Planning

Minutes HILLINGDON PLANNING COMMITTEE 13 February 2025 Meeting held at Committee Room 5 - Civic Centre Committee Members Present: Councillors Henry Higgins (Chair) Adam Bennett (Vice-Chair) Elizabeth Garelick Gursharan Mand Jagjit Singh Shehryar Ahmad-Wallana Darran Davies LBH Officers Present: Eoin Concannon, Planning Team Leader Katie Crosbie, Area Planning Service Manager - North Natalie Fairclough, Legal Advisor Mitchell Heaven, Planning Officer Roz Johnson, Head of Development Management and Building Control Liz Penny, Democratic Services Officer Haydon Richardson, Deputy Team Leader Dr Alan Tilly, Transport Planning and Development Manager Also Present: Ward Councillor Richard Lewis (item 6) Ward Councillor Peter Smallwood (item 8) Ward Councillor Jan Sweeting (item 7) 13. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Keith Burrow s with Councillor Shehryar Ahmad -Wallana substituting and from Councillor Roy Chamdal with Councillor Darran Davies substituting. 14. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS COMING BEFORE THIS MEETING (Agenda Item 2) There were no declarations of interest. 15. TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3) RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 15 January 2025 be agreed as an accurate record. 16. MATTERS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OR URGENT (Agenda Item 4) None. 17. 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 1 and would be considered in public. 18. 36 MOOR PARK ROAD, NORTHWOOD - 77170/APP/2024/1240 (Agenda Item 6) Change of use from residential dwelling (Use Class C3) to children's care home (Use Class C2), to include a bike and bin store Officers introduced the application and highlighted the additional information in the addendum. The application was recommended for approval. Three petitions in objection to the application had been received and two lead petitioners were in attendance to address the Committee Members. Members were presented with a Notes of Evidence document for reference. The following points we re highlighted:  The site had previously been the subject of a National Crime Agency raid for drug dealing.  The applicant was the owner of the property, and First Chapter Homes was to care for the children despite having no track record in running a children's care home, as the company had been set up in March 2024.  There was significant opposition to th e proposal from local residents, with three petitions and over 360 signatures, as well as support from Ward Councillor Lewis, local MP David Simmonds, and t he headmaster of nearby Saint Martin's School.  The Committee was urged to refuse the application to protect the residents' right to quiet enjoyment of their homes.  Noise concerns were raised, with the Council’s noise officer concluding that the noise would not be above the norm within a residential setting, which was contested by the residents.  The number of people in the home was expected to exceed the norm, with four children, four carers, a cleaner, a cook, social workers, youth workers, family members, and friends visiting regularly.  The use of restraining techniques was mentioned, with three pages de dicated to how they would be used.  The planning officer had conceded that the procedures suggested by the applicant would not necessarily prevent potential noise and disturbance.  Residents were expected to engage the police or local authority if there was antisocial behaviour, which was seen as impractical.  The garden was deemed unsuitable, and it was anticipated that children would play at the front of the house.  Valuable residential space would be lost to a commercial operation during a housing crisis. The Borough's housing buyback scheme had been announced by Councillor Eddie Lavery in 2024 and there was an acute need for housing in the Borough.  The location of the proposed Children’s centre was unsuitable - Northwood had already lost its police station, and the nearest police presence some distance away.  It was a strategic objective to ensure that development contributed to a reduction in crime and disorder which this application would fail to do.  Officers claimed there was no evidence that criminal activ ity or antisocial activity was more prevalent or extreme in a children's care home, but this was inaccurate as evidenced by Ofsted.  The proposal would lead to an increase in antisocial behaviour.  The location was unsuitable for teenagers due to its lack o f entertainment and amenities.  Existing housing stock should be prioritised unless there were exceptional circumstances.  The application was deemed speculat ive and incoherent, with no guarantee that the adolescents housed there would be from the Borough.  The application was almost universally opposed by residents.  Parking on site would be inadequate.  If approved, the application would set a very poor precedent. Councillors sought further clarification from petitioners regarding the relevance of criminal activity statistics, including county lines and the exploitation of vulnerable people, to a change of use application for a children's home. It was explaine d that the details in the “Note of Evidence” paper provided to Members for reference, supplied general background information on the use of children's homes and the increasing problem with county lines. It was confirmed that, according to the British Transport Police, 38% of those involved in county lines were aged between 11 and 17, hence the relevance to this application. Members also enquired about the relevance of anti -social behaviour statistics, such as noise nuisance, verbal abuse, and vandalism, to the application. Petitioners confirmed that this was additional general background information. It was noted that some children in care homes, including the one in question, were vulnerable and often caught up in crime. Petitioners mentioned that the report referenced the need for restraint techniques and multiple carers per child due to the challenging nature of some children in these homes. In response to further questions from the Committee, petitioners acknowledged that it was preferable for vulnerabl e children to be housed in a family area. However, it was felt that the proposed location was not ap propriate for a children’s home due to issues with parking, numbers of residents in the home, noise, nuisance and disturbance to neighbours. The applicants were in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:  A manage ment plan would be provided to allay the fears of neighbouring residents.  There were two state schools in close proximity to the application site.  Many of the children would be tutored off site.  The children’s home would be regularly monitored by Ofsted t o ensure compliance with all regulations.  A maximum of 4 staff would be on site at any time.  Highways officers had raised no concerns regarding parking – 5 spaces would be available for 4 staff hence there would be no requirement for on -street parking.  Many meetings would be held virtually or off site – it was not anticipated that the home would generate unacceptable levels of noise or cause disturbance of neighbours. A noise management plan would be provided.  There was a stigma around children in care whi ch was unjustified. The children at the home would have experienced neglect and abuse – they needed a safe environment to enable them to grow and flourish. In response to questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that there would be a maximum of 4 s taff and 4 children on site at any time. There would be no additional cleaner or cook at the premises as staff would undertake these duties themselves. Members heard that the children’s social workers would visit the home once every six weeks and the premi ses would be inspected once a month. It was noted that contact with family would occur off site. No visitors would be allowed on site as the children needed a stable and safe environment. Members sought further clarification regarding the schooling arran gements for the children at the home. It was confirmed that some children would attend mainstream schools, and staff would be responsible for dropping them off and collecting them. Other children might be schooled in a library environment or online. Ward Councillor Richard Lewis was in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:  The application site was situated in a peaceful residential community.  The impact on neighbours was a matter of concern.  There would be constant disruption, and this was not the right location for such a facility.  The proposed parking layout would not work in reality.  If approved, the children’s home would result in a loss of character to the local area and would create additional traffic, parking stress and pollution.  The application site had very poor transport links.  Young children in the nearby St Martin’s School would be subjected to unacceptable swearing and noise emanating from the children’s home.  The Management Plan lacked detail, the directors lacked experience, and a better location could have been selected for this project.  Planning concerns were cited. In response to questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that there would not be two staff occupying one bedroom at nighttime as one would be on duty while the other was sleeping. Members were reminded that the suitability of the applicants was a matter for Ofsted and was not a planning consideration. With regard to the concerns raised in the Note of Evidence in relation to antisocial behaviour and crime, officers affirmed that these were generic statements. It was noted that the Development Plan supported the provision of care homes in the Borough, which should be embedded in a residential setting. Officers observed that par king provision was considered adequate and there was ample on-street parking available. Members were advised that, were the matter to go to appeal, many of the proposed conditions which aimed to protect local residents, could be removed by the Inspector. Members sought further clarification regarding staffing arrangements and were advised that two staff would be in attendance at the home overnight – one o n duty and one sleeping. Management would be on call if needed. Four staff members would be on day duty. Members were reminded that staffing arrangements were a matter for Ofsted and were not within the remit of the Planning Committee. The final decision as to whether the proposed children’s home went ahead ultimately lay with Ofsted. At the request of Members, it was agreed that visiting times be reduced from 8pm to 6pm, except in the case of emergencies and visits from medical professionals. Noting tha t the Committee was doing everything possible to protect residents, the officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously approved. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the amendment of Condition 6 to reduce visiting hours from 8pm to 6pm except in the case of emergencies and visits from medical professionals. 19. 13 OAK AVENUE, WEST DRAYTON - 77097/APP/2024/2693 (Agenda Item 7) Erection of a two storey, 2 -bed attached dwelling with associated cycle storage and amenity space Officers introduced the application and highlighted the addi tional information in the addendum. A petition in objection to the application had been received. The lead petitioner had submitted a written representation which was read out for the attention of the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:  The report provided information that differed from the experiences of local residents.  The curre nt property had been extended significantly, increasing its capacity beyond the stated four bedrooms.  The proposed new two -bedroom house would create overdevelo pment and dominate the views of neighbouring homes.  The new house had the potential to be converted into a four -bedroom property, leading to a large HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) with up to 20 persons.  The description of the family home in the report was considered misleading as the current house accommodated many people.  A large HMO would have serious consequences for residents, including parking issues, noise, litter, and disruption.  The assessments made by officers in the report were based on an underestimate of the current and proposed building capacities.  The Committee was requested to refuse the application or conduct a full site visit. The agent for the application had also submitted a written statement which was read out for the consideration of the voting Members. Key points highlighted included:  The importance of maintaining the integ rity and character of the area was highlighted.  It was alleged that No.13 was not, and would not be, used as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) but as a C3 dwellinghouse by a single family.  Evidence, including a Shorthold Assured Tenancy Agreement, photographs, and a visit by Enforcement Officers on 11th February 2025, confirmed that the property remained a C3 dwellinghouse.  The applicant's brother planned to move into No.13, while the applicant and his family would occupy the new dwelling.  No. 13' s location at the end of a cul -de-sac allowed the new dwelling to be a discrete addition, maintaining visual harmony.  The new dwelling's scale, design, materi als, and detailing had been chosen to complement the surrounding architecture.  The design aimed to enhance the area's character and integrate seamlessly with the surroundings.  Paddington Planning requested that the application be approved, emphasising the development's positive contribution to the neighbourhood. Ward Councillor Jan Sweeting wa s in attendance and addressed Members in support of petitioners. Key points raised included:  The report claimed that the proposed attached 2 -bedroom property would be relatively modest, with sufficient roadside capacity to accommodate vehicles from the existing property.  It stated that the proposal would not result in a reduction in residential amenity, a significant increase in activity or people movement, and the existing property was a family 4-bed home rented to a single family.  However, a visit by th e Council's enforcement team had found significant discrepancies, revealing that the property was being used as a third generous HMO with the potential of having 8, not 4, bedrooms.  The proposed new 2 -bedroom property could easily move into a four -bedroom property over three floors, potentially merging into one large property with the existing one, resulting in 12 bedrooms with a minimum capacity of 24 people.  Specific planning issues were highlighted, including the first -floor bedroom window of the propose d new dwelling being only 7.5 meters away from the flanked wall at no.11, which was in direct contravention to the Council's minimum 15-metre requirement.  The proposed window would directly look into the private rear garden of no.11, resulting in overlooking and loss of privacy.  The application was requested to be refused due to inaccuracies in the interpretation of the capacity of both buildings and for legitima te planning reasons. Members sought further clarification as to whether the existing property h ad been found to be operating as an HMO. In response, officers advised Members that the planning application purported that the existing dwelling was a single -family dwelling, and the report had been written on that basis. Enforcement complaints alleging a change of use to an HMO had been received in May 2024 by private sector housing, and the planning enforcement team had only become aware of the situation during the processing of the planning application. It was confirmed that a site inspection had bee n carried out by the Planning Enforcement Officer on 11 February 2025, post -publication of the Committee agenda report. The Planning Enforcement Officer had not ed that the property could potentially have 8 bedrooms, but further investigation was required, and no conclusion had been reached. The Committee heard that officers believed that, whether the property was an HMO or a single -family dwelling, did not mater ially affect the recommendation that planning permission should be granted. Councillors sought clarity on the distance between the 1st floor window and the existing dwelling. It was confirmed that the distance was around 7.5 metres, similar to the existing dwelling, and it was noted that the HDASS document with a 15 -metre requirement was no longer in use. Members recommended the inclusion of a condition to obscure the window for residents' peace of mind. Councillors enquired about the number of people living in the property and its extension history. It was stated that the number of residents was no t material to the planning consideration. Members heard that the property had a single -story side extension and a first-floor rear extension. Councillors discu ssed the proposed new dwelling and the planning conditions to prevent its change of use to a small HMO and the addition of extensions without express planning permission. Officers explained that the planning enforcement team was investigating the use of no .13 and would address any breaches of planning control. Members sought further clarification re garding photographic evidence of people living in the property and prior notice of visits. The ongoing Planning Enforcement investigation was highlighted, and C ouncillors were advised that the number of people living in the existing property was not material to the planning decision. Councillors sought advice on the linking of the two properties internally. It was noted that merging two properties without planni ng permission was ordinarily possible but converting them into a large HMO would require planning permission. The Committee Members thanked officers for their comprehensive report and it was noted that the planning enforcement investigation could take a c onsiderable length of time to conclude. Officers noted the potential risk of a non -determination appeal if the application were to be deferred for a site visit. However, Councillors felt a site visit was important to enable them to fully assess the poten tial overdevelopment of the site, str eet parking issues and the impact on the character of the area. The recommendation to defer the item to allow for a site visit was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the item be deferred to allow a site visit to take place. 20. RUISLIP LIDO, RESERVOIR ROAD - 78998/APP/2024/2281 (Agenda Item 8) Replacement of existing 2 x single storey toilet facilities at Willow Lawn and Woody Bay, provision of replacement s ingle storey 2 x toilets and changing facility buildings, and associated works and landscaping. Officers presented the report noting that the application was recommended for approval. Ward Councillor Peter Smallwood was in attendance and addressed the C ommittee in support of the application. Councillor Smallwood outlined the importance of the landscaping condition. He noted that the toilets at the Lido had often been closed which had been inconvenient and had led to antisocial behaviour. Members enquir ed why changing facilities were needed given that swimming at the Lido was forbidden. It was explained that the proposed changing facilities would be for the use of families and those with disabilities. In response to further questions from Councillors, it was explained that a large tank would provide emergency overflow back up if needed. Members welcomed the proposal. The officer’s reco mmendation 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 9.11 pm. 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 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Haydon Richardson 77097/APP/2024/2693 Date Application Valid: 11.10.24 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 28.03.25 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 legal agreement and conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 3 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Petition received) Hillingdon Planning Committee 12 March 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 Deferred at Planning Committee on 13 February 2025 1.1 This application was deferred at Planning Committee on 13 February 2025 for members to conduct a site visit. Members Site Visit 1.2 A member site visit was carried out on 25 February 2025. The site was viewed from the public footpath and within the private garden area proposed for the development. The surrounding area and immediate streets were also viewed to understand parking arrangements and to gain an appreciation of the character and visual amenity of the street scene. Planning Enforcement Investigation 1.3 As noted in the addendum to Planning Committee on 13 February 2025, the investigating allegations that no. 13 Oak Avenue, West Drayton is in use as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), and that development works carried out do not accord with plans approved. Whilst this matter is separate to the consideration of the planning application, the Planning Enforcement Team Leader 1.4 Private Sector Housing Team. At a previous partially accessed site visit the occupant stated that he lived there as part of an extended family unit consisting of five adults and two children. During this limited access visit there were no blatantly obvious signs of sui generis HMO use on site such as locked or numbered bedrooms. 1.5 Despite this a further arranged visit with full access was undertaken on 11th February 2025. On this occasion there were a number of discrepancies that lead us to believe that the property may be in use as a sui generis HMO. There was a potential of up to 8 bedrooms on site, in contrast to plan layouts as put forward previously, with Hillingdon Planning Committee 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press some rooms being presented as lounge areas in excess of what would be expected for a busy family dwelling. 1.6 As such, at this time we cannot positively assert that the property at 13 Oak Avenue is in use as a single-family dwelling and believe it more likely to be in use as a sui generis HMO. Whilst the information gathered thus far would be considered more circumstantial than definitive, we do believe that further investigation is required which may ultimately result in enforcement action being taken. 1.7 With regard to the extension built on site we are aware of discrepancies in the build from that as approved under Ref: 77097/APP/2022/3630 and the side extension which was to be lawfully built in line with Ref: 77097/APP/2023/2640. This matter is subject to further planning enforcement consideration. In Planning Enforcement we are obligated to work within the established national guidelines and policies including the National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 60) and Planning Practice Guidance (Ensuring effective enforcement) (http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/ensuring-effective- enforcement/) in order to resolve breaches of planning control. Planning Practice Guidance states explicitly that in deciding, in each case, what is the most appropriate way forward, local planning authorities should usually assess prior to taking action whether the breach causes material harm or adverse impact on the amenity of the site or the surrounding area. 1.8 As such we will now be contacting the property owners in order to bring about suitable remedy of the built structure concerns prior to any enforcement action being 1.9 Members are advised to note that this Committee Report has been updated from the original report which was brought to the Planning Committee on the 13 February 2025 to reflect the above update on the status of the property and to include the two additional recommended conditions that had been included in the addendum (relating to obscure glazing of a first floor bathroom window, and to remove permitted development rights for the conversion of the proposed new dwelling to a small HMO (use Class C4) in the future, without planning permission). 1.10 For the avoidance of doubt, the aforementioned planning enforcement matters are separate and are not material to the determination of planning application 77097/APP/2024/2693. Regardless of the outcome of the planning application, the Team will continue with their investigation at 13 Oak Avenue as reported by the Planning Enforcement Team Leader in his update. 2 Executive Summary 2.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two storey, 2-bed attached dwelling with associated cycle storage and amenity space. 2.2 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 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. 2.3 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 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. 2.4 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. 2.5 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 and that future residents of the property are provided with a good standard of living accommodation. 2.6 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. 3 The Site and Locality 3.1 The development site comprises a two storey, end of terrace property and is located on the east side of Oak Avenue. 3.2 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 property is set back from the main road, in a pedestrianised area, next to a green and within the corner of the residential enclave. 3.3 The property is subject to a planning enforcement investigation as set out within Section 1 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 3.4 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. 3.5 The development site has PTAL Rating of 1A (Low) and is located upon potentially contaminated land. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application Property (furthest terrace to the left) Figure 3: Front Elevation of the Property Hillingdon Planning Committee 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 4 Proposal 4.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two storey, 2-bed dwelling with associated cycle storage and amenity space. The submitted plans are copied below for information. Existing Floor Plans Proposed Floor Plans Hillingdon Planning Committee 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Existing Elevation Plans Proposed Elevation Plans Figure 4: Existing and Proposed Plans (please note larger version of plans can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) 5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 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. 6 Planning Policy Hillingdon Planning Committee 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 6.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 7 Consultations and Representations 7.1 Thirteen neighbouring properties were consulted on 29th October 2023. 7.2 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 objecting to the proposed development. Objection to the erection of a two bed house being attached to 13 Oak Avenue. The approved building work at the property has already doubled its living area and caused noise and inconvenience to neighbours for over a year. Material considerations are addressed in the main body of this report (section 8). 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 a 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 impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area has been assessed from paragraph 8.15 to 8.28 of this report. The proposed development would harm neighbouring amenities, causing a loss of The impact of the proposed development on the amenities of the Hillingdon Planning Committee 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 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. occupiers of neighbouring properties has been assessed from paragraph 8.29 to 8.41 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). This matter is addressed in section 1 of this report. The outcome of the ongoing planning enforcement investigation is not deemed to be material to the determination of the current planning application. 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 a 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. A planning condition has been recommended to secure the submission of a construction management plan, in order to minimise the impacts of the construction phase on neighbouring residents as far as practicable. Hillingdon Planning Committee 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 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 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. The recommended conditions have been adopted as part of recommendation. 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. The recommended condition has been adopted as part of recommendation. 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 The o comments have been discussed from paragraph 8.42 to 8.53 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 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 property does not benefit from on plot parking spaces no parking is required to be retained for this property under its lawful use. 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 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. 8 Planning Assessment Principle of Development New Housing and Garden Land Development 8.1 The site comprises an end of terrace property and land within its curtilage. The site is located within an established residential area. 8.2 The National Planning Policy Framework has a requirement to encourage the effective use of land. 8.3 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. 8.4 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". 8.5 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press properties and does not result in a detrimental impact upon the local highway network. 8.6 The proposal seeks to construct a new dwelling onto the side of the existing property at 13 Oak Avenue. This would involve a proportion of the rear and side of the garden being lost. 8.7 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. 8.8 The two-storey element would extend up to the rear building line of the existing property at the upper floor level. The ground floor element would also meet the rear building line of the existing property on site. 8.9 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. 8.10 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. 8.11 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 8.12 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. 8.13 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. 8.14 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. Hillingdon Planning Committee 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 8.15 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. 8.16 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. 8.17 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. 8.18 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. 8.19 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. 8.20 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. 8.21 The dwelling would be of similar height and depth to the existing property, 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 properties within the terrace block, it would also be finished in similar materials. 8.22 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press this part of the development would be almost entirely hidden from within the street scene. 8.23 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 property 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. 8.24 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 - 72945/APP/2017/2090). The proposed development would therefore not be out of character. 8.25 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. 