Planning

Minutes HILLINGDON PLANNING COMMITTEE 9 April 2025 Meeting held at Committee Room 5 - Civic Centre Committee Members Present: Councillors Adam Bennett (Vice-Chair, in the Chair) Keith Burrows Roy Chamdal Elizabeth Garelick Jagjit Singh Darran Davies Raju Sansarpuri LBH Officers Present: Ed Laughton – Area Planning Service Manager Katie Crosbie – Area Planning Service Manager Alan Corcoran – Deputy Team Leader Chris Brady – Planning Team Leader Richard Michalski – Highways Engineer Natalie Fairclough – Legal Advisor Liz Penny – Democratic Services Officer 32. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Henry Higgins with Councillor Darran Davies substituting and from Councillor Gursharan Mand with Councillor Raju Sansarpuri substituting. 33. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS COMING BEFORE THIS MEETING (Agenda Item 2) Councillor Darran Davies declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 6 as he had been in discussion with petitioners on the matter. He left the room and did not participate in the discussion or voting on this item. Ward Councillor Jan Sweeting declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda items 7 and 8 as she lived in the road in question. 34. TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3) RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 12 March 2025 be agreed as an accurate record. 35. MATTERS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OR URGENT (Agenda Item 4) None. 36. 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 on business were marked Part I and would be considered in public. 37. 18 & 20 WILMAR CLOSE, HAYES - 67410/APP/2024/2641 (Agenda Item 6) Change of use of 2no. outbuildings to granny annexes. Officers introduced the application which was recommended for approval. Members were informed that there was potential for an appeal on this application hence the Council needed to demonstrate that it had learnt from previous appeal decisions. A petition in objection to the application had been received. The lead petitioner was in attendance to address the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:  The original report contained an incorrect front view of the property.  The correct view was provided, showing the left-hand side of the property.  The view included numbers 20, 18, and 16 to the right, and numbers 19 and 21 to the left.  The property owners had dug up the front shared drive for one week, which had then remained for seven months.  They illegally tapped into the mains water pipe, causing brown water issues.  Affinity Water had had to fix the pipe on several occasions.  The owners damaged fences and exposed neighbouring properties.  The property was used as an unlicensed HMO with up to 10 people living in it.  The house was covered in mould, posing a risk to a newborn child.  Water and electric pipes were fed through a trench around the back, causing the fencing to fall down.  The owners claimed the outbuildings were for their parents, but residents feared they would be rented out.  The Council had rejected the planning permission for the outbuildings.  The residents were concerned about the impact on the street scene and community.  There were issues with litter and fly-tipping in the area.  The safety of children and neighbouring properties was compromised. Members noted that only material considerations could be taken into account. The agent for the application was also in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:  The agent advocated for the approval of the planning application for the proposed use of the outbuildings as residential annexes for the applicant's elderly parents.  The proposal aimed to provide a safe, comfortable, and accessible living environment for the applicant's parents, allowing them to maintain their independence while being close to their family.  The proposed development was intended to have a minimal impact on the surrounding area, as the outbuildings were already in place and their conversion to residential use would not alter the character or appearance of the area.  There was no significant increase in traffic or demand on local services expected, as the annexes were intended for family use only.  The proposal aligned with the National Planning Policy Framework, which emphasised the importance of providing a range of housing options to meet the diverse needs of the population, including the elderly and those with disabilities.  The proposed development complied with local planning policies that encouraged the use of existing buildings for residential purposes.  Concerns raised by neighbours were noted, but they were not considered relevant or significant enough to warrant refusal of the application.  Planning permission would be required to change the use of the annexes to self- contained dwellings, and this issue was addressed in the proposed conditions.  Several recent appeal decisions had allowed similar developments within Hillingdon.  The existing dwellings were let to families, but section 21 eviction notices had been served, with the intention for the applicant and their brother to move into the properties as soon as the current tenants moved out.  