020) requires all developments to make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the London Plan targets. 7.44 The applicant has submitted an energy and sustainability report in support of the application. The report confirms various sustainability measures would be implemented in the design, including implementation of passive and active enhancements, water reuse, low carbon materials and water reuse. 7.45 The proposal would therefore be compliant with Policy DMEI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Land Contamination 7.46 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. 7.47 The sites are identified as being located on potentially contaminated land. The Council Contaminated Land Officer has reviewed the application and has no objection subject to inclusion of an appropriate informative requiring a watching brief and consultation with the Council should unexpected contamination be discovered. This has been included as a condition in Appendix 1. 7.48 The Environment Agency was also consulted and had no objection to the proposal. 7.49 The applicant has also submitted a geotechnical desk top study of the sites which has not identified the sites as being subject to potential land contamination but nevertheless has recommended undertaking further on-site investigations to confirm. 7.50 Therefore, to mitigate the potential risk from contaminated land, a condition of consent has been included in this recommendation, requiring mitigation should unexpected contamination be discovered during the works. Subject to such a condition, the proposal is considered compliant with Policy DMEI 12 of the Local Plan (2020). Archaeological Priority Area 7.51 Policy DMBH 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020) states that the Council, as advised by the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service, will ensure that sites of archaeological interest within, or where appropriate, outside, designated areas are not disturbed. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.52 As the site is located within an archaeological priority area, Historic England Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service were consulted. They confirmed they did not need to be consulted, nor did they hold any objection to the application. 7.53 On this basis, the application is considered not to have an impact on archaeological assets and would be in accordance with Policy DMBH 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020). Fire Safety 7.54 Policy D12 of the London Plan states that all developments must achieve the highest standards of fire safety. 7.55 The sites are situated within two areas of open space and the buildings are non- habitable. As the proposed toilet blocks are single storey, accessible and non- habitable, the LPA are satisfied it would not lead to any fire safety and access/escape route concerns. 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. The proposal would provide accessible public toilet facilities. Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.3 The proposal is for greater than 100sqm of gross internal floor area and is therefore CIL liable. Demolition of any applicable existing floor area may be factored into the chargeable area. Hillingdon Planning Committee 13th February 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area, the openness of the Green Belt and would not give rise to any undue harm to the surrounding environment. 9.2 The principle of the replacement of the two toilet facilities on the Green Belt land is supported, as they would support the established outdoor recreational uses at Ruislip Lido and would preserve the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt land. 9.3 Any potential ecological impacts from the proposal can be acceptably mitigated through the imposition of recommended conditions. 9.4 The proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan, London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) 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.