8.26 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 building. Furthermore, the bulk of the main front elevation, or certainly its main width, already benefits from consent. As such, the additional development above what exists already is considered to be subordinately designed and would not present a significant impact upon local character which could be justified as a reason for refusal. 8.27 Officers consider the revised plans to improve the articulation of the front elevation to result in a design which can now be supported. 8.28 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 8.29 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 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.' 8.30 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. 8.31 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. 8.32 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 property. 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 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. 8.33 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. 8.34 Based on the above points, officers conclude that the proposal satisfactorily safeguards the amenities of the existing property at No.13. 8.35 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. 8.36 The other is a secondary kitchen window, which faces the 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press is further protected, a condition is recommended to ensure that the proposed first floor bathroom window is obscure glazed. 8.37 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. Figure 5: 11 Oak Avenue ground Floor side windows 8.38 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. 8.39 One additional 2 bed property would not result in a significant increase in activity or people movements at the site. 8.40 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. 8.41 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). Hillingdon Planning Committee 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Highways and Parking Access 8.42 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 the open space benefit from on-plot parking therefore no vehicle access to the site exists and one is not proposed. Parking 8.43 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 to and from the site. 8.44 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 property, as no existing parking is provided the applicant is not required to demonstrate that adequate parking is retained. 8.45 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. 8.46 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. 8.47 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 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 6: walking distance to shops and bus stops 8.48 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 8.49 As the development does not provide parking there is no provision for EVCP proposed. Cycle Parking 8.50 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 8.51 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 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 8.52 Drawing ref 1031-11_Rev05 Rev 06 show that waste storage facilities would be provided for the new dwelling but not the existing property. 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 properties). 8.53 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) 8.54 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. 8.55 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. 8.56 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. 8.57 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. 8.58 Whilst the quantum of space to be provided for the new dwelling and that to be retained to serve the existing property forms part of the assessment it is equally as important to assess the quality. Noting superseded drawing ref 1031-11_Rev05 Rev 05 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Officers consider that an amenity space provision to serve No.13 which falls modestly short of the 100sqm requirement (82.sqm) (as shown on revised plan 1031-11_Rev05 Rev 06) would be more usable, better designed and better located than simply providing the policy required quantum. 8.59 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 8.60 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'. 8.61 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 8.62 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. 8.63 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 8.64 Biodiversity net gain is a way of creating and improving biodiversity by requiring development to have a positive impact ('net gain') on biodiversity. 8.65 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. 8.66 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"). Hillingdon Planning Committee 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 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. 8.67 There are exemptions and the BNG planning condition does not apply to all planning permissions. 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. 8.68 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. In the event that planning permission is approved, a legal agreement will be secured to ensure that the development is self-build. Ecology 8.69 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 8.70 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. 8.71 The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable. Air Quality 8.72 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. 8.73 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 8.43 8.48 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 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 8.74 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 8.75 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. 8.76 Land contamination records show 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 8.77 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. 8.78 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. 8.79 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 8.80 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. 8.81 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 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Airport Safeguarding 8.82 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 8.83 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. 8.84 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). 9 Other Matters Human Rights 9.1 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 9.2 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 9.3 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 12 March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 10 Conclusion / Planning Balance 10.1 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. 10.2 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). 11 Background Papers 11.1 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 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Rhian Thomas 35665/APP/2024/3154 Date Application Valid: 02.12.24 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 19.03.25 Application Type: Full Ward: Charville Applicant: Blum Site Address: 105 Hayes End Road, Hayes Proposal: Conversion of dwelling house into two flats, including the conversion of garage to habitable space, erection of a single storey rear extension, rear dormer with front-facing roof lights, amendments to fenestrations and associated parking 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 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Planning permission is sought for the Conversion of dwelling house into two flats, including the conversion of garage to habitable space, erection of a single storey rear extension, rear dormer with front-facing roof lights, amendments to fenestrations and associated parking 1.2 The application is a resubmission of a previously refused scheme under reference 35665/APP/2024/2087 dated 08-10-24 Erection of a part single, part double storey rear extension, conversion of garage to habitable space, alterations to roof form including a hip to gable extension, rear dormer and rooflights to facilitate the conversion of dwelling to 2 flats (1x2 bed and 1x3 bed). The application was refused for three reasons, these can be seen within section 4 of this Committee Report 1.3 During the process of the application, a petition in objection to the development was received. Having reviewed the petition Officers can confirm that it does not specifically state the concerns which have led to signatures in objection to the proposal. 1.4 However, an attachment was appended to the petition setting out various concerns, plus written objections have been received separately from the petition. Concerns raised include the loss of a family dwelling, lack of affordable housing, potential conversion to a HMO property and environmental/biodiversity issues. 1.5 A more detailed response is set out within this report, however in summary the proposal is for 1 x 3 bed and 1 x 2 bed flats, as such the application would not result in a net loss of family sized housing. The proposal would contribute towards local housing stock by adding an addition 2 bed flat and would result in the optimisation of a brownfield site which is supported by the Development Plan. Adequate levels of on-site parking are provided and whilst the upper floor flat would not have direct access to private amenity space the internal living spaces exceed the minimum space standards. In addition future residents would have access to parks and open spaces within a 10-minute walking distance. As such on balance the standards of living accommodation are acceptable. Finally, the proposal is not for a HMO as demonstrated on the plans that are before Committee for determination. 1.6 The Committee Report seeks to provide a comprehensive assessment of the full application and supporting documentation. All material planning considerations have been considered. Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 1.7 It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions (Appendix 1) by virtue that the development would not have a significant impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, nor would it harm the character and appearance of the Area of Special Local Character, and it would not have a harmful impact on the highway network. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site comprises a two-storey semi-detached property located on the western side of Hayes End Road, Hayes. The site benefits from a double storey side extension with integral garage and rear conservatory structure. To the front of the site is a garden area with driveway leading to the garage and to the rear is an enclosed garden which acts as private amenity space. 2.2 The surrounding area is residential in character comprising mainly two storey semi-detached properties. To the north of the site is Hayes Park. The site has a PTAL ranking of 2. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figure 2: Street View Images of the Application Property Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the conversion of dwelling house into two flats, including the conversion of garage to habitable space, erection of a single storey rear extension, rear dormer with front-facing roof lights, amendments to fenestrations and associated parking Figure 3: Proposed Plan (please note larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Proposed site plan Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Proposed floor plans Proposed front and rear elevations Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Proposed side elevations Proposed sections 4 Relevant Planning History Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. However, of relevance to this application are the two applications set out below. 4.2 A certificate of Lawfulness was recently approved under reference 35665/APP/2024/3155 dated 30-01- habitable use to include a rear dormer, to include 2 x front roof lights. It is important for members to note that this CLD application results in an established fall-back position for the construction of the dormer. 4.3 Planning permission was recently refused under reference 35665/APP/2024/2087 dated 08-10-24 for the Erection of a part single, part double storey rear extension, conversion of garage to habitable space, alterations to roof form including a hip to gable extension, rear dormer and rooflights to facilitate the conversion of dwelling to 2 flats (1x2 bed and 1x3 bed). reasons: 4.4 1. The combination of the existing and proposed extensions by reason of their size, bulk, design and scale, would cumulatively result in an insubordinate and visually incongruous form of development that would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the original property and surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (2021), Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management (2020), Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). 4.5 2. The proposed parking arrangement by reason of its tandem layout would require 1no. vehicle to be removed to allow access for the other vehicle which would increase the risk of collision to the detriment of highway safety. As such, the proposed development is contrary to Policies DMT 1, DMT 2, and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020), as well as policies T2, T4 and T6 of the London Plan (2021) and paragraph 115 of the NPPF (2023). 4.6 3. The proposed development in terms of its design and intensification of use and shortfall in on site private amenity space to serve the proposed units would result in an overdevelopment of the site. The applicant has failed to demonstrate significant public benefits to outweigh the harm identified. As such the proposed development is contrary to paragraph 11 of the NPPF (2023). 4.7 The main issue for the current application is whether these reasons for refusal have been satisfactorily overcome. 4.8 The applicant has undertaken design changes including the removal of hip to gable roof extension resulting a smaller and modest scaled dormer located on the rear elevation only and first floor rear extension, and amendments to the proposed parking arrangement. Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 4.9 Overall, as discussed within the relevant sections of this Committee Report, the proposed development is considered to have overcome all the previous reasons for refusal. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 6 neighbouring properties were initially consulted on the application by letter dated 10-12-24. During the process of the application the description was amended and as such neighbouring properties plus residents who have commented on the application were re-consulted for 14 days. The consultation period expired 28-02- 25. 6.2 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response A petition of 54 signatured has been received against the application 1. Flats are not necessary as it reduces housing supply and the majority of new builds across Hayes are now flats. Discussed within paragraphs 7.3 & 7.4 2. This application is turning a four-bedroom house into dwellings that only offer an extra bedroom whilst losing loft storage space which does not make financial sense. This is not a material planning consideration. 3. The planning applications in Hayes End Road appear to be from the same company who are This is not a material planning consideration. Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press property developer and have submitted other planning applications. 4. The application does not offer affordable housing or any provision for the elderly, disabled people and does not keep the housing stock for buyers who do not wish to purchase a flat. Due to the small scale of the development (conversion into 2 flats), there is no requirement for the provision of affordable housing. Other matters relating to accessibility have been discussed at paragraph 7.48. 5. There are no environmental benefits such as solar panels or heat pumps. The application can only be assessed within its current form. It should be noted that there is no specific policy requirement for provisions of solar panels or heat pumps. The extensions would be subject to building regulations which would require to be constructed to the current sustainable standards. 6. The application has not considered impacts on Biodiversity and Wildlife. This has been discussed at paragraph 7.54 7. There is no Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) suggesting the property is still subject to sale and not owned by the proposed developer. There is no new gas or water supplied suggested on the application. This is not a material planning consideration. Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 8. What are the proposed materials as they are not stated in the application. Discussed at paragraph 7.16 9. There are inaccuracies in the planning statement such as the times from 105 Hayes End Road to the nearest bus stop and the bus times to the Elizabeth Line. This shows lack of knowledge by the developer and leads to questions as what else in the application could be inaccurate. A full assessment of the application has been made within the main body of this Committee Report. The Councils Highway Officer has also been consulted on the application. 10. The property will eventually become another HMO. The proposed application is for the conversion of the existing dwelling into 2 self-contained flats. The proposal is not for a HMO. 8 individual letters of objection have been received from a total of 7 households. (Please note that where multiple letters of objection have been received from the same person during different consultation periods; this has been counted as one representation. All representations have been taken I. The developer has claimed ownership of the property by ticking Certificate A within the application form, despite the property still being owned by the estates executors and contract not being exchanged. This is not considered material to the determination of this planning application. II. Loss of parking and highway safety concerns. Discussed at paragraph 7.40 Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press into consideration.) III. The bins storage and cycle storage is out of character within the surrounding area It is not uncommon for bin and cycle storage to be located to the front for new developments. Further design details are to be secured by condition. IV. The plans lack detail on its construction and management The extensions are domestically scaled. A Construction Management Plan would not be required for an application proposing domestic extensions. V. Concerns regarding protected species Discussed at paragraph 7.54 VI. Concerns over lack of outdoor amenity space for future occupiers Discussed at paragraph 7.34 to 7.37 VII. Concerns over gas, water and electricity supply This is not a material planning consideration. VIII. The development will set a precedent for further conversions Each planning application is determined on its own merits. IX. Noise and privacy concerns. Discussed at paragraph 7.26 X. Concerns regarding odour and pests caused by bin storage This is not a material planning consideration. XI. Concerns over potential scaffolding, trespassing, damage to neighbouring property during construction work. This is not a material planning. XII. Air quality concerns Discussed at paragraph 7.46 Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press XIII. Drainage concerns Discussed at paragraph 7.57 XIV. Concerns over property values and undesirable tenants This is not a material planning consideration. XV. Concerns over substandard accommodation Discussed in paragraphs 7.29 to 7.37 XVI. Concerns regarding cycle storage and bin storage to front of dwelling As stated above this is not uncommon for new developments and further design details are to be secured by condition. XVII. Concerns over parking arrangement Discussed in paragraph 7.40 XVIII. Absence of information of screened patio area Although mentioned within the Planning statement, the proposed plans do not include the provision of a front screened patio area and as such this would not form part of this planning application. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Access Officer: This proposal has been reviewed against the requirements of the 2021 London Plan policy D7 which should not be applied to the conversion of this existing dwelling constructed prior to the application of accessible housing standards. There would be no loss of accessible housing stock as a result of this conversion if approved. Conclusion: no objections raised from an accessibility perspective. This has been noted Highways Officer: The previous proposal was refused for reasons relating to design, parking arrangements, and overdevelopment. This revised submission addresses the highway reason for refusal comprehensively and demonstrates compliance with The applicant has submitted a revised plan providing the car parking layout details. A condition requiring further cycle storage Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press the relevant policies of the Hillingdon Local Plan, The London Plan (2021), and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (NPPF). No objection subject to conditions pertaining to car and cycle parking details and the provision of 1 EVCP charging point. and EVCP details is to be added to the decision notice. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The Development Plan recognises the need for new housing and provides support for the optimisation of brownfield sites for residential intensification. At local level Policy DMH 1 seeks to safeguard existing housing, in particular family sized housing (3-bed and above). This is supported at regional level by Policy H10 of the London Plan which also recognises the need to provide a broad mix of residential properties in order to meet demand. 7.2 As the application proposes the conversion of a single family dwellinghouse to two flats, the proposal will need to demonstrate compliance with Policy DMH 4 of the Local Plan (2020). 7.3 From the Council's Planning Records and Council Tax data, the proposed conversion would not result in more than 10% of properties within the street to be converted to flats. The existing property would have an internal floor area over 120sqm, and a 3-bed family unit is to be re-provided. It is noted that flat 2 is spread over two floors but given that it would be for the exclusive use of the flat and the duplex arrangement is overall providing good quality spaces, it is considered that the proposal would accord with the principal requirements of Policy DMH 4. 7.4 The development would provide an additional 2-bedroom unit, which would result in the net increase of one residential unit. There is an identified need for a mix of dwellings within the borough and a need to optimise the potential for development and intensification of the residential use of brownfield sites, such as this site, which weighs in favour of the scheme. 7.5 It is acknowledged that the first floor flat would not have access to any private external amenity space, which is regrettable. However, the Hayes End Recreational Ground and Knights Gardens are located within a 12-14 minute walk of the site and the standard of internal living accommodation is above the minimum standard which offsets the harm. The applicant has provided an example of where the local planning authority has accepted a sites access to local parks as offsetting the lack of private amenity space on site. Whilst each application needs to be assessed on its own merits, the need to ensure the Local Planning Authority demonstrates consistency in its decision making is important. Furthermore, members should note that the site could provide access to private amenity space Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press for the upper floor, however this would require an internal or external staircase to be provided. An internal staircase would result in a loss of floor space for the family sized unit which would not be supported. An external staircase would like result in significant overlooking issues as would a rear facing balcony. A balanced approach needs to be taken, in light of the fact that external amenity space to serve the upper floor unit could be provided but would result in a less desirable and policy compliant scheme, the sites access to local parks and open spaces as well as the 3-bed family sized units access to a large amount of private rear garden space, it is unlikely that the LPA could successfully defend an appeal against the refusal of the application on private amenity grounds only. As such on-balance the proposal is considered to comply with the relevant development plan policies. 7.6 The principle of converting the property into self-contained flats is therefore supported by officers. Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.7 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. 7.8 Policies D1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) require development proposals to be of high quality and to enhance the local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness. 7.9 Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) states that all new developments should achieve a high quality of design in all new buildings and the public realm contributes to community cohesion and a sense of place. 7.10 Local Plan Policy DMHB 11 states that all development, including extensions, alterations and new buildings will be required to be designed to the highest standards and, incorporate principles of good design including harmonising with the local context and considering the height, mass and bulk of adjacent structures. They should also ensure the use of high-quality building materials and finishes, plus ensure that the internal design and layout of development maximises sustainability and is adaptable to different activities. 7.11 Policy DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) re-emphasises the need for new development to be well integrated with the surrounding area and provides design criteria as to how this would be achieved. 7.12 The proposed development involves the erection of a single storey rear extension, conversion of garage to habitable space, rear dormer extension, front rooflights and the conversion of property into two self-contained flats, with associated parking. Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.13 The proposal differs to the previously refused scheme in that it has removed the hip to gable roof extension, reduced the size of the rear dormer, removed the first- floor rear extension and it has amended the front parking arrangement. 7.14 The existing property has a large two storey side extension with an integral garage at ground floor level. The existing side extension is sited directly along the shared boundary line with No.107 Hayes End Road. 7.15 The proposed rear extension would measure 4.3m in depth, span the full width of the rear of the property and measure 3m in height characterised with a flat roof. It would replace an existing conservatory structure at the property. The extension is modest, would appear a subordinate addition and domestically scaled extension to a domestic property. Furthermore, in reviewing the local character it is clear that the established pattern of development, particularly the rear building lines, has been distorted by rear extensions with a similar if not larger depth. As such, it would not appear out of character within the surrounding area. As the extensions is sited solely to the rear of the property, it would not be visible from the street scene and as such would have no harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area. 7.16 The proposed conversion of garage to habitable space is considered acceptable from a design perspective as it would include the removal of garage door and replacement with one window. A condition has been added to ensure all the proposed materials match the existing property to ensure the development integrates with the architectural composition of the dwelling. 7.17 The proposed development also includes the erection of a rear dormer extension and front rooflights. It should be noted that a Certificate of Lawfulness has been Conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer, to include 2 x front roof lights 35665/APP/2024/3155. The approved dormer under the Certificate application was larger than that proposed within this current application. The proposed dormer would measure approx. 3.9m in width, 2.43m in height characterised with a flat roof and 3.2m in depth. The dormer would fit comfortably on the rear roof slope, set in from the side margins, set up from the eaves and set down from the ridgeline. It would not be visible from the street scene and as such would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It is also noted that the dormer could be built out under permitted development given its modest size (see below figures) which results in an established fall-back position that is given significant weight in the assessment of the application. There are two front rooflights proposed, these are not considered to harm the appearance of the property nor surrounding area. Figure 1 (proposed rear dormer extension): Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 2 (recently approved rear dormer as approved under application reference 35665/APP/2024/3155): Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.18 The proposal also includes the provision of front parking, cycle storage and refuse storage. The front of the property is characterised with part soft landscaping and part hard surfacing for off street parking. Many properties along Hayes End Road benefit from off street parking. The proposed site layout plan indicates that the existing grassed area is to be retained with new concrete paving slabs for the new side by side parking arrangement. This is considered acceptable, and a landscaping condition has been added to ensure the development integrates well with the surrounding area. The cycle storage and refuge storage, although not a common characteristic of the surrounding area, is not considered to be significantly harmful given they are minor in scale, the set back from the road and the screening from car parking spaces. 7.19 Overall, the proposed development has sufficiently overcome refusal reason 1 of the previously refused scheme under reference 35665/APP/2024/2087. The development would respect the character and appearance of the surrounding area in compliance with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies and Policies DMHD 1, DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHB 14 of the Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020), as well as relevant design guidance contained within the London Plan (2021) and NPPF (2024). Heritage 7.20 The site is not located within a designated area and as such this section is not applicable to the assessment of this application. Impact on the Green Belt 7.21 The site is not located within the Green Belt and as such this section is not applicable to the assessment of this application. Residential Amenity 7.22 Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that planning applications relating to alterations and extensions of dwellings will be required to ensure, amongst other matters, that: ii) a satisfactory relationship with adjacent dwellings is achieved; and v) there is no unacceptable loss of outlook to neighbouring occupiers. 7.23 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) seeks to ensure that development proposals do not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. 