The Committee was requested to approve the application for the use of the outbuildings as residential annexes. Members sought clarity from the agent on a number of points. They asked if there had been any previous applications approved by the inspectorate of the same size. In response the agent explained that the principal deciding factor in these appeals was the amount of garden space available, and in this case, there was a very large garden. Councillors also enquired about the two separate buildings and their intended use. It was confirmed that the buildings were for the applicant's parents to live close to but separate from the main households. The Committee suggested that it would be better to have an extension on the existing buildings instead of separate annexes. The agent agreed that traditionally, granny annexes were attached to the main dwelling but noted that separate structures had been used successfully by other families. Members questioned the security and accessibility of the annexes for elderly people. In reply, the agent acknowledged that the current residential environment was not ideal but stated that improvements could be made if the application was approved. In response to further questions from the Committee regarding who was currently living in the main properties, the agent confirmed that the properties were let to separate families, but the intention was for the applicant and their brother to move in once the current tenants moved out. Councillors also queried the need for the annexes if the elderly parents were not currently living there. It was explained that the long-term plan was to use the properties as suggested, and the idea to use the annexes as residential spaces had developed more recently. It was noted that Ward Councillor Darran Davies had submitted a written representation in objection to the application, but it was not possible to read this out on this occasion as Councillor Davies was substituting for Councillor Higgins on the Committee. Officers noted the importance of focussing on material matters. It was clear that the property was currently rented, and evidence of a section 21 notice had been provided. The scale of the outbuildings was approximately 40 square metres, and it was noted that an appeal regarding a nearby property had been allowed at 37.8 square metres. It was confirmed that the internal floor area at the development included a kitchen, bedroom, and toilet, but Members were reminded that the plans for the annex did not depict a cooking area. It was highlighted that the Council had rejected similar applications before, but the appeals had subsequently been successful; officers had a legal obligation to learn from the inspector's measures through appeals. It was noted that officers had obtained statutory declarations and section 21 notices to secure the best possible scenario for the petitioners and residents. The point about HMO was different from the previous application on Fraser Avenue, and the petitioner could raise a petition if concerned about the potential for outbuildings to be used in conjunction with an HMO. A landscaping condition was suggested to provide level access between the main dwelling and the annex suitable for use by elderly people. Given that the proposal related to two different properties, Members suggested that there should be some clear demarcation within the outbuildings to reflect this. Councillors asked for clarification about the statutory declarations, questioning whether they were offered independently by the applicants or suggested by the planning team. Officers explained that the declarations were not a requirement for the application but were obtained to ensure the applicant went above and beyond the conditions secured in previous appeals. Members enquired if there was a kitchen in the outbuildings, as it was not shown on the plans. It was clarified that the annex allowed for separate living accommodation, but the kitchen reference was from a different appeal decision. A question was raised regarding two separate letters from a GP about parents with special needs being accommodated in the outbuilding. Officers confirmed that the existing property had a ground floor kitchen, and the GP's report was based on medical need rather than the layout shown on the plan. Councillors expressed doubts about the intentions of the applicant, noting that the applicant's family members were not living in the property. Officers reiterated that the application was for ancillary living accommodation and that conditions were in place to control its use. There was a request to add a condition to ensure that only immediate family would be allowed to live in the outbuilding. To clarify matters, Members recommended a site visit to enable them to fully evaluate what was proposed. Deferral for a site visit was proposed, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed with 5 Councillors voting in favour and one against. RESOLVED: That a decision on the application be deferred for a Member site visit to consider the proposal. 38. 44 FRAYS AVENUE, WEST DRAYTON - 35220/APP/2024/3046 (Agenda Item 7) Demolition and reconstruction of new build family home. Officers introduced the application and highlighted the additional information set out in the addendum. It was noted that the application was recommended for approval. A petition had been received in objection to the application. The lead petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee Members on behalf of petitioners. Key points highlighted included:  The lead petitioner had lived on Fraser Ave, Australia for 55 years.  He represented 32 residents who had signed a petition against the demolition of a two-storey house and the construction of a three-storey house.  The proposed development would negatively impact the Area of Special Local Character and street scene.  