7.24 Number 103 Hayes End Road is located south of the application site and forms the other half of the semi-detached properties. This neighbouring property benefits from a single storey rear extension. The proposed extension would not extend beyond the rear elevation of this neighbour and coupled with a height of 3m it would not create any harmful loss of light, loss of outlook, overshadowing, nor Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press would it be overbearing. The proposed rear dormer extension would not include any side facing windows and the rear window would provide similar views as the existing first floor rear windows and as such no overlooking or loss of privacy would be created. 7.25 Number 107 Hayes End Road is located north of the site and is separated from the host. The proposed extension would be sited along the shared boundary with this neighbouring property. This neighbour also benefits from a single storey rear extension. The proposed development would not extend beyond the rear building line of this neighbour, and as such would not cause any loss of light, loss of outlook, overshadowing nor would it be overbearing. The proposed dormer extension would be set away from this neighbour and would not include any side facing windows, as such there would be no overlooking or loss of privacy created. An informative note has been added regarding encroachment onto neighbouring land. 7.26 In terms of additional noise, the proposal is for the conversion of the existing dwelling into 2 self-contained flats. It is recognised that the conversion of 2 flats is a different type of occupation to use of the property as a single dwelling house. However, it is considered that the level of activity involved that would be associated with the proposed conversion, would not be so substantially different to the trip patterns of individuals in one large household. It is therefore considered (on balance) that any noise and disturbance that might result from the proposed conversion into 2 flats is unlikely to be significantly different to that from one large household that could occupy the property. 7.27 It is therefore considered that any increase in noise and its transmission to the adjoining property is unlikely to be significant or noticeable than if the property were to be used as a large family dwelling so that there would be no requirement for sound insulation. 7.28 Overall, the proposed development complies with Policies DMHD 1 and DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020). Quality of Residential Accommodation (Internal and External) Internal 7.29 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. 7.30 The proposed development seeks to convert the existing dwelling into two self- contained flats. Flat 1 on the ground floor would be a 3 bed, 4 person dwelling with a GIA of approx. 85sqm. Flat 2 on first and second floor would be a 2 bed, 3 Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press person dwelling with a GIA of approx. 77sqm. Both flats exceed the minimum internal floor space standards set within Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) which require 3 bed 4 person dwellings to have a minimum of 74sqm of GIA and 2 bed 3 person dwellings (over two floors) to have 70sqm of GIA. 7.31 It is noted that there are cycle storage units proposed located approx. 2.4m away from a ground floor bedroom window. Although not ideally located, it is considered if these were located elsewhere within the front garden it would restrict outlook and potentially create a loss of light to the double occupancy bedroom within this flat. As such on balance the cycle storage location is accepted in front of the single occupancy bedroom. It is not considered so harmful as to warrant a recommendation for refusal. 7.32 As such, the internal living standards would comply with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMHB 16 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). External 7.33 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. 7.34 The proposal would result in only the ground floor flat having access to the large rear garden, leaving no private amenity space for Flat 2. It is acknowledged that this formed a refusal reason in the previous application reference 35665/APP/2024/2087. However, as discussed in the other relevant sections of this Committee Report, the proposed development within this current application has overcome all other previous refusal reasons, and it is not considered that refusal for lack of external amenity space alone would be defendable at appeal for the current application. 7.35 The planning statement submitted has reference to a front patio area for the use of Flat 2, however this is not shown on the proposed drawings. It is not considered this would be well located or useable and as such even in the event it were to be illustrated on the proposed drawings it would not meet the policy definition of private amenity space. 7.36 Whilst Flat 2 would not have access to private external amenity space, which is regrettable, it is acknowledged that the internal amenity space provided is above the minimum standard by approx. 7sqm and it should be noted that Hayes End Recreation Ground and Knights Gardens are a 1012-minute walk away approx. 0.5 miles. As such the harm of no on site provision of private external amenity space is offset by the high level of internal accommodation and proximity to outdoor recreational space. 7.37 Furthermore, when assessing a planning application officers must consider the shortfalls in policy compliance and the benefits of the proposal. In this case the Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press applicant could provide access to private amenity space, however this would likely require some form of internal access to be constructed as the property extends across the entire width of the plot. An internal access would reduce the internal floor space of the ground floor unit resulting in a 2-bed unit rather than 3. The council has an identified need for 3 bed units, and this outweighs the policy conflict derived from the lack of access to private amenity space to serve the upper floor unit. In addition, the upper floor unit is not a family sized unit which further limits the harm. The applicant in the submission refers to a scheme determined in 2022 whereby the Council took an on-balance view to the subdivision of a dwelling into 2 flats of which one did not have direct access to private amenity space as there was sufficient access to public open space within 12 minutes walking distance. Based on all these factors Officers consider the benefits of the scheme to outweigh the policy departure and that overall, the standard of living accommodation is acceptable. Furthermore, in the event of a refusal it would be unlikely that a single reason for refusal relating to the lack of private amenity space in these unique circumstances, could be robustly defended at appeal. Access to Hayes End Park 12 Minutes Walking Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Access to Knights Gardens 14 Minutes Walk 7.38 As such, on balance, the proposed development would comply with the purpose Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) and the development has sufficiently overcome refusal reason 3 of the previous application. Highways and Parking Access and Parking: 7.39 The application proposes to convert the existing dwelling to provide 1no. three- bedroom flat and 1no. 2-bedroom flat. Vehicular access to the application site is currently gained over a vehicle crossover providing access to the forecourt of the application site. 7.40 A highway reason for refusal was attached to the previous application, which identified safety concerns with the tandem parking layout, that was considered unsafe due to the need to remove one vehicle to access the other, increasing the risk of collision. Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.41 The London Plan (2021) Table 10.3 - Maximum Residential Parking Standards allows all dwellings in Outer London PTAL 0-1 to have a maximum 1.5no. spaces. The site is within a PTAL rated area of 2 meaning that there is a moderate to low level of access to public transports and everyday services. Drawing P006 Rev A shows the provision of two parking spaces, one allocated to each flat which would be an acceptable level of parking. The layout has been amended from the previous application to allow the car parking spaces to be sited next to each other. The spaces would each measure 4.80m x 2.4m which would comply with Appendix C of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020). The site benefits from an existing vehicle crossover which would need extending to allow the second vehicle to safely enter/exit the site. The applicant should be advised that prior to undertaking works on the adopted highway, they will likely require a Section 184 license from the Highway Authority. 7.42 The development also involves the conversion of an integral garage, the existing garage has internal dimensions of 2.2m x 5.1m which would not meet the minimum space standard for garages as set out within Appendix C of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020) which requires garages to measure at least 3m x 6m internally. As such, the development would not lead to a loss of parking. 7.43 It is not considered that the development would lead to a harmful overspill of parking on the adjacent roads and as such is considered acceptable. Moreover, the revised proposal is considered to resolve the highway concerns which formed a reason for refusal attached to the previous application. One of the points raised within the objections received is regarding the statements reference to a bus stop being located within 3 . This is a general statement made by the applicant, officers have reviewed the distance to the nearest bus stop which is located on the Uxbridge Road and is 400 metres from the site. Officers consider this to be an average walking time of 5-6 minutes which would not be significantly different to the 3 minutes stated by the applicant. The level of difference is de-minimus. 7.44 The London Plan (2021) requires that 20% car parking spaces have active EVCPs and 80% of spaces have passive EVCPs. 1no 7kW active EVCP would be required for each parking space. Drawing P006 Rev A shows the provision 1 provided, one for each parking space. Cycle Parking: 7.45 The London Plan (2021) Table 10.2 - Minimum Cycle Parking Standards requires dwellings with 2-3no. bedrooms to have a minimum of 2no. cycle parking spaces each. Drawing P006 Rev A shows the provision of 2 enclosed lockable cycle storage units within the font garden with space for 2 cycles per unit which is an acceptable level of parking. It is proposed to attach a condition to the decision notice to secure final cycle storage details including design. Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Conclusion: 7.46 The proposed development has sufficiently overcome refusal reason 2 of the previously refused application reference 35665/APP/2024/2087. The highway authority has been consulted on the application and have concluded there are no highways objections to the proposed development. As such, the development complies with Policies DMT 1, DMT 2, and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Air Quality 7.47 The application site is not located within an Air Quality Focus Area; however, it is located within an Air Quality Management Area. Given the proposed development is for minor extensions to the property and the conversion into flats it is not considered that the proposal would cause unacceptable levels of dust and disturbance during the construction phase. It is not considered necessary to include a Construction Logistics Plan Condition due to the modest nature of the development. The relevant informative note has been added. Accessibility 7.48 Policy D7 of the London Plan (2021) states that at least 10 per cent of dwellings (which are created via works to which Part M volume 1 of the Building Regulations applies) must meet Building Regulation requirement M4(3) 'wheelchair user dwellings'. All other dwellings (which are created via works to which Part M volume 1 of the Building Regulations applies) must meet Building Regulation requirement M4(2) 'accessible and adaptable dwellings'. 7.49 This proposal has been reviewed against the requirements of the 2021 London Plan policy D7 which should not be applied to the extension and conversion of this existing dwelling. The Councils Access Officer has been consulted on the application and has no objection to the proposed development. Trees and Landscaping 7.50 The application site is not located within an area covered by a tree preservation order, nor is it within a Conservation Area. It is not considered that there would be any trees that would be impacted by the proposed development. As such, a tree report and arboricultural impact assessment is not required. Biodiversity Net Gain 7.51 Biodiversity net gain is a way of creating and improving biodiversity by requiring development to have a positive impact ('net gain') on biodiversity. 7.52 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 'biodiversity net gain' in Planning Practice Guidance to distinguish it from other or more general biodiversity gains. 7.53 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. 7.54 The framework sets out a series of exemptions for which the provision for an on- site net gain would not be required. 7.55 The proposed development would fall under the de-minimis exemption, as the proposed scheme would not impact 25sqm of on-site habitat, nor would it impact 5m of on-site linear habitat. The proposed single storey rear extension would largely replace an existing conservatory structure on hard surfacing and the majority of the front soft landscaped garden would remain in place. As such, the development does not need to provide a 10% increase in biodiversity on site. 7.56 As mentioned within other sections of this Committee Report, a landscape condition will be added to ensure the development integrates well with the surrounding area. 7.57 In addition to this, the development is minor in scale and as such is not considered to cause harm to any wildlife or protected species, as such it is not considered necessary for further assessment to be undertaken. Flooding and Drainage 7.58 The proposed development site is not located in Flood Zones 2 or 3. Nor is it located within a critical drainage area, or an area known for surface water flooding. As such it is not considered necessary or reasonable to add a condition relating to a drainage scheme. Waste Management 7.59 Drawing P006 Rev A shows the provision of refuse storage within the front garden. The storage is covered and would be well located for the occupiers of the flats and is considered an acceptable arrangement as occupiers would drag the bins to the kerbside on collection days. The storage would be sited away from the front of neighbouring properties and as such would not have a harmful impact. 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. Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 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 1st August 2014. The Hillingdon CIL charge for residential developments is £95 per square metre of additional floor space. This is in addition to the Mayoral CIL charge of £60 per square metre. CIL rates are index linked. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The proposed development has sufficiently overcome the refusal reasons from the previously refused application reference 35665/APP/2024/2087. The development would not impact the character and appearance of the original dwelling, nor the surrounding area; it would not impact the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, not would it harm the local highway network. Additionally, the development would retain a family sized dwelling and private adequate living accommodation for future residents. 9.2 The proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents taken into account in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential information) are available on the Council's website here, by entering the planning application number at the top of this report and using the search facility. Planning applications are also available to inspect electronically at the Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW upon appointment, by contacting Planning Services at planning@hillingdon.gov.uk.

Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Application Report Case Officer: Christos Chrysanthou 78464/APP/2024/3196 Date Application Valid: 05.12.24 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 14.03.25 Application Type: Full Ward: Hillingdon West Applicant: c/o Total Planning Site Address: Dyson Drive, Uxbridge, UB10 0GJ Proposal: The creation of 9no. off-street parking spaces and planting of 3no. new trees. Summary of Recommendation: REFUSE planning permission Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 3 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Petition received) Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: REFUSE planning permission for the reasons specified in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 The application proposes to increase the car parking provision at Dyson Drive to provide residents with 9 additional car parking spaces and would result in the loss of soft landscaping. The application has come before the Committee due to the submission of a petition with 54 signatures in support of the proposal. The site is located within a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating area of 2 and therefore it is considered that there would be a moderate reliance on the private car to travel to and from the site, even though the site is within walking distance to the Uxbridge Town Centre. Notwithstanding this point, the additional spaces in combination with the existing spaces would exceed maximum car parking standards, which seek to reduce vehicle trips and promote sustainable travel modes. 1.2 As such the development would result in the exacerbation of the overprovision of parking, detrimentally impact on highway safety and fail to promote sustainable modes of transport, which has resulted in an objection from the Highway Authority. The planning application is therefore recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in Appendix 1. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site refers to a relatively recently constructed residential development that forms part of St Andrews Park (the former RAF Uxbridge Site). Dyson Drive is located within Phase 3B of this development and lies within an area of land located in the southwestern part of the site. Dyson Drive is a private road (unadopted) and the site is bounded by Hillingdon Road to the west, the built out Phase 2A to the south, spine road and pocket park to the east and future phases to the north. The northern boundary of the site is occupied by a double line of mature horse chestnut trees which are to be retained, forming an important strategic landscape green link and frame to the former parade ground. The site is situated within a Developed Area as identified in the policies of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2012). Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application site 3 Proposal 3.1 The application proposes the creation of 9no. off-street parking spaces replacing current soft landscaping and the planting of 3no. new trees. Figure 3: Proposed Plan (please note larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 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 application is a follow up to application ref: 78464/APP/2023/3668 (Alteration to car parking layout) which was refused by Planning Committee on 14th March 2024. The main differences between the previously refused scheme and the current application are the orientation of the car parking spaces (which have increased by one space from 8no. to a total of 9no. spaces), which has resulted in the loss of soft landscaping, and the provision of 3no trees. The design and location of the proposed new car parking spaces have been moved off the existing shared surface and are now proposed to be sited adjacent to the existing car parking spaces within the soft landscaped area. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 48 neighbouring properties were consulted on 20th December 2024. A site notice was erected on 2nd January 2025. 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response A petition in support was received with 54 signatories. 1. The petition states: 'That planning application ref: 78464/APP/2024/3196 be approved as all the residents of the houses on the road support the proposal. Noted. 12 letters of objection have been received. I. Concerns are raised regarding highway safety, encroachment, existing road congestion. The application has been reviewed by the Highway Authority. A summary of their comments is provided at Table 2. II. Concerns are raised regarding the fairness of the application; other residents of Dyson Drive would not benefit and parking options would be reduced. Noted. 12 letters of support have been received. III. The homeowners support the application as it would increase the parking provision available to them. Noted. IV. The proposal would reduce parking congestion, enhance safety, align with sustainability practices, comply with local regulations and reduce visual clutter. An assessment of the proposal having regard to current planning policy is provided in Section 7 of this report. V. All houses have 2 parking spaces, only these houses have one parking space. Since the original permission was granted the policy landscape has changed and the consented level exceeds the maximum allowed Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press under the current London Plan. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Highway Authority There are robust highway objections to this proposal because it is contrary to Policy T1 which seeks to deliver the strategic target of 80 per cent of all trips to be made by foot, cycle or public transport by 2041. The proposal is also contrary to Policy T2 Healthy streets which requires that development should reduce the dominance of vehicles on streets not increase them; Policy T4 Assessing and mitigating transport impacts, this requires that developments do not increase road danger and Policy T6.1 residential parking this policy would allow Dyson Drive as a new build a maximum of 9no. car parking spaces, the proposal would create 18no. allocated car parking spaces, plus 6 unallocated spaces. Furthermore, Policy T6.1 requires all residential car parking spaces must provide infrastructure for electric or Ultra-Low Emission Vehicles. At least 20 per cent of all spaces should have active electric vehicle charging facilities with all the others having passive provision. None of the proposed 9no. additional car parking spaces would have EV provision which is contrary to Policy. Noted. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The proposal is for the construction of new parking spaces on a residential street, however the additional car parking is contrary to the relevant Development Plan policies as set out within this report. Highways and Parking 7.2 The application site is known as Dyson Drive, an unadopted residential cul de sac which forms a junction with Churchill Road. The site is located within a PTAL 2 rated area meaning that there is a reliance on the motor vehicle to travel to and from the site. Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.3 Dyson Drive is part of the wider St Andrews's Park development and is located within Phase 3B. Planning application 585/APP/2015/4494 gave approval for 56 residential units and 70 car parking spaces resulting in a parking ratio of 1.25 spaces per unit. In combination with the 8 additional spaces proposed as part of this application the ratio would be raised to 1.41 per unit. 7.4 As this is a new planning application it must be assessed in consideration with the most up to date planning policy. The London Plan (2021) Table 10.3 - Maximum Residential Parking Standards allows dwellings with one or two bedrooms in outer London with a PTAL of 2 to have up to 0.75no. parking spaces per dwelling and dwellings with three or more bedrooms to have a maximum of 1no. spaces per dwelling. The table below provides a breakdown of the maximum number of spaces permitted for each unit type and an overall total in accordance with the London Plan. Table 3: Breakdown of Maximum spaces allowed under the London Plan No. of Bedrooms No. of Dwellings London Plan T10.3 Max Allowed 1 14 0.75 10.5 2 24 0.75 18 3 18 1 18 46.5 7.5 The above table states 46.5 spaces should be provided for the 56 units therefore the 79 spaces proposed would result in a significant over provision of parking. The Design and Access Statement refers to preventing cars parking along the road as one of the main drivers for submitting the application. Whilst noted, given the site is unadopted land, the lack of parking controls cannot be resolved by the Council. This is also not a material consideration which could outweigh a potential harm. 7.6 The proposed 9no. parking spaces would be allocated to homeowners on Dyson Drive. The Design and Access Statement suggests that the proposal would result in the removal of cars parking along the road and would improve the openness , which provides the additional car parking spaces adjacent to the existing rows of car parking spaces. Whilst the proposed arrangement would provide additional allocated parking spaces, due to the lack of parking controls on Dyson Drive, it is considered that the proposal would not resolve the existing informal parallel parking that currently occurs on the shared surface at Dyson Drive. It is therefore considered that the proposal could exacerbate the level of car parking and congestion on Dyson Drive. 7.7 As noted by the Highway Authority, the highway is a shared surface and the increase in formal parking spaces would increase the volume of traffic using Dyson Drive. The uplift in traffic volume would increase the potential for conflict with pedestrians and cyclists, which raises concerns on highway safety grounds. The proposal would fail to accord with the published NPPF Chapter 9 Promoting Sustainable Transport, the London Plan (2021) and London Borough of Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.8 Taking the above points into consideration, the proposed development would result in an overprovision of car parking. As such the development fails to comply with Policies DMT 1, DMT 2, DMT 5 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020), Policies T2, T4, T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021) and Paragraphs 116 and 117 of the NPPF (2024). 7.9 points are noted. Had the application been recommended for approval, a condition could have been imposed to secure the appropriate level of provision. As this matter could be resolved by condition, it is considered that a refusal on these grounds would not be sustainable. 7.10 The resubmission is not considered to suitably address or overcome the previous reason for refusal of Application ref: 78464/APP/2023/3668. For the reasons given above, the application is recommended for refusal. Trees and landscaping 7.11 The proposal would require the removal of green spaces alongside the existing parking bays to accommodate the new parking spaces. The new parking spaces has been made to retain a green visual aspect, the proposed use of grasscrete is not considered to be a suitable or effective solution to offset the loss of green space. 7.12 The additional car parking spaces, the loss of green space, the proposed surfacing and the resulting proliferation of parked cars would be detrimental to the character of the area and would detract from the visual quality and usability of the landscaped pedestrian link, which is seen as an important part of the estate. The level of harm identified, is however on balance, not considered to be significant to warrant a separate reason for refusal. 7.13 The proposal does include the planting of 3no trees, which goes some way to balance the harm to the visual amenity of the street scene caused by the proposal. However, the proposed tree planting is not considered to outweigh the overall detriment to the character of the area or the highways reason for refusal detailed in Paragraphs 7.2-7.10 of this report. Access 7.14 There are no direct issues that are purely related to accessibility matters. However, it is worth noting that the proposed layout shows the car parking to be accessed via the shared surface, increasing the number of vehicle movements and therefore the potential risks for pedestrians and cyclists. This raises concerns on highway safety grounds, but is not considered to be a separate reason for refusal. Air Quality Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.15 The site lies within the Uxbridge Air Quality Focus Area and the Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area. It is considered that the proposal would not give rise to significant harm which would require mitigation. Land Contamination 7.16 The application site lies within a former contaminated land use as identified from pose a risk in terms of potential contamination. Had the application been recommended for approval, an informative would have been attached to the decision notice, pointing to a possibility that there may be some contaminating substances present in the ground and to advise persons working on site to take basic precautions. 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 Not applicable to this application. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The neighbour representations and the petition are noted and the matters raised have been considered in full. In this instance, as discussed in this report, the development is not considered to comply with the development plan. The development would result in the exacerbation of the overprovision of parking, impact on highway safety, fail to promote sustainable modes of transport and detrimentally impact the character of the area. Therefore, having regard to the material considerations and all matters raised, the application is recommended for refusal. Hillingdon Planning Committee 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 10 Background Papers 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 12th March 2025 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Appendix 1: Recommended Reason(s) for Refusal and Informatives. The application is recommended for REFUSAL for the following Reasons for Refusal: 1 The development would result in an overprovision of car parking and fails to encourage sustainable modes of transport including cycling, walking and the use of public transport, in conflict with Policies DMT 1, DMT 2, DMT 5 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020), Policies T2, T4, T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021) and Paragraphs 116 and 117 of the NPPF (2024). INFORMATIVES 1 The decision to REFUSE planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act (1998) (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 2 On this decision notice policies from the Councils Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies appear first, then relevant Local Plan Part 2 (2020), then London Plan Policies (2021). Hillingdon's Full Council adopted the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies on 8 November 2012 and the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 on 16 January 2020. 3 In dealing with the application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available detailed advice in the form of our statutory policies from the Local Plan Part 1, Local Plan Part 2, Supplementary Planning Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application advice service. We have however been unable to seek solutions to problems arising from the application as the principal of the proposal is clearly contrary to our statutory policies and negotiation could not overcome the reasons for refusal.

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report – Application Report Case Officer:Mitchell Heaven 38629/APP/2024/1155 Date Application Valid: 01.05.2024 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 19.03.2025 Application Type: Full Ward: Ickenham & South Harefield Applicant: Mr and Mrs Gadher Site Address: 41A Parkfield Road, Ickenham Proposal: Demolition of the existing dwelling and replacement with a two storey five-bedroom dwelling. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 3 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Petition received) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 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 demolition of the existing bungalow dwelling and the replacement with a two storey five-bedroom dwelling with accommodation in the roof space. 1.2 The surrounding area is residential comprised primarily of single and two-storey detached dwellings in a variety of architectural styles and ages. The site is not located within a conservation area or area of special local character. 1.3 The applicant has worked cooperatively with the Local Planning Authority and in response to feedback during processing of the application has provided a revised scheme. These revisions have reduced the depth of the proposed dwelling at both the ground floor and first floor levels. It is noted that a similarly scaled replacement dwelling has recently been approved at 39 Parkfield Road (planning permission ref. 24825/APP/2023/81). 1.4 A petition with twenty signatories in objection to the development has been received. The desired outcome of the petition is for the application to be refused; or reduced in size and height with conditions. Separate representations from three people have also been received in objection to the proposal, and two representations have been received in support of the application. 1.5 The main issues which shall be addressed within this Committee Report relate to the impact on neighbouring dwellings andthe impact on the character and appearance of the area and street scene. It is noted that there is a variety of architectural styles along the street with a mixture of both bungalows and two storey dwellings, including replacement dwellings. The proposal would appear sympathetic with the prevailing character and appearance of the street scene. 1.6 The proposal would not cause a detrimental impact on neighbouring residential amenity. A daylight and sunlight impact assessment on neighbouring windows has confirmed compliance with the BRE daylight and sunlight guidance. The replacement dwelling would be sited a sufficient distance from neighbours to the rear, along Rectory Way. In the event of an approval, a condition would be secured requiring the first-floor side elevation windows to be obscure glazed with restricted opening to maintain neighbours’ privacy. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 1.7 The Council's Highways Department is satisfied that the proposal would not present a risk to road safety, hinder the free flow of traffic, or lead to parking stress. 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. It is therefore recommended that planning permission is granted, subject to the imposition of relevant planning conditions set out in Appendix 1. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site is broadly rectangular in shape and is located on the southern side of Parkfield Road, which is a cul-de-sac. It comprises a detached, single storey dwelling with a hipped roof and an attached garage. Most of the frontage is an impervious vehicle forecourt served by two vehicle crossovers, aside from a small front garden. The rear of the site consists of a spacious landscaped garden containing several mature trees. 2.2 The street scene on Parkfield Road is characterised by single and two storey detached dwellings in a variety of ages, architectural styles and materials but forming a relatively consistent front building line and setback from the highway. Adjacent to the north-west of the site is 43 Parkfield Road, a detached double storey rendered dwelling that has been extended by single and two storey side and rear extensions. Adjacent to the south-east of the site is 41 Parkfield Road which consists of a single storey detached bungalow brick dwelling. 2.3 According to the Council's GIS, the site is subject to a Tree Preservation Order and is located within an Air Quality Management Area. This section of Parkfield Road has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 1a (poor) transitioning to 3 (moderate) closer to the High Road. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figures 2-3: Photographs of the front and rear Application Property Figures 4-5: Photographs of the boundary with 41 Parkfield Road at the front and rear of the Application Property Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figures 6-7: Photographs of the boundary with 43 Parkfield Road at the front and rear of the Application Property 3 Proposal 3.1 The application proposes the demolition of the existing bungalow and erection of a two storey four-bedroom dwelling as depicted in the proposed plans. The development would also include a games room and bathroom incidental to the dwelling within the loft of the roof. 3.2 During the processing of the application the applicant provided revised drawings in response to feedback from the Planning Officer that reduced the scale of the proposed dwelling by shortening the length/depth of the proposed ground floor and first floor. The applicant also provided a Daylight and Sunlight Impact Assessment Report at the request of the Planning Officer. Hillingdon Planning Committee –12thMarch 2025 PART 1–Members, Public & Press Figure 8: Proposed Plans and Elevations(please note –larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Figure 9: Proposed Street Scene Elevation Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 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 most recent application at the site was approved in July 1986 for the construction of the existing bungalow and discharge of related conditions. 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 22 neighbouring properties and Ickenham Residents Association were consulted on the application by letter dated 14.05.24. The consultation period expired 05.06.24. A petition with twenty signatories was received in objection to the proposal. Three representations were received in objection to the proposal, and two representations in support of the application were received. It was not considered necessary to reconsult on the revised drawings as these reduced the scale of the proposal. 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. 6.3 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. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received RepresentationsSummary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response A petition of 20 valid signatures has been received against the application. I. Requested rejection of the application or a reduction in size and height. II. Amenity concerns to the adjoining residents. Discussed at paragraph 7.4-7.17 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 individual letters of objection have been received I. Demolition of a habitable dwelling. The demolition of a dwelling and replacement with a larger dwelling is acceptable. The existing dwelling is not a designated heritage asset and as such its demolition is considered acceptable subject to a suitable replacement. The principle section discusses this matter further in paragraphs 7.1-7.3 of this report. Whilst the replacement design is discussed within paragraphs 7.4-7.17 of this report. II. New scheme is large and characterless. Discussed at paragraph 7.4-7.17 of this report. III. Application states two storeys but is three storeys. The loft and use of the roof space is not considered an additional storey for the purpose of the proposal description. IV. Tree survey is required due to location in an area subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Discussed at paragraphs 7.55 - 7.58 of this report. The Council’s Tree Officer has reviewed the application and is satisfied that TPO matters can be addressed via conditions of consent. V. A light survey should be required due to proximity to adjoining properties. Discussed at paragraphs 7.23-7.28 of this report. The applicant has provided a Daylight and Sunlight BRE Impact Assessment confirming adjacent dwellings would not experience a notable Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press reduction in daylight and sunlight as set out in BRE guidelines. VI. The construction will generate noise and dirt pollution. A further comment received wanted confirmation that the hours of construction allowed under environmental laws. Concerns also raised regarding multiple developments ongoing at the same time. In the event of approval, a Construction Management Plan would be conditioned. An informative is included in the recommendation, reminding the applicant of their construction noise and hours obligations which are allowed under The Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Clean Air Acts and other related environmental legislation. VII. Height is excessive. The increased height will be visible from further away. Discussed at paragraphs 7.4-7.17 of this report. VIII. Overlooking into opposing front and rear houses will be generated. Overlooking from the first-floor windows will harm neighbours’ privacy. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.29-7.32. A Condition is also included requiring flank windows to be obscure glazed and non-opening up to 1.8m above finish floor level. Similarly, a condition requires side roof lights below a height of 1.8m from the internal floor level to also be obscure glazed. IX. A street scene has not been provided. Provision of a street scene is not a statutory requirement for this application. However, the applicant has submitted a street scene elevational drawing during the application process. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press X. The proposal is too large, will be over dominant and overshadowing of gardens and neighbouring properties as well as ability to use solar equipment. Discussed at paragraphs 7.18 - 7.33 of this report. XI. A landscaping plan has not been provided. The rear garden landscaping should be retained. Concerns that the loss of onsite landscaping could lead to privacy issues A landscaping scheme has not been submitted with the application. Due to the nature of the proposal as a replacement dwelling, it is considered that details of a landscaping scheme can be secured by condition for approval. XII. The property could be converted to a hotel, boarding house, HMO, etc., in the future. This application does not involve a proposed change of use. It is noted that there are permitted development rights to convert a dwelling to a small HMO of up to six unrelated people. Any change of use would require lawful planning permission. Should the LPA receive such an application, it would be assessed against the relevant planning policies. XIII.Insufficient car parking has been provided. The Highways Officer has reviewed the parking provision and confirmed it is acceptable. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.38 - 7.46 XIV. Too many large dwellings on the street will harm the character of the area. The street scene is quite varied with no predominant defining character. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.4 - 7.17 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2 letters of support have been received. I. The scheme is proportionate and in keeping with recent development on Parkfield Road. Noted. II. The scheme is a positive contribution to the streetscape. Noted. III. The construction noise and hours should be managed. In the event of approval, an informative is recommended reminding the applicant of their construction noise and hours obligations. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Access Officer No accessibility concerns are raised subject to a condition requiring details of step free access be provided to the local authority prior to works above ground level commencing. The comments from the access officer are noted. These are discussed further in paragraphs 7.53 and 7.54 and the recommended condition is included in this report. Highways Officer The application has been reviewed by the Highway Authority who are satisfied that the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress, and would not raise any measurable highway safety concerns, in accordance with Local Plan: Part 2 Development Management Plan (2020) - Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 and Policies T4 and T6 of the London Plan (2021). The Highways Officer recommends inclusion of conditions relating to provision of secure bicycle parking, electric vehicle charging pointsand a Construction Management Plan. The comments from the Highways Officer are noted. These are discussed further in paragraphs 7.38 - 7.46 and the conditions are recommended to be added to the decision notice. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Trees Officer Identified no protected trees on the site and was supportive subject to inclusion of a condition requiring a Tree Survey and Protection Plan be provided to the local planning authority prior to works commencing. The comments from the Trees Officer are noted and discussed further in paragraphs 7.55 - 7.58 below. The conditions are recommended to be added to the decision notice. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 T he principle for residential use has been established through the existing dwelling. Policy DMH 1: Safeguarding Existing Housing of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) requires proposals to avoid the net loss of housing. The proposal is for the replacement of the existing dwelling with a new dwelling and is thereby in accordance with Policy DMH 1. 7.2 Policy DMH 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) adds that the Council will require the provision of a mix of housing units of different sizes in schemes ofresidential development to reflect the Council's latest information on housing need. The current information on housing need indicates a substantial borough-wide requirement for larger affordable and private market units, particularly 3-bedroom properties, as identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2016. 7.3 Whilst an existing family sized dwelling (defined in the London Plan 2021 as a three-bedroom or more unit) would be demolished, it would be replaced by a two storey, four-bedroom dwelling. The proposal would therefore not result in a net loss of family sized housing, in accordance with Policies DMH 1 and DMH 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 – Development Management Policies (2020). Notwithstanding the above, there are other planning considerations that need to be considered which are discussed in the remainder of the committee report including the design amenity, parking and highway safety. Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.4 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. 7.5 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 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 National Planning Policy Framework (2024). 7.6 Parkfield Road is a cul-de-sac consisting primarily of wide and very deep, detached properties set-back from the highway by front drives and front gardens. Parkfield Road features reasonably uniformed front building lines along both sides of the road. However, the rear building lines are more varied which is mainly due to the variety of dwellings on the street and construction of residential extensions. The site frontages of the existing properties are typically characterised with low level boundary treatment with a mixture of hard and soft landscaping with space for off-street car parking. 7.7 Aside from all being residential, the properties along Parkfield Road vary in age, materials, scale, height and design and therefore it is considered that there is no singular established character along the street. Single-storey bungalows are common; however, they present in a variety of architectural styles and with an array of ground level and roof additions and alterations. There are multiple two- storey dwellings along the street including at 29, 31, 31A, 33, 39, 43, 54, 54A, 58, 59, 61 and 62 Parkfield Road. Some of these replacement dwellings have been allowed through the appeal process including 29 Parkfield Road (Appeal Decision APP/R5510/W/21/3278249). A recent application for a replacement dwelling at 39 Parkfield Road (24825/APP/2023/81) was approved by the Planning Committee in October 2024. 7.8 At present, the application site is characterised by a brick bungalow property with a low-level brick wall, a small soft landscaped front garden and a large impervious vehicle forecourt with two vehicle crossovers. 7.9 The proposed detached dwelling would be two-storeys in height and would generally match the existing front building line, while extending further to the rear of the site than the existing dwelling. No details have been provided with respect to the proposed landscaping of the site. However, as this is a replacement dwelling where it is evident soft and hard landscaping can be suitably accommodated on site, a condition has been included requiring the submission of a landscape and maintenance plan. This would include also include details of boundary treatment. 7.10 The siting of the dwelling considered acceptable.The proposed dwelling is generally centred on the site, providing similar setbacks from both adjoining properties, and the dwelling respects and maintains the existing coherent front building line along Parkfield Road. This would ensure that the proposed new dwelling would respect the established built form of the area. 7.11 The proposal is greater in height and scale than the existing chalet bungalow to be replaced but will, as viewed from the street frontage, be similar in scale to several other two-storey dwellings on the street,including the adjacent dwelling at Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 43 Parkfield Road. This is demonstrated on the proposed street scene elevation drawing. The height and scale are further mitigated by the wide and deep nature of the site allowing the dwelling to sit comfortably within the property. While the proposed dwelling would be larger than the single storey bungalows on the street, it would appear similar in size and design, as viewed from the street frontage, to several other two-storey dwellings on the street including the adjacent dwelling at 43 Parkfield Road and would still sit comfortably in the street scene. As such, it is considered the proposed dwelling, whilst large, would be consistent with the existing varied character of the area and would not unduly harm the character and visual amenity of the streetscape. 7.12 During the application process, revised drawings were provided in response to Planning Officer’s feedback reducing the depth of the rear of the dwelling at ground level by approximately 3m and at the first-floor level by approximately 1.5m. These reductions are supported as the rear building line of the dwelling would now be shorter than the existing rear building line at the adjacent dwelling at 41 Parkfield Road and would provide a better stepped transition to the less deep rear building line at 43 Parkfield Road. 7.13 Furthermore, the proposed elevations indicate that design features from the surrounding properties have been adopted when designing the proposed dwelling. Notably, several dwellings which form the street scene are two storeys in height, characterised by gable ended and tiled roofs, a mixture of brick and tile hung front facades and generous sized front and rear gardens. 7.14 The applicant has indicated that external cladding materials are still to be decided and would accept a condition of consent requiring a materials schedule to be submitted for approval. Given the importance of external cladding materials in ensuring a high-quality attractive development is achieved, it is recommended a materials schedule is secured by way of condition. 7.15 In terms of landscaping, the applicant has indicated no changes are proposed to the rear garden or front garden aside from the area removed for construction of the new dwelling. However, to ensure a high-quality landscaped environment is achieved and to remedy any unexpected loss of landscaping during construction, a landscaping plan would be secured by way of condition. 7.16 Overall, the proposed design of the development would fit in with the character and appearance of the area and street scene. The proposed massing and layout are comparable to other two-storey dwellings along Parkfield Road and retains space and views around the development. 7.17 For the reasons above, it is considered that the proposed development would not cause harm to the character, appearance and visual amenities of the street scene or the surrounding area. It is considered that the proposed development would comply with the overarching aims of Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press One -Strategic Policies (2012), Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020), Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024). Residential Amenity 7.18 Policy DHMB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) states that development proposals should not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. An assessment of the potential impact on neighbouring residential amenity is discussed as follows. Outlook/Sense of Enclosure 7.19 Number 41 Parkfield Road is an adjacent detached bungalow located to the south- east of the application site. The single-storey side element of the new dwelling would be adjacent to the boundary with 41 Parkfield Road. It would be setback 500mm along the length of the shared boundary except for the attached garage which would be located on the shared boundary. The setback of the two-storey element from the shared side boundary limits the sense of bulk experienced by residents at number 41 and is considered acceptable. 7.20 This set in of the upper floor elements from the shared boundarywith number 41 Parkfield Road would be approximately 3.4 metres. This would ensure that a sense of openness is maintained between the dwellings. The rear building line of the proposed new dwelling would not extend beyond the rear building line of number 41, ensuring their rear garden environment would remain open and spacious. It is considered that the proposal would not result in an unreasonable loss of outlook or result in a sense of enclosure for number 41 Parkfield Road. This is largely due to the footprints of both buildings. 7.21 Number 43 Parkfield Road is an adjacent detached two-storey dwelling located to the north-west of the application site. The dwelling at number 43 is constructed on the shared boundary at ground level and contains no windows facing the application site, aside from a setback first-floor bathroom window. The proposed new dwelling would be two-storey and setback 1.2 metres along the length of the shared boundary. Given number 43 is constructed on the shared boundary and contains no habitable windows facing the application site, the mass of the two- storey flank wall along the side boundary would not be readily perceived by residents at number 43 and is considered acceptable. 7.22 The rear building line of the proposed dwelling wouldextend past the rear building line of number 43 and therefore would be readily visible to residents at number 43. However, as previously discussed, the applicant has reduced the depth of the proposed dwelling at both ground floor and first floor levels, ensuring the proposed Hillingdon Planning Committee –12thMarch 2025 PART 1–Members, Public & Press dwelling would not intrude into the 45-degree sightline from the rear first floor windows of number 43. This would avoid creating an undue sense of enclosure to and loss of outlook from number 43. The ground floor of the proposed dwelling would extend beyond the rear building line of number 43, but as this element would largely be single storey with boundary treatment between the two properties, this would not result in harm to the residential amenity of number 43. It is considered that the proposal would not result in an unreasonable loss of outlook or sense of enclosure for number 43 Parkfield Road. Daylight Sunlight Assessment 7.23 The applicant has provided a Daylight andSunlight BRE Impact Assessment that confirms number 41 and number 43 would not experience a notable reduction in daylight and sunlight in comparison to the existing environment. Figure 10 below is a graphical image of the properties taken from the Daylight Sunlight report submitted and shows each neighbouring windows that was tested in terms of daylight and sunlight impacts to applicable neighbouring windows. Figure 10: Highlightsthe windows tested for daylight sunlight on both neighbours (front elevation on left and rear elevation on the right) 7.24 The results confirm that all windows tested at both numbers41 and 43 Parkfield Road pass the BRE Daylight and Sunlight requirements in terms of daylight provision (vertical sky component) and sunlight provision (annual probable sunlight hours). These tables are presented within figures 11 and 12 below with the windows that pass the BRE daylight sunlight criteria highlighted in green. North-facing windows are not required to be tested for sunlight amenity. 7.25 The submitted report confirms that all windows tested for daylight impactswould remain above 80% of their former value as required by the BRE Daylight Sunlight Guidance. In terms of the sunlight analysis, 4 windows serving number 41 (W1- W4) and 2 windows (W2 and W11) serving number 43 Parkfield Road are facing north and would therefore not be required to be tested for sunlight loss. The remaining windows tested on both properties pass the sunlight testing requirements. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 11: Table showing daylight impact results (Vertical Sky Component) Figure 12: Table showing sunlight results (Annual Probable Sunlight Hours) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.26 Based on the Daylight & Sunlight BRE Impact Assessment submitted, Officers are satisfied that the proposed scheme would not unduly harm the daylight or sunlight amenity of either adjacent dwelling. It should also be noted that since the provision of the assessment, the scheme has been reduced in depth which may only improve daylight and sunlight access for neighbouring occupiers. 