The development would result in a three-storey house next to a bungalow, which was not in keeping with the area's character.  The area predominantly consisted of bungalows and two -storey houses with one-metre spaces between boundaries.  There was a concern that new large houses may la ter be converted into houses of multiple occupation.  Petitioners urged the Council to reject the application for 44 Fraser Ave to preserve the area's special character.  If the application could not be refused, he requested that the decision be deferred, and the site visited to enable Members to see for themselves th e area's special character. In response to Members’ questions, the lead petitioner confirmed that rooflights were being tiled over at some houses along Frays Avenue. The applicant / agent were not in attendance. Ward Councillor Jan Sweeting addressed the Committee Members in support of petitioners. Key points highlighted included:  Councillor Sweeting noted a non-pecuniary interest in the agenda item and spoke against the planning application.  The proposed development was different from any other property in the Garden City and would deliver a building out of character in terms of excessive bulk, scale, and design.  The officer's report showed the height of the proposed building matching others, but none had the huge side dormer mentioned in paragraph 7.141.  The proposed building created a large living space on the 3rd floor, contrary to the area's special local character, which only allowed single or two-story buildings.  Approval of the planning application had the potential to set a precedent for other two-story properties in the area to be extended upwards using side dormers.  Paragraph 7.9 stated that there was a proposed gap between numbers 44 and the neighbouring 46 of some 1.5 meters, this did not accord with the drawings which showed a gap of less than one metre.  The existing attractive 3-bedroom family home of 172 square meters was to be replaced by the proposed building of 316 square meters, an increase of 84%.  The Committee was requested to refuse the unacceptable planning application. In response to questions from the Committee, the Ward Councillor acknowledged that the area had changed significantly over the last 20 or 30 years. However, it was noted that the local Residents’ Association supported the continuation of the Area of Special Local Character. It was reported that, in recent years, there had been a dramatic increase in the numbers of houses converting loft areas into a 3rd storey; this did not accord with the character of the local area which predominantly comprised one and two storey buildings. The Ward Councillor observed that the plans were unclear, and it was not possible to ascertain the number of bedrooms proposed or what the additional floor area would be used for. Officers addressed some of the concerns that had been raised. It was clarified that the property was actually not a three-storey dwelling but a two-storey dwelling. The height of the development was similar to the two properties next door and to an existing property further along the street. It was noted that a dormer could legitimately be constructed to the side of the property and did not constitute a robust reason for refusal. Permitted development rights were restricted in areas with heritage assets or conservation areas, but this area was not a heritage asset and PD rights had not been removed. Members heard that the property was not operating as an HMO and the proposed development added one additional bedroom to the existing three-bedroom property. The Committee was informed that the scale, bulk, and mass of the dwelling were comparable to existing properties in the street. Officers noted that the planning inspector had been on site next door and had overturned the Council's decision to impose a condition on the development. The development was considered acceptable as it did not impact the character of the street scene and the scale of the building was not considered excessive from a planning perspective. Members enquired whether it would be possible to add a condition to protect residents and ensure the property was not converted to an HMO in the future. In response, officers confirmed that the proposed design would not be suitable for use as a small HMO and the imposition of a condition could be deemed to be unreasonable. Any further changes to the proposed, such as conversion to two flats, would require additional planning permission. The Legal Advisor stated that the imposition of an HMO condition would have to pass all six parts of the required test; to deviate from this would run the risk of an appeal. In response to further questions from Councillors it was confirmed that the proposed parking arrangements were deemed to be adequate. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed with four Councillors voting in favour, one against and two abstentions. RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the officer recommendation and subject to the amendments to Condition 4 and the inclusion of a new Condition as detailed in the Addendum Report. 39. 10 FRAYS AVENUE, WEST DRAYTON - 5235/APP/2025/188 (Agenda Item 8) Erection of a single storey rear extension, amendments to side extension roof, extension to existing loft conversion including extension of roof to the rear and formation of crown roof, enlargement of rear dormer window, and installation of 2no. side facing roof lights, and addition of render and insulation to external walls. Officers introduced the application which was recommended for approval. A petition in objection to the application had been received and the lead petitioner was in attendance to address the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:  The officer had misunderstood the main reason for the petition, which related to the construction on the boundary wall.  