7.27 In paragraph 3.3.17 of the BRE Daylight Sunlight Guidance document it states: It is recommended that for it to appear adequately sunlit throughout the year, at least half of a garden or amenity area should receive at least two hours of sunlight on the 21 March. If as a result of new development an existing garden or amenity area does not meet the above, and the area that can receive two hours of sun on 21 March is less than 0.8 times its former value, then the loss of sunlight is likely to be noticeable. (Quotation from Building Research Establishment guide: Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice (2022) page 29) Both neighbouring properties contain extensive large gardens which would ensure that the minimum 2 hours of sunlight would be received on the 21stMarch. 7.28 In terms of solar energy to neighbouring properties, the two-storey element of the dwelling would be set in from both site boundaries which would reduce any impact on potential solar panels. During the summer months, the sun would be positioned higher within the sky to maximise the level of energy to panels. Whilst the winter period generally would have a limited amount of solar capacity, the positioning of the dwelling would not impact this capacity sufficiently to warrant a refusal on these grounds. Significantly it must be noted that the proposal needs to be assessed on the existing site context. There are no existing solar panels at numbers 41 and 43 Parkfield Road that would be impacted. Privacy/Overlooking 7.29 The dwelling would contain first floor flank windows facing both numbers 41 and 43 Parkfield Road which would overlook the neighbouring properties and harm their privacy, which would not be supported. However, these flank windows would primarily serve non-habitable rooms, specifically a utility room, walk-in wardrobe and ensuites. One of the side windows would serve a small office room, however as this is not a primary habitable room and consideringthe overall quality of accommodation within the dwelling, it is considered acceptable to condition this window to be obscure glazed with restricted opening. Accordingly, to ensure the privacy of numbers 41 and 43 is safeguarded, the flank windows at first floor level are conditioned to be obscure glazed and partially fixed shut,to prevent overlooking while still providing a good level of daylight access. Similarly, the side roof lights would be suitably conditioned to require obscureglazing where needed. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press It is recommended this is secured by way of condition (see Condition 11 of the condition list) on the decision notice to ensure the acceptability of the scheme. With regards to ground floor side windows, existing boundary treatment would mitigate any mutual loss of privacy between properties. 7.30 The ground floor of the proposed dwelling would be setback approximately 31 metres, and the first floor approximately 35.5 metres, from the rear boundary with 48, 50 and 52 Rectory Way. Due to this considerable separation distance, there would be no undue harm to the residential amenity of these properties. 7.31 It is acknowledged that the proposed first floor rear windows would provide oblique views into the adjacent rear gardens of numbers 41 and 43 Parkfield Road. However, a mutual degree of overlooking between first floor windows and rear gardens of neighbouring properties already exists on this street and is not uncommon in suburban locations such as this. It is therefore considered that the proposed first floor rear windows would not result in such a material loss of privacy as to warrant a reasonable ground for refusal on this basis. 7.32 The proposed dwelling would maintain the existing front building line on the site and would be setback approximately 26 metres from opposing properties 40, 42 and 44 Parkfield Road, on the opposite side of the street. Due to this considerable separation distance and the interceding road, there would be no undue harm to the residential amenity of these properties. Conclusion Amenity 7.33 Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. It would therefore comply with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Quality of Residential Accommodation (Internal and External) 7.34 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) sets out 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. 7.35 The proposed development comprises a spacious 4-bedroom dwelling with multiple living areas and utility areas, and an internal garage. The dwelling would meet all internal space standards of the London Plan (2021) and all habitable rooms would have an adequate source of light and outlook. As such the proposed development complies with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMHB 16 of the Local Plan (2020). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.36 Regarding external amenity space, Policy DMHB 18 of Local Plan (2020) states that all new residential development and conversions will be required to provide good quality and usable private outdoor amenity space. Amenity space should be provided in accordance with the standards set out in Table 5.3, which requires a 4-bedroom house to provide a minimum of 100 square metres of private genuinely usable amenity space. 7.37 The site would retain more than 400sqm of private rear garden space.A condition is included for a landscape plan to ensure the quality of this space. The external private amenity space provision is of a sufficient size, usability and functionality, in accordance with Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020). Highways and Parking 7.38 The Highways Officer has reviewed the proposal and recommends the application be approved subject to conditions. Parking 7.39 Policy DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) allows for new development to deviate from the Councils adopted parking standards where it would not result in a harmful impact on the surrounding road network. The application proposes three onsite car parking spaces (as stated on the submitted application form). There is capacity on site for this to be in the form of the proposed attached garage plus two on-plot parking spaces. Whilst this exceeds the maximum parking provision of up to 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling under the London Plan, the Highways Officer is satisfied this is acceptable as it reduces the potential for untoward on-street parking displacement in the area. It is also noted that in terms of maximum parking provision, the London Plan under Table 10.3, for 3+ bedroom dwellings, with a PTAL of 0-1 in outer London (such as this case), states that “boroughs should consider standards that allow for higher levels of provision where there is clear evidence that this would support additional family housing”. As such, the parking provision is in accordance with Policy DMT 6 and general accordance with the London Plan. A condition has been included in the recommendation for a landscape scheme which includes details of the car parking layout and electric vehicle charging points. Cycle Parking 7.40 The London Plan (2021) Table 10.2 Minimum Cycle Paring Standards requires dwellings with two or more bedrooms to have a minimum of two cycle parking spaces. No cycle parking has been identified on the submitted plans. However, due to the spacious size of the site, it is expected that secure and accessible cycle storage can be readily accommodated on the site. It is therefore recommended this is secured by way of condition. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Electric Vehicle Charging Points 7.41 In line with the London Plan (2021), within the final parking quantum there is a requirement for a minimum 20% 'active' electric vehicle charging points (EVCP) provision with all remaining spaces being designated as 'passive' provision. In this case, 1 ‘active’ and 1 ’passive’ space should be provided to future proof for anticipated demand. As the submitted plans do not acknowledge this requirement, it is recommended provision of the EVCP is secured by way of condition. Vehicular Access Provision 7.42 The two established carriageway crossings would remain and are considered fit for purpose. The Highways Officer recommended walls along the front boundary should be no more than 0.6m in height to provide safety sightlines for manoeuvring vehicles. Securing a landscaping plan by way of condition would ensure any proposed front boundary treatment is acceptable. This is included in the recommendation. Vehicular Trip Generation 7.43 Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) requires the council to consider whether the traffic generated by proposed developments is acceptable in terms of the local highway and junction capacity, traffic flows and conditions of general highway or pedestrian safety. The Highways Officer has advised that there would be no discernible difference in vehicle bound activity as compared to the scale and single tenure of the existing dwelling. Therefore, any generated activity can be readily absorbed within the local road network without notable detriment to traffic congestion and road safety. Operational Refuse Requirements 7.44 Refuse collection would continue via Parkfield Road as is the case at present. To conform to accepted 'waste collection distances' from the public highway, the bin storage area should be positioned within 10m of a refuse vehicle. Although no detail is submitted, the above is considered achievable which would allow for refuse to be positioned within the above distance parameter on collection days. It is recommended to secure the provision of well-designed waste storage by way of condition. Construction Management Plan 7.45 The Highways Officer considers a full and detailed Construction Management Plan (CMP) should be required given the constraints and sensitivities of the local road network to avoid/minimise potential detriment to the public realm. This would be secured by condition. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Highways Conclusion 7.46 The Highway Authority have been consulted on the application andraise no objection subject to conditions outlined aboveand included in this recommendation for approval. Therefore, the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress andwould not raise any measurable highway safety concerns. Noise 7.47 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. 7.48 The site would be used in an exclusively residential capacity. Therefore, in terms of the operational phase of the proposed development (occupation of the dwelling), no significant issues are raised by the proposal in respect to noise. 7.49 Given the built-up residential nature of the area, a Construction Management Plan is recommended to minimise noise and other emissions caused during the construction phase as far as practicable. It is also noted that other environmental legislation controls the hours for demolition and construction works, to minimise environmental nuisance. The applicant is reminded of their obligations under this legislation in an attached informative. Air Quality 7.50 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. In summary, these policies seek to safeguard and improve air quality to protect existing and new sensitive receptors. These aims are also supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (2024). 7.51 The development site is located within an Air Quality Management Area. In terms of providing an ‘air quality neutral’ development, London Plan Guidance Air Quality Neutral (2023) provides a simplified method to assess minor developments. In summary, for building emissions to be considered air quality neutral, the source of heating for the dwelling would need to be a heat pump or other zero-emission heat source; connected to an existing heat network; or if using gas boilers these should have NOx emissions rated at less than 40mg/kWh. This would be secured by condition in the event of an approval. 7.52 For transport emissions to be assumed to be air quality neutral, then parking provision should not exceed maximum London Plan requirements. As discussed in paragraph 7.39,the proposal is in general accordance with parking standards Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press specified in the London Plan. Significantly, it is also noted that there would be no change from the existing level of car parking on-site. Therefore, there would be no increase in operational transport emissions generated by the proposed replacement dwelling. As noted in paragraph 7.43 there would be no discernible difference in vehicle bound activity. Consequently, the proposal is considered air quality neutral and is acceptable with respect to air quality impacts. A condition has been included requiring the submission of a Construction Management Plan which would include measures that mitigate air quality impacts during construction. Accessibility 7.53 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 meet Building Regulation requirement M4(3) 'wheelchair user dwellings', with all other dwellings meeting Category M4(2) 'accessible and adaptable dwellings'. 7.54 The Councils Access Officer has been consulted on the application and has no objection to the proposed development in terms of accessibility subject to securing conditions pertaining to ensuring step free access to the dwelling. This would be secured by condition. A condition has also been included requiring the proposed dwelling to comply with Category M4(2) ‘accessible and adaptable’ dwellings. Trees and Landscaping 7.55 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 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. 7.56 The site is subject to a wider Tree Preservation Order within this section of properties along Parkfield Road, as identified on the Council GIS. However, the Council’s Trees Officer has confirmed that there are specific trees within the site subject to protection. There are multiple mature trees located within the rear garden of the site including three notable Cypress trees. As the new dwelling is to be located mostly within the footprint of the existing dwelling, no tree removal is proposed by the application. The footprint of the proposed dwelling would be sited away from protected trees. 7.57 No Tree Survey or Tree Protection Plan have been submitted with the proposal to ensure the safety and protection of the onsite trees during the construction works. Nevertheless, the Council’s Trees Officer has reviewed the application and stated that it would be acceptable for a Tree Survey and Tree Protection Plan to be Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press secured by way of condition to ensure that construction activities do not harm the health of the trees. This has been included in the recommendation for approval. 7.58 No landscaping plan has been submitted with the proposal. Most of the rear garden is proposed to be retained, and the new dwelling would be constructed over the footprint of the existing dwelling meaning minimal new landscaping would be required. As such, it is considered reasonable and practical to secure provision of a landscaping scheme via condition. Biodiversity Net Gain 7.59 In England, Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is mandatory under Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021). It became mandatory for small sites on 2 April 2024. Developers must deliver a BNG of at least 10%. This means a development will result in more or better-quality natural habitat than there was before development. The landowner is legally responsible for creating or enhancing the habitat and managing that habitat for at least 30 years to achieve the target condition. 7.60 Policy 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity. 7.61 Paragraph 8.6.6 of Policy G6 of The London Plan (2021) states that biodiversity net gain is an approach to development that leaves biodiversity in a better state than before. Losses should be avoided, and biodiversity offsetting is the option of last resort. 7.62 Policy EM7 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part One Strategic Policies (2012) states that Hillingdon's biodiversity and geological conservation will be preserved and enhanced, with particular attention given to improving biodiversity from all development. 7.63 Paragraph 6.28 of Policy DMEI 7 (Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement) of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part Two Development Management Policies (2020) states it is important that planning decisions are appropriately informed by the right level of survey and information on ecology features. The Council will apply Natural England's standing advice at the validation stage. Applications will only be validated if they have the appropriate information. Where initial assessments recommend further surveys, these will be expected to be provided as part of a planning submission. All ecological reports or information submitted should adhere to nationally accepted best practice survey standards and be consistent with the British Standard BS 42020: 2013 Biodiversity - Code of Practice for Planning and Development or an updated variation. Where appropriate, the Council will require the use of the approved DEFRA biodiversity impact calculator (as updated) to inform decisions on no net loss and net gain. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.64 During the processing of the application a Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment was requested and provided. The assessment concluded that the development would result in a net 0.91% loss in Habitat Units in comparison to the statutory 10% increase required. The net loss is caused by the loss of vegetated garden habitat and an ornamental pond due to the larger footprint of the new dwelling. The report states that achieving the statutory 10% gain is not possible on-site and off-site compensation would be required. 7.65 The increase in building footprint on the site by the replacement dwelling is similar to what would likely be approved under an application for additions to the existing dwelling. Notably, additions to the existing dwelling would be exempt from achieving Biodiversity Net Gain. Therefore, whilst the minimal 0.91% net loss in habitat units is regrettable, it is not remarkable in the context of generally accepted minor residential development. Whilst biodiversity off site offsetting is to be a last resort option, it is considered this is an improved outcome to alternative forms of residential development on the site that would not be required to achieve any Biodiversity Net Gain. Statutory BNG guidance states that the provision of less than 0.25 ‘biodiversity units’ via off site off setting is an acceptable outcome. As only 0.07 ‘biodiversity units’ are required to achieve 10% Biodiversity Net Gain and can be provided via off site offsetting, this is therefore acceptable. The BNG Report submitted by the applicant confirms that off-site credits would be required in order to meet the criteria. 7.66 The application would be able to provide a 10% increase in biodiversity via off site offsetting. A Biodiversity Net Gain condition has been attached which requests further information post application. This information includes a follow up Baseline Biodiversity Assessment which seeks 10% gain within the site. If this is not possible, the condition requires proof of purchase of Biodiversity Credits or Statutory Credits in order to meet the statutory requirement. This information would be required prior to commencement of the development. Ecology 7.67 Policy DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 -Development Management Policies (2020) states that if development is proposed on or near to a site considered to have features of ecological or geological value, applicants must submit appropriate surveys and assessments to demonstrate that the proposed development will not have unacceptable effects. The development must provide a positive contribution to the protection and enhancement of the site or feature of ecological value. 7.68 The site is not close to any open woodland or dense scrub and shrubbery. It is therefore considered that the likelihood of protected species being present at the site is low, and as such, an ecology assessment is not required. This position would be in accordance with 'Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation- Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System' which states that, "...bearing in mind the delay and cost that may be involved, Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press developers should not be required to undertake surveys for protected species unless there is a reasonable likelihood of the species being present and affected by the development." In the event of an approval, an informative would be secured advising that should protected species be found at the site, the applicant must fulfil their duties under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitations and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). Waste Management 7.69 Policy DMHB 11 Part (d) of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020) states that development proposals should make sufficient provision for well-designed internal and external storage space for general, recycling and organic waste, with suitable access for collection. External bins should be located and screened to avoid nuisance and adverse visual impacts to occupiers and neighbours. To conform with the Council's 'waste-collection' distance parameter of 10 metres, refuse, recycling and food waste would need to be deposited kerbside on collection day. 7.70 The proposed plans do not show provision for refuse and recycling storage and while there is sufficient space on the site to readily accommodate storage, it is important that the storage is well-designed and located. Therefore, it is recommended to secure the provision of waste storage by requiring the applicant to submit details for approval. This would be secured by condition. Flooding and Drainage 7.71 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. Policy DMEI 9 and Policy DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Development Management Policies (2020) require, in summary, that flood risk is mitigated and proposals that increase the risk of flooding or which fail to make adequate provision to control surface water runoff will be refused. 7.72 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. 7.73 In the event of an approval, a condition would be secured requiring the submission of a sustainable water management scheme that incorporates sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDs), to be submitted to the local planning authority for consideration. Subject to the condition, it is considered that the proposed development would not increase the risk of flooding on the site or elsewhere, in accordance 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). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Sustainability 7.74 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. 7.75 The proposed development is a minor application, therefore whilst the principle of SI 2 (carbon reduction) is relevant, the London Plan Policy applies more specifically to major applications. The applicant is therefore not required to submit an energy statement to demonstrate a policy level of on-site savings. 7.76 However, a condition would be secured requiring the proposed development to achieve as a minimum, a water efficiency standard of no more than 110 litres per person per day maximum water consumption. This would minimise the use of water resources in a sustainable manner, in accordance with Policy SI 5 of the London Plan. 7.78 The proposal would therefore be compliant with Policy SI 5 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMEI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Airport Safeguarding 7.79 Policy DMAV 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020) states that the Council will ensure that uses such as housing, education and hospitals are not located in areas significantly affected by aircraft noise without acceptable mitigation measures. 7.80 The application site is within 3km of RAF Northolt. However, the site is within an established residential area within this safeguarding zone and is a replacement dwelling. It is therefore considered that visibility and audibility of aircraft operations associated with RAF Northolt would not be of significant harm to the living conditions of future occupiers. It is therefore considered unreasonable to refuse the application on the basis of harm to the residential amenity of the future occupiers, in respect to aircraft noise associated with RAF Northolt. Land Contamination 7.81 Policy DMEI 12 of the Local Plan (2020) states that for sites identified as being at potential risk of land contamination, relevant reports should be submitted to demonstrate that there would be no harm to the health of occupants. 7.82 The application site is not located on contaminated land. Therefore, a survey is not required nor are conditions pertaining to the submission of further information. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Fire Safety 7.83 Policy D12 of the London Plan states that all developments must achieve the highest standards of fire safety. 7.84 The proposal is for a replacement dwelling that would have a street frontage. There would be unobstructed outside space on the road to accommodate fire appliances and to serve as an evacuation assembly point. It is considered that the design of the proposal would enable effective evacuation from the dwelling. The application is therefore considered to be in general accordance with Policy D12 of the London Plan. 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 1st August 2014. The Hillingdon CIL charge for residential developments is in addition to the Mayoral CIL charge. CIL rates are index linked. The proposal involves the erection of a new dwelling and is therefore CIL liable if planning permission is granted. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The proposed development would have a satisfactory impact on the character and appearance of the area. It would also not give rise to any undue harm to neighbouring amenities, or the local highway network. Adequate living accommodation would be provided for future residents.

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report – Application Report Case Officer:Emilie Bateman 49261/APP/2024/2904 Date Application Valid: 01.11.2024 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 31.03.2025 Application Type: Full Ward: Hayes Town Applicant: Marvell Developments LLC Site Address: Unit 4, Silverdale Industrial Estate, Silverdale Road Proposal: Demolition of existing building and structures on site, and all other associated site clearance works. Construction of a data centre building (Class B8) with plant at roof level with an emergency generator (1no.) and associated flue (provided within an external compound adjoining the data centre building), sprinkler tank and pumphouse, security guard house, and provision of one kiosk substation and MV Building. Construction of a new access and internal road and circulation areas, footpaths, provision of car and bicycle parking, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works and ancillary site infrastructure. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to section 106 legal agreement and conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 1 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Major application recommended for approval) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 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. S106 Legal Agreement Heads of Terms It is recommended that delegated powers be given to the Director of Planning, Regeneration and Environment to grant planning permission subject to the following: A) That the Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or any other legislation to secure the following: 1. Air Quality Mitigation contribution of £70,024. 2. A Healthy Streets/Active Travel Zone contribution of £29,700. 3. A full Travel Plan to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 4. A Carbon Offset contribution of £435,604. 5. An Employment/ Construction Training Scheme secured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD. 6. A Project Management and Monitoring Fee, equalling 5% of the total financial contributions to be paid under this agreement. B) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in preparation of the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed. C) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreement and conditions of approval. D) That, if the Legal Agreement has not been finalised within 6 months (or such other time frame as may be agreed by the Director of Planning, Regeneration and Environment), delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning, Regeneration and Environment to refuse planning permission for the following reason: 'The applicant has failed to mitigate the impacts posed by the proposed development (in respect of Air Quality, Highways Safety, Travel Planning, Carbon Offsetting and Employment). The scheme therefore conflicts with Policies DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020); the adopted Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2014); Policy DF1 of the London Plan (2021); and paragraphs 56-58 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).' E) That if the application is approved, that the permission is subject to the Conditions as set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 This application seeks permission for the redevelopment of Unit 4, Silverdale Industrial Estate, Hayes, to provide a 1-megawatt (MW) data centre (Use Class B8), including associated infrastructure, car parking, cycle storage, and landscaping. 1.2 The proposed development is considered acceptable in land use terms, as the site is located within a Strategic Industrial Location (SIL). The development is considered to have minimal impact on the surrounding area and is consistent with the objectives of the Hillingdon Local Plan and the London Plan. In addition, no neighbouring representations have been received. 1.3 The economic benefit of commercial development is acknowledged and supported by national, regional and local planning policies. As noted under Paragraph 85 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2024), significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity. 1.4 Subject to the planning conditions and obligations recommended, the proposed development is considered acceptable with respect to design, heritage, residential amenity, environmental issues, transport, and sustainability. 1.5 For the reasons outlined above and within the main body of the report, this application is considered to comply with the Development Plan and is recommended for approval, subject to securing the planning conditions set out in Appendix 1 and a Section 106 legal agreement. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The site comprises a 0.37ha brownfield site at Silverdale Industrial Estate, Hayes (Figure 1). The existing site includes a vacant warehouse comprised of a ground floor unit with ancillary office floorspace at mezzanine. There is hardstanding to the north of the building representing the primary service yard forecourt (Figure 2). A narrow access lane is to the west of the building and a small service yard to the rear (south) of the building. 2.2 The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by industrial and warehouse units located at Silverdale Industrial Estate, varying between 1-2 storeys. In the immediate vicinity of the site, a small car park comprising hardstanding is located to the north; 2 no. industrial warehouses are located to Hillingdon Planning Committee–12thMarch 2025 PART 1–Members, Public & Press the east; the London -Reading railway line is located adjacent to the southern site boundary; Hillingdon Borough Central Mosque, an industrial warehouse and a single lane road accessed off Silverdale Road are located west of the site; and the canal is located to the south west. 2.3 Botwell Nestles Conservation Area is located approximately 150 metres south- west of the site which includes 4 no. locally listed buildings, whilst the Grade II listed 'Below Works' factory building is approximately 100 metres west of the site. No further statutory heritage assets are within the immediate vicinity of the site. The site is located on potentially contaminated land and within an Air Quality Management Area and Hayes Focus Area. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application Property Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 This application seeks permission for the demolition of an existing warehouse building and the construction of a data centre with associated facilities. The Gross External Area (‘GEA’) of the proposed development is 1,914 sq.m. 3.2 The proposed 1MW data centre would provide a gross floor area (GFA) of approximately 1,778 sq.m, over two storeys with plant located at roof level. The building would have a parapet height of around 14.7 metres and would house data halls, electrical and mechanical plant rooms, a loading bay, maintenance and storage space, and office administration areas (Figure 4 and 5). An emergency generator (one unit) and flue would be situated within an external compound adjacent to the data centre building. 3.3 Additionally, the proposal includes several ancillary structures, such as a sprinkler tank, pumphouse, security guard house, a kiosk substation, and a medium voltage (MV) building (Figure 3). The development would also include provisions for access, car parking (8 spaces), and bicycle parking (8 spaces), along with hard and soft landscaping, boundary treatments, lighting, and all associated works, including underground foul and stormwater drainage systems and utility cabling. 3.4 During the course of the application, minor amendments were submitted. The amendments submitted conceal the plant equipment at roof level by raising the parapet and pulls back the fence line from Silverdale Road. Hillingdon Planning Committee–12thMarch 2025 PART 1–Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan (please note –a larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee–12thMarch 2025 PART 1–Members, Public & Press Figure 4: Proposed Elevations(please note –a larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Figure 5: Proposed Ground Floorplans (please note –a larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4 Relevant Planning History There is no relevant planning history related to the site. 5 Planning Policy A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 A total of 19 no. letters were sent to neighbouring properties, a site notice was displayed to the front of the site and an advert was posted in the local paper. All forms of consultation expired on 24 February 2024. 6.2 It is noted that no representations were received from neighbouring occupiers. 6.3 Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 1(below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response External Consultation Canal and Rivers Trust Based on the information available our substantive response (as required by the Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended)) is that the Trust has no comment to make on the proposal. Noted. Thames Water Thames Water has no objection to the proposed development regarding wastewater network and sewage treatment infrastructure. However, surface water drainage should follow the sequential approach in line with Policy SI 13 of the London Plan 2021. If discharge to a public sewer is proposed, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services is required. The Thames Water comments are noted. Please refer to Informative 10. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press The developer must also demonstrate measures to minimise groundwater discharges into the public sewer, as unauthorised discharge is illegal under the Water Industry Act 1991. An informative is recommended regarding the need for a Groundwater Risk Management Permit. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) NATS has no safeguarding objection to the proposed development based on the information provided. However, they request re-consultation if any changes are made to the proposal that may affect their assessment. The NATS comments are noted. Heathrow Airport Safeguarding Heathrow Airport Safeguarding has no objection to the proposed development. However, as the site falls within Heathrow Airport’s crane circle, the crane operator must submit details to the CAA Airspace Coordination and Obstacle Management Service (ACOMS) before installation. No cranes should operate on-site until Heathrow’s Works Approval Team has issued a crane permit. The Heathrow Airport Safeguarding comments are noted. Please refer to Informative 9. Ministry of Defence The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has no objection to the proposed development following their review, confirming no detrimental impact on defence sites or assets. However, any future amendments to the development, such as changes in location, dimensions, or materials, may require further assessment to ensure no impact on MOD safeguarding requirements. The MOD should be consulted if any revised or additional plans are submitted. The Ministry of Defence comments are noted. London Fire Brigade The London Fire Brigade (LFB) has reviewed the fire safety documents for the proposed The London Fire Brigade comments are noted. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press development. They advise ensuring that the plans comply with Part B of the Building Regulations and that the application is submitted to Building Control, who may consult the Fire Authority. The applicant should also follow the guidance in Approved Document B, particularly regarding fire brigade access and water provisions. Any deviations from these standards should be discussed with the LFB's Water Office or Fire Safety Regulation team for further assessment. It is noted that the development should accord with the relevant Building Regulation requirements. Fire safety matters are also to be addressed through Condition 24. Transport for London (TfL) Transport for London (TfL) has no objections to the proposed development concerning London Underground/DLR infrastructure. However, as the site is adjacent to National Rail (NR) infrastructure, the applicant is advised to contact NR directly to assess any potential impacts on the railway. This response pertains solely to railway engineering and safety matters. The TfL comments are noted. Please refer to paragraphs 7.75 – 7.97 for consideration of transport matters. Network Rail Network Rail requires the applicant to engage with their Asset Protection team due to the development's proximity to railway infrastructure. Key requirements include ensuring scaffolding, cranes, and foundations do not affect the railway, providing a 1.8m trespass-proof fence, and consulting Network Rail on any ground level changes or excavation works. Buildings should be at least 2 metres from the boundary, and any landscaping near the railway must be approved. Lighting must not interfere with railway signalling. All work near Network Rail land must be done in accordance with their guidelines. The Network Rail Safeguarding comments are noted. Please refer to Informative 1. London Borough of Ealing On 13 December 2024 our determination in this instance is No Objection. Noted. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Internal Consultation Planning Policy Officer No objection in principle subject to detail. The Planning Policy Officer comments are noted. Matters relating to the principle of development are addressed in paragraphs 7.1 – 7.17 of this report. Urban Design Officer 03-12-24 Initial Comments The Urban Design Officer raised several concerns regarding the development’s design, particularly the use of fencing and greening. Key points included the need to rationalise the two lines of fencing, with a suggestion to replace the palisade fence with a mesh solution. They also recommended integrating a green living wall with the public realm and adding trees to improve the frontage. Further concerns were raised about the limited use of rear spaces for greening and biodiversity, with suggestions to connect these areas to the railway line and create staff amenity spaces. The Officer also requested clear identification of tree root protection zones and expressed concerns over underground utilities potentially impacting key green areas. 10-02-25 Response and Revised Proposals In response to the feedback, the applicant has made several improvements. The fence line has been set back, and the palisade fence has been replaced with weldmesh fencing, addressing visual concerns. Public access is restricted by fencing due to security concerns. The Urban Design Officer comments are noted. Matters relating to design are addressed in paragraphs 7.18 – 7.29 of this report. The final design details of the materials and landscape scheme are proposed to be secured by Conditions 18 and 20. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press The building’s appearance has been enhanced by raising the parapet level to better conceal rooftop services. Greening efforts have been acknowledged, with a recommendation to add more trees, especially to the south and near Silverdale Road. An updated Tree Survey has been provided. Utilities plans have been supplied and provide confidence in landscaping. The changes sufficiently address the concerns, and the Urban Design Officer recommends conditioning the following to ensure high-quality design: Fence colour Green wall / screen details Detailed landscaping strategy (number, type, and distribution of species - trees and other greening) Signage and lighting Access Officer The Access Officer has no accessibility concerns regarding the proposal. However, they recommend attaching an informative to any planning permission, highlighting the requirements of the Equality Act 2010. The Access Officer comments are noted. Please refer to Informative 12. Highways Officer The Highways Officer has reviewed the Transport Statement (TS) and supports the conclusion that the proposed development would not significantly impact the local highway network. Key points include: The site is well-located for sustainable transport, with good access to local amenities and public transport, despite its low PTAL rating. The proposed development would generate fewer vehicle trips compared to the current use. The site’s access, layout, and internal arrangements are suitable for the The Highways Officer comments are noted. Matters relating to transport are addressed in paragraphs 7.75 – 7.97 of this report. Please see the ‘Summary of Recommendation’ section of this report for confirmation of the heads of terms to be secured in a section 106 legal agreement. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press forecast traffic, including HGV and car access. Compliance with parking and cycle parking standards has been demonstrated, with provision for EV charging. A contribution towards the Healthy Streets initiative is required to improve pedestrian and cyclist access, reducing car dependency and enhancing safety. The Highway Authority raises no objections subject to conditions regarding cycle parking, EV charging, construction management, and informatives. A financial contribution towards Highway Improvement works and travel plan to encourage sustainable modes of transport, to be secured by S106 Legal Agreement. Please refer to Conditions 4 (cycle parking), 8 (EVCP) and 17 (construction management and logistics plan). Please refer to Heads of Terms nos. 2 (highways improvement / healthy streets contribution) and 3 (travel plan). Air Quality Officer The proposed development, located within the LBH Air Quality Management Area and Hayes Focus Area, does not meet air quality neutral or positive standards as required by the London Plan and LBH’s Air Quality Local Action Plan. Mitigation measures are necessary to reduce emissions, with a calculated total cost of £70,024 to offset the development’s impact. This amount should be secured through a Section 106 agreement to support air quality improvements in the local area. Additionally, no extra backup generators should be deployed without separate planning approval. No objection, subject to conditions and contribution. The Air Quality Officer comments are noted. Please see the ‘Summary of Recommendation’ section of this report for confirmation that £70,024 is proposed to be secured via a Section 106 legal agreement. Please also refer to Conditions 14 (low emission zone for non-road mobile machinery), 15 (low emission strategy) 16 (reducing demolition and construction emissions), 26 (generator emissions), 28 (cleanest backup generator specifications) and 29 (testing and maintenance regime annual hours). Flooding and Drainage Specialist The Flooding and Drainage Specialist raises no objection, subject to conditions. At the Discharge of Condition stage, the applicant should investigate the potential for incorporating rainwater harvesting on-site or The Flooding and Drainage Specialist comments are noted. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press provide justification for its non-inclusion. Additionally, the applicant should provide the proposed runoff volume for the 1 in 100 year, 6-hour storm event. Matters relating to flood and water management are addressed in paragraphs 7.66 – 7.72 of this report. Please also refer to Conditions 3 (compliance with supporting documentation) and 21 (sustainable water management). Noise Specialist The Noise Specialist raises no objection, subject to conditions and informative. Construction noise should consider flexible working hours, especially near the mosque and commercial properties. Operational noise must not exceed 40 dB(A) between 2300- 0700 and 50 dB(A) between 0700-2300 at any noise-sensitive premises, including places of worship. Emergency equipment testing should be coordinated with local premises. The CEMP can be incorporated into the CMP condition with aim to minimise noise impacts during construction. The Noise Specialist comments are noted. Matters relating to noise are addressed in paragraphs 7.42– 7.46 of this report. Please also refer to Conditions 7 (noise rating limits), 14 (construction management and logistics plan) and Informative 2 (noise levels and testing of emergency equipment). Contaminated Land Officer The Contaminated Land Officer has no objection but recommends a condition requiring a contamination remediation scheme (including asbestos) to be approved by the LPA before development commences, excluding demolition and initial ground works. Any new contamination discovered must be addressed with an updated scheme. A verification report confirming remediation completion must be submitted prior to discharging the condition. Imported soils must be tested for contamination. The Contaminated Land comments are noted. Matters relating to land contamination are addressed in paragraphs 7.73 – 7.74 of this report. Please also refer to Condition 22 (contaminated land). Waste Strategy Officer No comment/ objections Noted. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Tree Officer No concerns, subject to compliance with Tree Survey demonstrating existing trees would be retained on site. Please refer to Condition 5 (trees to be retained). 7 Planning Assessment Land Use Principles Industrial Use 7.1 This application seeks permission to demolish an existing warehouse (Use Class B8) and construct a two-storey data centre with plant at roof level, housing data halls, plant rooms, office space, and a loading bay, alongside an external compound with an emergency generator, ancillary structures, parking, landscaping, and associated infrastructure. The principle of the proposed development is inherently linked with the site's designation. 7.2 The application site is located within the Silverdale Road Industrial Area, designated as a Strategic Industrial Location (SIL) in the Hillingdon Local Plan. SILs are key locations for industrial, logistics, and digital infrastructure uses, ensuring that such areas continue to support London's economic and employment needs. Policy E4 of the London Plan recognises data centres as an emerging industrial-type activity that falls within the broader B8 (storage and distribution) classification, making the proposed use appropriate within this designated SIL. 7.3 Policy E7 of the London Plan encourages the intensification of industrial land, particularly in SILs, to optimise capacity while ensuring that existing industrial functions are not compromised. While the proposal results in a marginal net reduction in industrial floorspace, with the existing warehouse measuring 2,278.45 sq.m and the proposed data centre and ancillary structures measuring 1,914 sq.m, the high-value nature of data infrastructure justifies the change. The modernisation and specialisation of the site ensure that it continues to serve an industrial function while adapting to emerging technological needs, aligning with strategic planning objectives. Office Use 7.4 The proposal includes office floorspace to support the administrative and operational requirements of the data centre. Policy E7 of the London Plan generally resists standalone office development within SILs unless it is directly ancillary to industrial or logistics functions. 7.5 Given the industrial designation of the site, it is necessary to ensure that the office component remains subordinate to the primary data centre use. A planning Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press condition (Condition 9) would be imposed to restrict the use of office floorspace to ensure that it remains ancillary to the data centre, thereby maintaining the strategic industrial function of the site in accordance with the London Plan and Hillingdon Local Plan policies. Economy and Employment Use 7.6 The National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (NPPF)emphasises the importance of economic growth, recognising technology and data infrastructure as key drivers of productivity. This proposal strengthens the borough’s industrial capacity, bringing long-term economic benefits. 7.7 The London Plan (2021) supports digital infrastructure as part of London’s economic development. Policy E4 identifies data centres as suitable for Strategic Industrial Locations (SILs), while Policy E7 encourages the modernisation of industrial land to support technology-based employment. 7.8 The proposal wouldgenerate employment both during construction and operation. While data centres may have a lower direct employment density than other industrial uses, they support highly skilled jobs, including data infrastructure management, cybersecurity, and maintenance roles. Additionally, indirect employment through supply chain services, security, and specialist contractors further enhances the economic benefits of the scheme. The development is expected to contribute to local employment and skills development, in line with Policy E11 of the London Plan (2021) and relevant policies in the Hillingdon Local Plan. 7.9 Policy E11 of the London Plan (2021) states that development proposals should support employment, skills development, apprenticeships, and other education and training opportunities in both the construction and end-use phases, including through Section 106 obligations where appropriate. In accordance with this, the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2014) requires that developments with estimated construction costs of over £2 million and a construction period of three months or more deliver an in-kind employment and training scheme or financial contributions towards training and employment in the borough. An employment strategy and construction training scheme are proposed to be secured by a Section 106 legal agreement. 7.10 Paragraph 85 of the NPPF (2024) states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity. It is agreed that there would be economic benefits arising from the proposed scheme and significant weight is afforded to such benefits. Energy Infrastructure 7.11 The NPPF (2024) emphasises the need for development to be supported by appropriate infrastructure. Policy D2 of the London Plan requires consideration to be given to the impact on local infrastructure capacity where planning infrastructure capacity will be exceeded. Policy SI2 of the London Plan (2021) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press requires major developments to demonstrate how energy infrastructure will be integrated and supported. Given the substantial power demand associated with data centres, the applicant has outlined a strategy to secure additional energy capacity. 7.12 The proposal includes significant energy infrastructure requirements. The proposed development would be powered by Scottish and Southern Electricity (SSE) Networks through a new substation located at Silverdale Road, to the northeast of the site. The connection would be provided at 11kV with a capacity of up to 1,000 kVA at 50Hz. 7.13 A formal connection offer has been issued by SSE Networks (Reference Number FBT206/1),confirming the ability to provide the necessary power for the development. All electrical supplies would be distributed underground at 11kV throughout the facility, ensuring a streamlined and reliable power supply. These provisions ensure that the energy infrastructure for the development would be robust and suitable to meet its operational requirements, supporting its long-term sustainability. 7.14 In the unlikely event of a power loss, such as a temporary grid blackout, a 1.08 MW emergency back-up generator would automatically activate to maintain power to essential systems until mains power is restored. Housed in an external compound on the eastern side of the data centre, this generator ensures continuous operations during grid outages, demonstrating that a reliable power infrastructure is in place to support the development’s resilience. This is subject to air quality considerations addressed in paragraphs 7.49 to 7.53 of this report. 7.15 The Council has continued to engage with the Greater London Authority's Infrastructure Coordinate Service, who have been leading on the issue of West London electricity capacity constraints. The relevant infrastructure providers are continuing to deploy solutions to resolve capacity issues for residential and mixed-use schemes in the short term. This has resulted in almost all the residential schemes previously known to be stalled due to this issue having a connection secured. Upgrades to the electricitytransmission network serving West London remain planned to address the issue over the long-term. The Greater London Authority continue to host an update on the issue of West London Electricity Capacity Constraints on its website with full details of the latest position (February 2025). 7.16 Therefore, the development has secured a power supply and would not overburden the local grid capacity and is not considered to result in detrimental impacts connected to energy infrastructure. Conclusion 7.17 The proposal optimises the site for a future-proofed industrial use, in recognition of the important role data centres play in economic and technological resilience. It would ensure compatibility with surrounding industrial activities, particularly with the ability of SILs to operate 24 hours a day. Planning obligations, including Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press commitments to employment and training, transport mitigation, and energy infrastructure delivery, would ensure compliance with policy requirements. Therefore, no issues are raised in principle, subject to these considerations and the detailed assessment of the application in the following sections of this report. Design Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.18 Policies D3 of the London Plan (2021), BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 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 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 the NPPF (2024) at chapter 12. 7.19 The existing site consists of hardstanding and a vacant single storey structure. The site sits between Hillingdon Borough Mosque and an industrial unit, which are to the west and east, respectively. To the south is the railway line and to the north is Silverdale Road. The site sits within the designated SIL and is characterised as such. 7.20 This proposed development involves the construction of a data centre building (Use Class B8), along with several ancillary structures. 7.21 The proposed data centre, with a gross floor area of 1,914 sqm, aims to meet the operational demands of modern data storage, while respecting the scale and character of the surrounding industrial area. The building would be two-storey, with plant located at roof level, and would feature a parapet height of approximately 14.7 metres. 7.22 The site layout has been designed to ensure that the development remains operationally efficient while maintaining appropriate boundary treatments for security requirements. To this end, revisions were secured to revise boundary treatments from palisade to weldmesh, balancing security requirements with visual appearance. The proposal includes hard and soft landscaping elements, including green walls which would help to soften the visual impact of the development and provide a more cohesive integration with the surrounding industrial landscape. 7.23 In terms of its design, the proposed data centre respects the overall character of the area. While it introduces a building that is larger in scale compared to surrounding structures, its modern industrial design and high-quality materials ensure it would not be out of place within the context of the industrial estate. Revisions were sought to raise the parapet by 1.54m to conceal plant equipment at roof level to create a cleaner form. The development’s height and massing are considered appropriate for this location. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.24 The inclusion of PV panels to the proposed data centre building, is welcomed and accords with the planning policy requirements for such proposals. It is noted that these would not be visible from street level. 7.25 The building’s primary cladding would consist of light-coloured profiled metal panels, chosen to blend with the sky and surrounding industrial buildings. This material selection is consistent with the industrial nature of the area. The choice of cladding and the streamlined form would contribute to the building’s integration within the site and the broader industrial estate. 7.26 The ancillary buildings located at the front of the site wouldbe more visible from the main approach to the site. These proposed structures are relatively small in scale and the use of green walls help mitigate and soften it to ensure they do not dominate the site or its surroundings. 7.27 The final material details are to be secured by Condition 18 to ensure the delivery of a high-quality development. 7.28 The proposed development facilitates a reduction in hard landscaping and vehicle parking and is a notable improvement on the existing scenario. 7.29 Therefore, in conclusion, the information submitted is considered to sufficiently demonstrate that the development would not be harmful to the street scene and would instead harmonise with the visual amenities of the area. Subject to appropriately worded conditions, the development is considered to accord with the requirements of Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020), Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), and the NPPF (2024). Accessibility 7.30 Policy D5 of the London Plan (2021) states that development proposals should achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design. 7.31 The proposed development involves a data centre with associated facilities, including car parking and landscaping. The Council’s Access Officer has reviewed the proposal and confirmed that no significant accessibility issues have been raised. 7.32 In line with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010, which requires service providers to make reasonable adjustments to facilitate disabled access, it is noted that the proposal should ensure accessibility both to and within the building. An informative is recommended for inclusion with any grant of planning permission to remind the applicant of their obligations under the Equality Act 2010, especially in eliminating barriers that may hinder disabled access. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Security 7.33 Policy DMHB 15 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) states that the Council will require all new development to ensure safe and attractive public and private spaces by referring to the Council's latest guidance on Secured by Design principles. This is supported by Policy D11 of the London Plan (2021). A secured by design condition has been recommended to achieve appropriate accreditation. Subject to Condition 12, the proposal would accord with Policy DMHB 15 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) and Policy D11 of the London Plan (2021). Fire Safety 7.34 Policy D12 of the London Plan (2021) states that all major development proposals should be submitted with a Fire Statement, which is an independent fire strategy, produced by a third party, suitably qualified assessor. The statement should detail how the development proposal will function in fire safety terms. 7.35 A Fire Statement has been submitted which demonstrates consideration of fire safety principles early in the development process. The London Fire Brigade have not raised any specific objections but have advised that the development should accord with Building Regulation requirements. This is proposed to be secured by Condition 24. Subject to this condition, the proposed would accord with the requirements of Policy D12 of the London Plan (2021). Heritage 7.36 The application site is not subject to a Conservation Area designation and does not contain any heritage assets, including statutory listed buildings or locally listed buildings. The proposal is also not considered to adversely impact the setting of the Grade II Listed Benlow Works Building, located over 100m to the west of site. Neighbouring Amenity Impact on Neighbours 7.37 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) states that development proposals should not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. 7.38 Given the location of the site, there are no residential properties nearby. However, the site sits between Hillingdon Borough Mosque and an industrial unit, which are to the west and east of the site, respectively. To the south is the railway line and to the north is Silverdale Road. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.39 The two-storey mosque located to the west of the proposed development. Recent alterations to the ground floor, including an entrance lobby (approved under planning permission ref. 39396/APP/2022/2561), have been made. The submitted BRE Report indicates that non-habitable spaces, such as the entrance lobby, do not require daylight and sunlight testing. Based on the drawings from the local planning authority, daylight studies (VSC and DD methods) show minimal impact on windows and rooms, ensuring compliance with BRE criteria for daylight. Similarly, the sunlight study (APSH) confirms all assessed windows wouldmeet the BRE Report’s sunlight amenity requirements. 7.40 It is acknowledged that the proposed parapet height has been raised marginally (1.54m), however, given the results of the BRE Daylight/Sunlight Report, it is considered that this would not have a significant impact on the results. 7.41 Taking into consideration the BRE Report, thesiting and extent of development proposed, it is not considered likely that the redevelopment of the site as presented would impact the privacy of neighbouring occupiers or the receipt of daylight and sunlight to adjacent properties. Noise, vibration, dust and lighting impacts are addressed in paragraphs 7.42 to 7.46 below. Environmental Issues Noise, Vibration, Dust and Lighting 7.42 Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021) states that development should reduce, manage and mitigate noise to improve health and quality of life. This can be done by separating noise generating uses from noise sensitive uses. Mitigation can also be secured through screening, layout, orientation, uses and materials. This is supported by Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012). 7.43 The Council’s Noise Specialist has confirmed that there is no objection, subject to appropriate conditions.For operational noise, the applicant has provided sufficient information. It is recommended that noise limits are secured by Condition 7. 7.44 A flexible approach to construction working hours, in collaboration with the mosque and nearby commercial premises, is recommended. The routine testing of emergency equipment, including generators, should also be scheduled in agreement with nearby sensitive premises (Informative 2). 7.45 A Construction Management Plan would be requiredto show how noise impacts would be minimised during the construction phase. This would include agreements on working hours with affected premises, including places of worship. This would be secured by Condition 17. 7.46 Therefore, subject to conditions, the development would accord with Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) and Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Odour 7.47 Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) states that the Council will seek to safeguard and improve all land, water, air and noise quality. 7.48 It is noted that paragraph 201 of NPPF (2024) states that the focus of planning decisions should be on whether proposed development is an acceptable use of land, rather than the control of processes or emissions (where these are subject to separate pollution control regimes). Planning decisions should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. Air Quality 7.49 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. In summary, thesse seek to safeguard and improve air quality in order to protect existing and new sensitive receptors. These aims are also supported by the NPPF (2024) at chapter 15. 7.50 The proposed development is located within the LBH Air Quality Management Area, and the Hayes Focus Area where additional emissions may exacerbate existing poor air quality. 7.51 According to the London Plan, developments must be air quality neutral at minimum, with LBH requiring air quality positive contributions in Focus Areas as per the LBH Air Quality Local Action Plan 2019-2024. Policy DMEI 14 of the emerging Hillingdon Local Plan (Part 2) further supports this, emphasizing the need for contributions to local air quality improvement. 7.52 The proposed data centre (Class B8), including an emergency generator and associated flue, is not air quality neutral or positive, as required. Therefore, mitigation measures are necessary to reduce the impact of emissions. 7.53 I n accordance with the LBH Local Action Plan, the total emissions associated with the development must be mitigated. The level of required mitigation for the operational phase, calculated using Defra's Damage Cost Approach, amounts to £70,024. This would be secured via a S106 agreement to ensure the development meets the necessary air quality standards, alongside Condition 16 for the reduction of emissions during construction, a low emissions strategy and zone (Conditions 14 and 15), and generator fuel, testing and maintenance conditions (Conditions 27, 28 and 29). Subject to this obligation and conditions, the development would accord with Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), Policy DMEI 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020), Policy SI 1 of the London Plan (2021) and the NPPF (2024). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Trees and Landscaping 7.54 Policies G1 and G5 of the London Plan (2021), DMEI 1, DMHB 11 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) are all directly relevant to the proposed development. These policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix. In summary, these policies seek to safeguard existing trees and deliver high quality landscaping in order to enhance amenity, biodiversity and green infrastructure. These aims are also supported by the NPPF (2024) at chapter 12. 7.55 With regard to landscaping, it is acknowledged that the proposals would commit to a significant improvement in soft landscaping and planting. The details of the boundary treatments would be secured under Condition 20. Revisions have secured weldmesh fencing instead of palisade fencing. 7.56 The Arboricultural Impact Assessment submitted confirms the retention of trees on site. All trees are to be retained and protected. Further, the proposed site plan submitted commits to the planting of new trees. 7.57 The final details of hard and soft landscaping are proposed to be secured by Condition 20 to ensure that the landscape scheme to be delivered is high quality and retained in the long term. Subject to this condition, the proposal would accord with Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Biodiversity 7.58 The Environment Act 2021 has established that all planning permissions granted in England have to deliver at least 10% BNG from January 2024. Paragraph 187 of the NPPF (2024) also states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures. This is supported by Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 7.59 The existing site comprises entirely the existing warehouse and hardstanding. The submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, prepared by E3P, confirms that the sealed tarmac surface of the site only has small areas of colonisation. Overall, no habitat with biodiversity value, and no priority or linear habitats were identified within the site boundary. Additionally, much of the surrounding area comprising further industrial units and associated hardstanding, all of which are anticipated to provide minimal ecological value. 7.60 In line with The Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Exemptions) Regulations 2024, any sites with less than 25 m2 of on-site habitat that has biodiversity value greater than zero are exempt from Biodiversity Net Gain. Since the site is exclusively developed land including the building and hardstanding with no biodiversity value/habitat units, a Biodiversity Net Gain report will not be required. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.61 The proposal is considered to accord with the NPPF (2024), Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Urban Greening Factor 7.62 Policy G5 of the London Plan (2021) states that major development proposals should contribute to the greening of London and that the target score for commercial development is 0.3. 7.63 In line with Policy G5 of the London Plan (2021), major development proposals are expected to contribute to the greening of London. The applicant should maximise greening opportunities on the site. 7.64 The landscape strategy has been carefully scrutinised, including the review of the development and its ancillary structures, along with tracking plans to ensure that all hard standing areas are essential. As a result, the scheme optimises the potential for urban greening. 7.65 The proposed development achieves an Urban Greening Factor (UGF) score of 0.146, which, although below the target of 0.3 for commercial developments, demonstrates a meaningful contribution to greening. This factor, along with the development's efforts to maximise landscaping, is considered positively in the overall planning balance. Flood Risk 7.66 The application site is location in Flood Zone 1, meaning that the site is at very low risk of fluvial flooding. The proposed commercial use is considered to fall under the ‘less vulnerable’ classification. Accordingly, the proposal is appropriate in this location. The development is considered to accord with Policy SI 12 of the London Plan (2021), Policy EM6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) and Policy DMEI 9 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Drainage 7.67 Policy SI 13 of the London Plan (2021) also requires that development proposals utilise sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) unless there are practical reasons for not doing so. It further states that development proposals should aim to achieve greenfield run-off rates and ensure that surface water run-off is managed as close to its source as possible. This is supported by Policy EM6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) and Policy DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 7.68 The proposed development would remove some impermeable hardstanding and replace it with soft landscaping, resulting in a net benefit to drainage. A below- ground attenuation tank and two raingardens are proposed. The Council's Flooding and Drainage Specialist has confirmed no objection to the proposed drainage strategy, subject to the necessary planning conditions. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.69 Conditions 21 and 30have been recommended to secure the final details and implementation of the drainage scheme. Subject to these conditions, the scheme would accord with Policy EM6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), Policy DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) and Policy SI 13 of the London Plan (2021). Water Infrastructure 7.70 Policy SI 5 of the London Plan (2021) states that all major developments should incorporate measures to reduce water use, ensure there is sufficient wastewater infrastructure capacity, and minimise the risk of misconnections between the foul and surface water networks. This includes adopting water-saving technologies and ensuring proper management of wastewater infrastructure. 7.71 During the consultation process, Thames Water has confirmed no objection to the proposed development in respect of wastewater network and sewage treatment works. 7.72 Drainage has been addressed in paragraphs 7.67 – 7.69. Therefore, subject to Conditions 21 and 30, the proposed development would accord with Policy SI 5 of the London Plan (2021). Land Contamination 7.73 Policy DMEI 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) statesthat development on potentially contaminated sites shall assess conditions and demonstrate that the site can be safely remediated. Planning conditions and S106 legal agreements can be used to secure the appropriate level of detail required. 7.74 A phase 1 contaminated land study has been submitted for consideration and is considered sufficient and acceptable for the initial stage of the planning process. Condition 22 is proposed to secure further details of a remediation strategy. Subject to such a condition, the proposal is not considered contrary to Policy DMEI 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Transport 7.75 Policies T4, T6, T6.2 of the London Plan (2021), DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) are all directly relevant to the proposed development. These policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix. In summary, these policies seek to deliver development which is sustainable in transport terms and safeguards highway and pedestrian safety. These aims are also supported by the NPPF (2024) at chapter 9, including paragraph 116 of the NPPF (2024) which states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Proposed Operation 7.76 The site is located within Silverdale Industrial Estate, Hayes, and is accessible via a spur road off Silverdale Road, which connects to Pump Lane. Silverdale Road is a no-through route and serves only commercial and industrial units. The site is approximately 850 metres from Hayes and Harlington Station, which provides access to the Elizabeth Line. Public transport accessibility is limited, as reflected by the site’s low PTAL rating. 7.77 The proposal seeks full planning permission for the redevelopment of Unit 4, Silverdale Industrial Estate, Hayes, to provide a data centre development (Use Class B8). The site currently comprises a vacant warehouse with associated hardstanding, access lanes, and a small service yard. The proposal includes the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a new data centre. 7.78 The proposed data centre would replace a vacant warehouse and is expected to generate fewer vehicle trips than the existing land use. The site would employ 8–11 staff, working in shifts (07:00–19:00 for day shifts and 19:00–07:00 for night shifts), ensuring staff movements fall outside peak hours. Visitor and maintenance trips would take place between 08:00–15:00. Staff and Visitor Car Parking 7.79 Policy T6.2 of the London Plan (2021) states that car parking provision at Use Classes Order B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage or distribution) employment uses should have regard to these office parking standards and take account of the significantly lower employment density in such developments. 7.80 Policy T6.2, Table 10.4, of the London Plan (2021) outlines car parking requirements for Class B8 as follows: - Outer London Opportunity Areas - Up to 1 space per 500m2 gross internal area (GIA) - Outer London - Up to 1 space per 100m2 (GIA) 7.81 Vehicular access to the site would be provided via a separate in/out arrangement, linking to the access road and Silverdale Road. A loading bay is proposed on the northern frontage and swept path analysis confirms that a 10- metre rigid HGV can enter and exit in a forward gear. Deliveries would be scheduled to avoid congestion, and site access would not be obstructed by parked vehicles. 7.82 A total of eight car parking spaces are proposed, including one disabled bay. This is within the maximum London Plan standards and Hillingdon’s parking requirements, which allow for a maximum of 19–36 spaces. A lower provision is considered appropriate given the shift-based working patterns and aligns with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy to encourage sustainable transport use. Furthermore, the forecast staff numbers set out earlier in this section indicates that parking demand would be lower than a typical B8 development. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Disabled Person Car Parking 7.83 Policy T6.5, Table 10.6, of the London Plan (2021) states that 5% of all car parking spaces should be provided as designated disabled persons parking bays and 5% should be provided as enlarged parking bays which are capable of being converted to disabled persons parking. This would require the provision of 1no. disabled persons parking bays. 7.84 The development proposes 1no. disabled persons parking bay. This is accepted and secured by Condition 2. Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCPs) 7.85 Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021) states that new developments with car parking should make provision for electric vehicles or other Ultra-Low Emission vehicles. 7.86 Policy T7 of the London Plan (2021) states under point (B)(3) that development should provide rapid charging points for freight vehicles. In support of this, Policy T6.2 of the London Plan (2021) states under point (F) that all operational parking must provide infrastructure for electric or other Ultra-Low Emission vehicles. 7.87 A total of 3no. active EVCPs are proposed to be provided to serve staff and visitor car parking. The remaining 5no. staff and visitor spaces would be provided with passive electric vehicle charging infrastructure. This is accepted and is secured by Condition 8. Cycle Parking 7.88 The published London Plan (2021) Table 10.2 - Minimum Cycle Parking Standards requires that B8 developments provide 1no. long stay secure and undercover cycle parking space per 500m2 and 1no. short stay secure cycle space per 1000m2. This requires that at least 3no. long stay and 2no. short stay cycle parking spaces are provided. 7.89 A cycle store with five Sheffield stands (providing ten cycle parking spaces) is proposed at the western extent of the site which is secure and sheltered. There would be natural surveillance of the cycle parking due to parking being near the building entrances. This is accepted and is to be secured by Condition 4. Trip Generation 7.90 The proposed redevelopment would result in a reduction in vehicle trips during the peak hours at the site when compared to the existing land use and floor area. Therefore, the development proposals would not result in a significant detrimental impact on the operation of the local highway network. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Vehicle and Pedestrian Access 7.91 Vehicular access to the site is proposed via a separate in/out arrangement onto the adjacent access road. In turn, the site retains wider access via a bellmouth junction with Silverdale Road to the north. 7.92 The site would comprise an internal service yard, which wouldbe provided with car parking along its western extent. A single dedicated loading bay would be provided on the northern frontage of the data centre, which would accommodate any deliveries by HGVs. Deliveries would be infrequent and scheduled in advance and therefore HGVs would not block access for other site vehicles. The accompanying Outline Delivery and Servicing management Plan (DSMP) sets out the principles which would be in place to manage deliveries, with details to be secured by Condition 25. 7.93 Swept path analysis, demonstrates that a 10-metre rigid can access and egress the site in a forward gear, utilising the loading bay provided. Furthermore, the drawing shows that a car is able to pass an HGV waiting within the loading bay, indicating that deliveries and servicing would not prevent access to the site. Highways Improvement (Healthy Streets Contribution) 7.94 To reduce reliance on private car use and provide genuine travel choices for those working at and visiting the site, a developer contribution of £29,700 is required, secured by a Section 106 legal agreement. This may fund key transport improvements along routes to Lidl supermarket, Hayes and Harlington Station, and the Grand Union Canal Cycle Quietway. The improvements could include tactile paving at key junctions and footway enhancements, as well as the installation of new street furniture and trees. These measures are necessary to mitigate the risk of on-street parking and traffic disruption, in accordance with London Plan Policies T4 and T2. The contribution wouldsupport sustainable travel options and enhance pedestrian safety in the area. Travel Plan 7.95 A detailed and finalised Travel Plan is

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report – Application Report Case Officer:Emilie Bateman 79205/APP/2024/3177 Date Application Valid: 04.12.24 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 14.03.25 Application Type: Full Ward: Northwood Hills Applicant: Hillingdon Council Site Address: 27- 29 Wiltshire Lane, Eastcote Proposal: Proposed demolition of the existing block of 3 garages, conversion of the existing locally listed building into 2 houses with single storey rear extension, new dropped kerb and all associated parking provision and external works. 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 – 12thMarch 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 Full planning permission is sought for the conversion of the existing locally listed property into two family-sized dwellings, the demolition of the existing garages, a single-storey rear extension, landscaping enhancements, and associated parking provision including a new dropped kerb. 1.2 The proposed development aligns with the objectives of relevant planning policies and would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed building, the street scene, or the wider local context. The scheme enhances the site by providing high-quality family-sized housing and improving the setting of the building through the removal of redundant garages and additional soft landscaping. 1.3 It is considered that the proposal would not cause undue harm on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers over and above the current site circumstances. The proposed dwellings would provide satisfactory provision of internal and external amenity space for future occupiers. 1.4 The on-site car parking provision would be in line with the London Plan’s parking requirements and the Council’s Highways Department has raised no objections to the car park provision. The Highways Officer is satisfied that the proposal would not lead to parking stress or present a risk to highway safety. 1.5 Subject to conditions, the proposal would have an acceptable impact on neighbouring amenity, provide sufficient private amenity space, and would not result in adverse highway impacts or harm in other respects. 1.6 The proposal complies with the Development Plan, and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be made. The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix 1. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site comprises a two-storey detached locally listed cottage. The building is currently laid out as four 1-bedroom flats. As of October 2020, the property was deemed unfit for habitation due to poor conditions, however, three of the flats are currently occupied with plans to rehouse. 2.2 The vehicular access to the site is from Wiltshire Lane alongside the northern- most side elevation of the building, with parking and a single storey block of 3 Hillingdon Planning Committee–12thMarch 2025 PART 1–Members, Public & Press lockup garages to the rear. The site is surrounded by two storey dwellings comprised of flatted, terraced and semi-detached homes. 2.3 The application site is not located in a Conservation Area and the subject building is not a statutorily listed building. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figure 2: Block Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Front elevation of the existing property Figure 4: Rear elevation of the existing property Figure 5: Flank elevation of existing property Hillingdon Planning Committee–12thMarch 2025 PART 1–Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the proposed demolition of the existing block of 3 garages, conversion of the existing locally listed building into 2 dwelling houses with single storey rear extension, new dropped kerb and all associated parking provision. A rear elevation door is also proposed to be replaced with patio doors, and replacement windows are proposed on the north-west side elevation. The proposal would provide 2 x 4-bedroom dwellings with private garden space to the rear and 3 parking spaces in total constructed from permeable paving. Figure 6: Proposed Block Plan(please note –larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee–12thMarch 2025 PART 1–Members, Public & Press Figure 7: Proposed Elevations (please note –larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Figure 8: Proposed floor plans(please note –larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee–12thMarch 2025 PART 1–Members, Public & Press Figure 9: Proposed Sections(please note –larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 It should be noted that the building was likely converted to flats in the 1970s. However, there is no planning history recordsregarding this, and it not been regularised. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 The 16 neighbouring properties and Northwood Hills and Eastcote Residents Associations were consulted on 20th December 2024. Three additional consultees were consulted on 24thJanuary 2025, which expired on 14thFebruary 2025. 6.2 No representations were received from the public consultation. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 6.3 In respect to internal consultee responses, these are summarised in Table 1 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Highways Officer The site, located off Joel Street in Northwood Hills, consists of a locally listed cottage with 4 one- bedroom flats and 3 decommissioned council garages. The proposal seeks to convert the cottage into two separate 4-bedroom dwellings, each with an on-plot parking space. House 1 would use the existing access to the garages, while House 2 would require a new carriageway crossing. The area has a poor PTAL rating of 1b, indicating a higher reliance on private vehicles for transportation. In terms of parking, the application adheres to the London Plan and Hillingdon Local Plan parking standards, providing two spaces for unit 1 and one space for unit 2, which is compliant with the maximum parking requirement. Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCP) are proposed to meet the London Plan's 20% active provision requirement. Cycle parking is also provided, with secure stores for two bikes per unit. The proposal includes a new carriageway crossing for House 2 and utilizes the existing access for House 1, in line with council policies. Highway authorities have confirmed that the development will not have a detrimental impact on traffic or safety. Waste collection arrangements conform to the council’s standards. Overall, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of traffic, parking, and safety. The acceptability of the proposal in highways terms is noted. A full and detailed assessment of the highway material considerations are set out in paragraphs 7.37-7.45 of this report. Accessibility Officer Plans in respect of this proposal were reviewed prior to submission of the planning application to reach the optimal inclusive design. Noted. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press It has not been possible to incorporate step-free access, as any changes to the entrance would alter the character of the existing, locally listed house. Level access would still be possible from the rear, and a gentle ramp (10 degrees) has been included internally to allow access to the WC and shower cubicle. No alterations are proposed to the existing dwelling. London Plan policy D7 should not be applied given the design constraints and relationship with the existing inaccessible historic building. Conservation Officer This is an interesting locally listed building which has been subdivided into flats for some time. The proposal is for a modest rear extension and works to the landscaping including demolition to the garages. The proposal is in keeping and the extension is modest and subservient to the main building. This with the demolition of the garages and the soft landscaping of most of the hard standing is appropriate and in keeping with the character of the building. Therefore, we would support and recommend approval. External materials to match existing. Proposed slate subject to approval. Support for the proposal is noted. Condition 9 secures details of the proposed slate roof tiles for the extension, for approval. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development Assessment 7.1 The proposal seeks to convert four existing studio flats into two 4-bedroom houses. Whilst the planning history of the current studios is limited, with the units believed to have been created in the 1970s, this has never been formally regularised through either a certificate of lawful development or a planning application. As such, the loss of four substandard 1-bedroom flats to be replaced with two larger family sized dwellings would be acceptable in principle. This proposal provides an opportunity to deliver family-sized accommodation, which aligns with the borough's housing priorities. 7.2 Policy DMH 1: Safeguarding Existing Housing of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020) resists the net loss of self-contained housing, including affordable housing, unless Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press it is replaced with an equivalent residential floorspace. This proposal does not result in a loss of housing but rather improves the existing accommodation by converting four small studio flats into two larger family-sized dwellings. The current studio units are not fit for modern day living and do not meet the minimum floorspace standards as set out in the Housing Technical Standards and London Plan. 7.3 Both Policy DMH 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020) and Policy H10 of the London Plan (2021) call for a mix of housing sizes that reflect local housing needs. There is significant demand for larger family homes, particularly 3-bedroom properties, across the borough. By converting the studios into two 3+ bedroom dwellings, this proposal directly addresses this need by contributing to the provision of family-sized housing in the borough. 7.4 Additionally, the proposal complies with Policy DMH 4of the Local Plan, which permits residential conversions provided they do not alter the character of the area or lead to an excessive concentration of flats. The net gain of family-sized accommodation is considered a positive contribution to the housing stock. 7.5 Although the four studios were likely created in the 1970s without regularisation, this does not detract from the principle of the development. The original cottage would have likely been a single-family dwelling at one stage, and the proposal to convert it into two family-sized dwellings results in a net gain of at least one family- sized unit, or two when considering the current state. Conclusion (Principle) 7.6 Overall, the proposal is consistent with both local and regional policies aimed at increasing the supply of family-sized homes. The proposal is supported in principle, subject to compliance with other planning considerations, including design, amenity space, and parking standards. Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.7 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”. 7.8 Policy HE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One Strategic Policies (2012) seeks to conserve and enhance Hillingdon's distinct and varied environment, its settings Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press and the wider historic landscape, which includes: Locally recognised historic features, such as Areas of Special Local Character and Locally Listed Buildings 7.9 Policy DMHB 3 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that proposals will be permitted where they retain the significance, appearance, character or setting of a Locally Listed Building. 7.10 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”. 7.11 Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that alterations and extensions to dwellings should not have an adverse cumulative impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and should appear subordinate to the main dwelling. 7.12 The application site consists of a two-storey detached locally listed cottage, currently subdivided into four 1-bedroom flats. The property was deemed unfit for habitation in October 2020, which somewhat reflects the current state of the building and site. Whilst the building is not located within a Conservation Area, its status as a locally listed structure makes its preservation and integration with the surrounding area important considerations. 7.13 The proposal includes a single storey rear extension with amendments to fenestration and works to improve landscaping, including the demolition of the existing garages and softening the hard-standing area. 7.14 The extension would infill an area located between the existing two storey rear outrigger and the main rear wall of the property. It would measure 3.3m in depth, approximately 8.4m in width and would be finished with a pitched roofwith a maximum height of 3.2m. The extension would provide additional lounge area for proposed House 1 and an additional bedroom for proposed House 2. 7.15 The extension is designed to be subservient to the main building, maintaining the prominence of the locally listed cottage. It is set down a sufficient distance from the eaves to ensure that the main features and characteristics associated with the locally listed building remain prominent. The set-in from the rear wall of the two- storey rear outrigger further ensures it would appear subordinate within the context of the existing building. In terms of materials, the doors and windows proposed would be in keeping with the existing fenestration. The facing materials would also be finished in a render finish to match the existing building with eco slate tile on Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the pitch roof. The details of the proposed slate tiles would be secured by condition. 7.16 Further changes to the building include replacing a single rear door on the existing two storey outrigger with a set of double patio doors with brick arch above to match the existing detail. Along the north-west elevation, it is also proposed to install new windows with mullions to suit internal wall reconfigurations. Both these additional fenestration changes are acceptable and generally match the features associated with the locally listed building. 7.17 Within the wider site, it is proposed to remove three garages and two parking bays that exist to the rear of the site and reintroduce a new landscaped garden that would largely serve House 1, with an area of garden also added to House 2. The site plan also indicates that the 1.8m timber fence with 300 trellis above would provide a natural division between the gardens of both House 1 and House 2. These proposed changes to the existing landscaping are welcomed and would ensure an ecological benefit to the wider site. The reintroduction of garden and more landscaping would enhance the visual appeal of the site. 7.18 The Conservation Officer supports the proposal, noting that the extension and landscaping is appropriate for the building’s significance and on the basis that the materials would be conditioned to match the existing dwelling, with the details of the proposed slate roof tiles also secured by condition. These recommendations have been adopted in this report. 7.19 Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the surrounding area and the locally listed building. The proposal would therefore accord with the Development Plan. Residential Amenity 7.20 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”. 7.21 The principle neighbouring dwellings to consider are numbers 31 and 31A Wiltshire Lane to the north-west of the site; dwellings 2 to 8C Salisbury Road which back onto the south-east side boundary of the site; and 6 Fairacre which adjoins the rear site boundary. Given separation distances, there are no other properties considered potentially affected in terms of residential amenity impacts. Privacy, Daylight/Sunlight, Outlook and Overbearing Effect 7.22 The locally listed cottage is sited almost central in the plot, with generous gaps to the neighbouring boundaries. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Numbers 31 and 31A Wiltshire Lane 7.23 The application site and 31 and 31A Wiltshire Lane are separated by a gap of 13 metres, which includes the access road to the garages at the rear of the site and also a public footpath (R57). The existing flats benefit from multiple side facing windows at ground and first floor which are clear glazing. Therefore, there are no privacy concerns, given the existing situation and gap/boundary treatments. The proposed single storey rear extension is set away from the boundary and considered acceptable terms of daylight/sunlight, outlook and overbearing effect. Numbers 2 to 8C Salisbury Road 7.24 Similarly to the above, the properties at Salisbury Road are set away from the application site property with a gap of 12 metres. There are no additional first floor windows along this flank wall that would increase privacy concerns over and above the current circumstances. The existing arrangement for the first floor flat (Flat 4) includes windows serving a living room, utility room and bedroom. These windows would be retained to serve two bedrooms and a bathroom. The window of this bathroom would be conditioned to be obscure glazed to ensure the privacy of prospective residents. However, with respect to neighbouring amenity impacts, on the basis that the level of overlooking would not increase from the current circumstances, there are no privacy concerns in this instance.The proposed single storey rear extension is set away from the boundary and considered acceptable terms of daylight/sunlight, outlook and overbearing effect. Number 6 Fairacre 7.25 It is noted that the side boundary of 6 Fairacre is within proximity to the garages that are proposed for demolition. Although small, the removal of these garages (and replacement with garden) may offer some benefits in terms of increased light provision to and outlook from this neighbouring property. The proposed single storey rear extension is set away from the shared boundary and is acceptable in terms of daylight/sunlight, outlook and overbearing effect. The change of use would not cause any additional privacy concerns over and above the existing fenestration circumstances on site. Noise and Disturbance 7.26 The proposal seeks to convert four existing studio flats into two larger, family-sized dwellings. Whilst this represents a change from the current property layout, the level of activity associated with two family-sized homes would not substantially differ from the existing arrangement. The general activity, such as daily movements, travel, and noise levels within the property, would be comparable to the existing situation. Given the nature of the development, the proposal is not expected to result in an increase in noise levels that would significantly impact the surrounding residential area or go beyond what would typically be expected in a family home. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would not cause undue harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in terms of noise or disturbance. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.27 For the reasons outlined above, it is concluded that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenity in compliance with Policies DMHD 1 and DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Quality of Residential Accommodation (Internal and External) Internal Amenity Space 7.28 Policy DMHB 16 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that all housing development should have an adequate provision of internal space to provide an appropriate living environment. Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) states that housing development should be of high-quality design and provide adequately sized rooms. 7.29 The submitted plans demonstrate that 98.2sqm of gross internal floor area (GIA) would be provided for House 1 and 107.6sqm of GIA is proposed for House 2. Both would exceed minimum floor space requirements in the London Plan. Proposed section drawings submitted as part of the application demonstrate that the ground floor accommodation would be given a floor to ceiling height of 2.9m, while the first floor would be afforded a minimum 2.7m floor to ceiling clearance, in excess of the minimum requirements set out in Policy D6 of the London Plan. 7.30 All but one of the proposed bedrooms would benefit from a principal window fitted in either the front or rear elevations of the property. However, given the existing situation, the first-floor side elevation window to bedroom 3 of proposed House 2 would remain as clear glazing. Each habitable room within both proposed dwellings would have good natural daylight and sunlight and satisfactory outlook and ventilation through the positioning of windows and doors. It is therefore considered that future residents of the dwellings would have satisfactory internal living accommodation. 7.31 Taking into consideration the above, the proposal wouldprovide an acceptable quality of living accommodation for its future occupiers. It is considered that all the proposed habitable rooms, would be of an adequate size, and maintain an adequate outlook and source of natural light, therefore complying with Policy DMHB16 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies (2020) and Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021). External Amenity Space 7.32 Policy DMHB 18: Private Outdoor Amenity Space states that applications for residential development should provide adequate levels of private, well designed and located amenity space. 7.33 Policy DMHB 18 states that 3-bed and 4-bed dwellings require a minimum of 60sqm and 100+sqm of private amenity space, respectively. The submitted plans and applicant have confirmed that both dwellings would benefit from over 200sqm of private amenity space. The overall size and layout of these gardenswould Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press represent an enhancement to both the plot itself with the removal of disused garages and provide an abundance of private amenity space for future residents. The finer details of the landscaping would be secured by condition. 7.34 The proposal would be in accordance with Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Accessibility 7.35 Policy D5 of The London Plan (2021) states: Development proposals should achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design. The Council’s Access Officer has raised no objections to the proposal. The dwelling was constructed prior to the adoption of accessible housing standards, and it would therefore not be reasonable to insist on the provision of current accessible standards given that the proposal is to convert a locally listed building, rather than a new build. 7.36 The Access Officer also noted that the plans in respect of this proposal were reviewed prior to the submission of the planning application, to reach the optimal inclusive design. It has not been possible to incorporate step-free access, as any changes to the entrance would alter the character of the existing, locally listed building. Level access is still possible from the rear, and therefore to accommodate this, a gentle ramp (10 degrees) is proposed internally to allow access to the WC and shower cubicle. Therefore, on-balance the proposal is considered acceptable in respect to accessible and inclusive design. Highways and Parking 7.37 The site is located off Joel Street in Northwood Hills and consists of a locally listed cottage consisting of 4 x 1-bedroom flats and three decommissioned council garages. It is proposed to convert the cottage to two separate 4-bedroom dwellings with two on-plot parking spaces for House 1 and one on-plot parking space for House 2. The existing access to the garages would be utilised for one of the dwellings (House 1) with a new carriageway crossing proposed to service the other dwelling (House 2). There are no waiting restrictions in the local area and the public transport accessibility level (PTAL) rating of 1b is considered ‘very poor’ given the relative isolation of the site from public transport services. This gives rise to a higher dependency on the ownership and use of private motor transport to and from the address. Parking Provision 7.38 The maximum parking requirement for both residential units as proposed equates to a total of up to 3 on-plot spaces in compliance with the overriding regional plan. The application is presented with 3 on-plot spaces which indicates conformity to the said requirements. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCPs) 7.39 In line with the London Plan (2021), within any final parking quantum there is a requirement for a minimum 20% 'active' EVCP provision with all remaining spaces being designated as 'passive' provisions. In this case, both spaces should be dedicated to an ‘active’ provision which the applicant has confirmed, and compliance is secured by planning condition. Cycle Parking and safety 7.40 In terms of cycle parking there is a requirement to provide a total of two secure and accessible spaces per unit. This level of provision would bewithin secure cycle stores located in proximity to both dwellings. This is an acceptable arrangement. The details of the cycle stores would be secured by condition. New Vehicular Crossover 7.41 In terms of vehicular access to each of the dwellings, there is no objection in principle to the provision of a new single vehicle crossover on Wiltshire Lane serving ‘House 2’ and using the existing access to the redundant garages for ‘House 1’. The arrangement should conform to the council's 'Domestic Vehicle Footway Crossover' Policy (2022). Indicative dimensions have been submitted but final designs would be arranged post-permission. The crossing would need to be constructed to an appropriate council standard executed under S184 of the Highways Act 1980 (or suitable alternative arrangement) all at the applicant's/developer's expense. A condition has been included to ensure that the new crossover is implemented prior to first occupation of the development. Vehicular Trip Generation 7.42 Local Plan: Part 2 Policies - DMT 1 and DMT 2 require the council to consider whether the traffic generated by proposed developments is acceptable in terms of the local highway and junction capacity, traffic flows and conditions of general highway or pedestrian safety. As a consequence of the relatively moderate scale of development, any vehicular trip generation uplift is predicted to be minimal and therefore does not raise any specific highway concerns. Refuse Collection 7.43 Refuse would be collected from the roadway as is the case at present for the other residential dwellings in Wiltshire Lane. Waste collection distances between the proposed waste collection point and a refuse vehicle wouldnot exceed the recommended distance of 10 metres, conforming to the Council's waste collection standard. Bin storage is proposed, as existing, on the frontage of both dwellings. Trees and Landscaping 7.44 Policy D5 of the London Plan (2021) states that development proposals should Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press integrate green infrastructure to contribute to urban greening, including the public realm. Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies (2020) requires that all development retains or enhances existing landscaping, trees, and biodiversity. 7.45 The proposal includes the removal of the existing garages and a reduction in hardstanding, replacing it with soft landscaping. This would enhance the green character of the site, improve surface water drainage, and contribute to biodiversity. The proposed landscaping scheme would soften the visual impact of the development and ensure it remains in keeping with the surrounding area. Landscaping details would be secured by condition. Ecology Impact on Protected Species 7.46 Policy G7 of the London Plan (2021) states that development proposals should manage impacts on biodiversity and aim to secure biodiversity net gain. This should be informed by the best available ecological information and addressed from the start of the development process. 7.47 Policy DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that if development is proposed on or near to a site considered to have features of ecological or geological value, applicants must submit appropriate surveys and assessments to demonstrate that the proposed development will not have unacceptable effects. The development must provide a positive contribution to the protection and enhancement of the site or feature of ecological value. 7.48 The proposed development site, approximately 0.1 hectares in size, is situated in a suburban area to the northwest of London and is characterised by a residential building, auxiliary structures, and associated green spaces. While the site itself does not contain priority habitats, it is in proximity to ecologically significant areas, including woodlands, grasslands, and standing water bodies that support a range of biodiversity. The site includes a mature tree, managed grassland, ornamental shrubs, and hedgerows, which contribute to the ecological value of the area. 7.49 The site has moderate potential for roosting bats due to gaps in roof tiles, soffits, and lead flashing that may provide suitable habitats for crevice and void-roosting species. Bats are a protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. 7.50 The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Rev 1.1 (Dated 07-02-25) submitted in support of the application, identifies moderate habitat value for bats in the main building (B1), low value in the garage building (B2) and a large tree which could be of value. As such, the submitted report recommends that further bat surveys are carried out, with two emergence and re-entry surveys to be carried out for the main building (B1) and one to be carried out for the garages (B2), during the optimal survey period (May to August inclusive). If bat roosts are confirmed, Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press appropriate mitigation measures will be followed, including obtaining an European Protected Species Mitigation Licence (EPSML) (under the 2010 Regulations) issued by Natural England if required. A condition has been included requiring the submission of the recommended surveys, and if required, the proposed mitigation and copy of the EPSML. 7.51 Additionally, mitigation measures detailed in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Rev 1.1, such as a low-impact lighting strategy, would be implemented to minimise disturbance to foraging and commuting bats.Compliance with the recommendations detailed in this submitted report would be secured by condition. 7.52 The site has low potential for reptiles, amphibians, and badgers. Precautionary measures, including covering excavations and pollution prevention, would be implemented. Bird nesting protections would be enforced, with vegetation clearance occurring outside the breeding season or under ecological supervision. These matters are detailed in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Rev 1.1. Biodiversity enhancements, such as bird nest boxes and hedgehog highways, would be included as part of the development and the details secured by condition requiring the submission of an ecological enhancement plan. 7.53 Best practice construction methods, including dust and noise control, would be adopted to mitigate indirect impacts, as specified in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Rev 1.1. 7.54 Subject to the above conditions and compliance with the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Rev 1.1 (Dated 07-02-25), the proposal would have an acceptable impact on biodiversity interest, in terms of protected species. This would be compliant with Policy G7 of the London Plan (2021), Policy DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) and the NPPF (2024). Biodiversity Net Gain 7.55 In England, Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is mandatory under Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021). It became mandatory for small sites on 2 April 2024. Developers must deliver a BNG of at least 10 percent. This means a development will result in more or better-quality natural habitat than there was before development. The landowner is legally responsible for creating or enhancing the habitat and managing that habitat for at least 30 years to achieve the target condition. 7.56 Policy 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on and provide net gains for biodiversity. 7.57 Paragraph 8.6.6 of Policy G6 of The London Plan (2021) states that biodiversity net gain is an approach to development that leaves biodiversity in a better state than before. Losses should be avoided, and biodiversity offsetting is the option of Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press last resort. Policy EM7 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part One Strategic Policies (2012) states that Hillingdon's biodiversity and geological conservation will be preserved and enhanced, with particular attention given to improving biodiversity from all development. 7.58 During the process of the application a Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment was requested and provided. The BNG metric confirms at least 10% net gain would be achieved. The figures demonstrate that the habitat being put back into the site would be increased to the front, along the side and to the rear garden. The proposed landscaping works would be a better-quality arrangement than the existing site circumstances, and the Local Planning Authority are satisfied that the management of these areas can be maintained over a 30-year cycle as required. Since the metric was submitted, a site plan was received which indicates the planting of a tree and hedge to support the 10% net gain. The improvement on the existing BNG value is therefore accepted and Condition 12 has also been attached to ensure that the BNG would be managed and monitored as required by the statutory regulations. 7.59 As such, the application would be able to provide a 10% increase in biodiversity. Therefore, the statutory condition has been added to the recommendation which requires a written 30-year Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the site to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Flooding and Drainage 7.60 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. Policy DMEI 9 and Policy DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Development Management Policies (2020) require, in summary, that flood risk is mitigated and proposals that increase the risk of flooding or which fail to make adequate provision to control surface water runoff will be refused. 7.61 The application is in Flood Zone 1 (low risk) and in a critical drainage area.A critical drainage informative is included in the recommendation for approval. Sustainability 7.62 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. 7.63 The proposed development is a minor application to convert an existing flatted building to dwellings and a single storey rear extension. Therefore, whilst the principle of London Plan Policy SI2 is relevant, this applies more specifically, to major applications. Therefore, no energy statement is required to demonstrate a policy level of on-site carbon emission savings. Notwithstanding this point, the modern construction of the extension would provide sufficient energy savings itself and therefore, the development would comply with the principles of the carbon saving development plan policies. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.64 A condition would be secured requiring the proposed development to achieve as a minimum, a water efficiency standard of no more than 110 litres per person per day maximum water consumption. This would minimise the use of water resources in a sustainable manner, in accordance with Policy SI 5 of the London Plan. 7.65 The proposal would therefore be compliant with Policy SI 5 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMEI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Land Contamination 7.66 The site is not located within an area identified as being subject to potential land contamination. Fire Safety 7.67 Policy D12 of the London Plan states that all developments must achieve the highest standards of fire safety. However, it is major developments that require the submission of a supporting Fire Statement. 7.68 Given that the proposal is for two dwellings that would have a street frontage there is unobstructed outside space on the road to accommodate fire appliances and to serve as an evacuation assembly point. It is considered that the design of the proposal would enable effective evacuation from each dwelling. The application is therefore considered to be in general accordance with Policy D12 of the London Plan and is acceptable. 8 Other Matters 8.1 Human Rights The development has been assessed against the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and in particular Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the Act itself. This Act gives further effect to the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to the applicant's reasonable development rights and expectations which have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance. 8.2 Equality Due consideration has been given toSection 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. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 12thMarch 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 8.3 Local Finance Considerations and CIL 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. As a corollary, the conversion of four dwellings to two dwellings would also not be ‘development’ for the purposes of CIL. In addition, the proposed extension is below 100sqm in area. The development is not CIL liable. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The proposed development would improve the standard of accommodation on- site by replacing four studio flats with two high-quality, family-sized dwellings, contributing to the borough’s identified need for larger dwellings. The design respects the character and appearance of the locally listed building, with a modest and subservient rear extension, the removal of decommissioned garages, and enhanced landscaping that would improve the setting of this locally listed building. The scheme provides sufficient private amenity space, appropriate parking provision, and does not give rise to concerns regarding neighbouring amenity or the wider streetscene. 9.2 Overall, the proposal accords with local and regional planning policies, and the benefits of delivering high-quality family housing weighs in favour of the scheme. Therefore, 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.