The petition included 25 signatures.  The petition aimed to address the construction on the boundary wall, not a massive two or three-storey planning request.  The area of special local character (ASLC) leaflet stated that any redevelopment or two-storey side extension should be at least one metre from the side boundary.  The distance between the boundary wall and the neighbouring property was 900 millimetres at its widest point.  The space became narrower further down due to a chimney.  The owners of the property intended to use the structure for a piano tuition room for commercial purposes.  The nearby window was his daughter’s bedroom / study room.  The speaker expressed concerns about noise from the piano tuition room affecting their work.  The existing side extension was a temporary lean-to structure with a perspex plastic roof.  The structure was initially a post and plastic roof at ground level, later infilled with single skin brickwork.  The plans were incorrect, showing a nine-inch solid wall instead of a 4 1/2 inch garden wall.  The speaker did not oppose the rest of the development, as it did not include a three-storey or six-bedroom house.  It was noted that there were two side roof velux windows. The applicant / agent was not in attendance. Ward Councillor Jan Sweeting addressed the Committee Members in support of petitioners. Key points highlighted included:  Councillor Sweeting noted a non-pecuniary interest in the agenda item and spoke against the planning application.  No.10 Frays Avenue was unlike most properties in the area of special local character.  The proposed 4-bedroom property would have been squeezed into a small plot and negatively affected the neighbouring property at number 81.  The shared boundary required a party wall agreement, and the front dormer and crown roof were the basis of the objection from the Council's conservation officer.  The proposal did not meet the requirement of being at least one metre from the side boundary to retain the spacious setting.  The extension was to be built on the site of the old lean-to, which was allowed due to the 10-year rule.  The proposed front builder extension and crown roofs were not common features on the estate and were contrary to policy.  The report mentioned properties numbers 14 and 3 Frays Avenue, which had shared boundaries, but their boundary walls were garage walls, not walls to habitable spaces.  Allowing the habitable room on the boundary would set an unfortunate precedent not in keeping with the area's requirements for spacious settings.  Paragraph 7.13 mentioned that a slight increase in the site size would not harm the neighbour's amenities, but resolving the party wall issue might require the roof to be heightened.  The site was small and cramped, and only with unusual features could a 4- bedroom house be built.  The property was listed as a six-person HMO and had previously generated considerable issues of concern.  The Garden City was a unique area, and the Committee was asked to refuse the application as it negatively affected the immediate neighbour and did not protect the area's integrity. Officers addressed Members to clarify some of the issues raised by petitioners and the Ward Councillors. With regard to the 10-year rule, it was noted that the report referred to the structure being in place for 10 years, but the lawful basis for the extension was actually four years. Officers mentioned that the general feature of crown roofs was not uncommon in the area. The extension to the rear was a modest 0.3-metre extension and did not need to be set in from the boundary. It was noted that the policy requiring buildings to be set off the boundary was to protect against the terracing effect, which was more relevant to two-storey dwellings. Officers acknowledged the petitioner's concern about noise from the potential use of the structure for piano lessons but noted that the new structure needed to conform to building regulation standards, which would improve insulation. The existing structure was built up to the boundary, and the extension to the rear was very modest. Officers recommended approval of the proposed small-scale development. Members enquired whether the proposed conditions could be strengthened to protect the lead petitioner from noise emanating from the music room. In response, officers observed that the plans did not mention a music room specifically. Should the room be used for a larger scale commercial operation, this would be a matter for planning enforcement. In response to further questions from the Committee, it was noted that 6-person HMOs did not require planning permission. The property had previously been used as an HMO but the current applicant could not be held accountable for previous use. Officers observed that the 1-metre rule existed primarily to prevent a terracing effect; at single storey level it was felt that the gap would still be visible. In response to Members’ requests for clarification, the Legal Advisor noted that party walls were a property matter and did not fall within the remit of planning legislation. No further concerns were raised by the Committee. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed with six votes in favour and one abstention. RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the officer recommendation. 40. 148 – 154 HIGH STREET, UXBRIDGE - 78696/APP/2024/867 (Agenda Item 9) Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed-use development comprising a hotel (Use Class C1), residential co-living accommodation (Class Sui Generis), and commercial floorspace (Use Class E) and ancillary work, including public realm improvements, a new pocket park, basement parking, and associated infrastructure. Officers introduced the application and highlighted the information in the addendum. It was noted that the application was recommended for approval. Councillors sought clarification about the term "Co living" and its implications. It was explained that it was a recognised accommodation type, purpose-built for rented accommodation, with smaller units than traditional studio apartments. In response to further questions from Members about the number of Co living units, it was confirmed 320 units were proposed. Concerns were raised regarding the adequacy of nine parking spaces for potentially over 400 people. Officers explained that the proposal included a small retail element and promoted a car-free development, with parking spaces reserved for disabled residents. Councillors raised questions about the impact on surrounding areas due to the parking- free scheme and the reduction of retail space. It was clarified that the design of the units aimed to attract longer-term tenants and improve vitality in the town centre. The Committee questioned the allocation of a sizable contribution to Transport for London and its specific use. It was confirmed that the money would be spent on addressing and improving challenges within the bus garage. Councillors requested further information on the fire brigade's standard guidance notice and the environmental impact of the development, specifically the absence of solar panels. Officers explained that the internal specialists had raised no objections and conditions were secured to ensure appropriate measures. Concerns were expressed in relation to the demolition and transportation logistics of the site. It was confirmed that conditions were in place to manage the construction logistics and minimise impact on surrounding businesses and residents. Councillors supported the development but emphasised the importance of managing transportation schemes effectively. Officers assured that the logistics would be managed appropriately. Members expressed support for the development, highlighting its benefits. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the officer’s recommendation and subject to the following: - Amendments to Conditions 5 and 7 as detailed in the Addendum Report. - Amendment to Condition 2 to include two drawings omitted as advised in the officer’s verbal update. - Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London - Completion of s106 agreement. 41. 2ND/ 9TH RUISLIP SCOUT GROUP, 18 ST CATHERINES ROAD, RUISLIP - 6039/APP/2024/3226 (Agenda Item 10) Variation of Condition 2 (Accordance with Approved Plans), Conditions 3 (Tree Protection) and 5 (Landscaping) of planning permission ref. 6039/APP/2021/3465 dated 03-03-2022 (Removal of derelict scout hut and storage unit to facilitate the erection of a replacement single storey scout hut building) The minor material amendments include: - Changes to accessibility (with external ramp and disabled parking), hard and soft landscaping and external fittings. - Minor change to the building overall positioning on the site. - Fenestration changes on front elevation plan with repositioning of fire exit door. Officers introduced the application which was recommended for approval. Ward Councillor Peter Smallwood had submitted a written representation in support of the application which was read out for the consideration of the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:  Councillor Smallwood registered his interests as a member of the Executive Committee of the 1st/3rd Ruislip Scout Group.  The application was strongly supported as it provided a new home for the 2nd/9th Ruislip Scout Group.  The Group's previous base had been redeveloped into three family homes on Ladygate Lane, making the new facility essential for continuing high-quality scouting.  The proposed building was thoughtfully designed, modest in scale, and sensitive to the surrounding area, including key accessibility features.  The planning amendments were modest and appropriate, with no adverse impact on the surrounding residential character or neighbouring amenity.  The accessibility improvements significantly enhanced the inclusivity of the facility and aligned with local and national planning policies.  Scouting provided young people with invaluable opportunities to develop confidence and skills.  The new hut ensured the 2nd/9th Ruislip Scout Group had a permanent and suitable base to thrive in the future. Members were in support of the proposal and raised no objections. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously approved. RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the officer recommendation. The meeting, which commenced at 7.00 pm, closed at 9.45 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 – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Planning Committee Report Case Officer: Katherine Mills 20345/APP/2024/3156 Date Application Valid: 27.12.24 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 21.05.25 Application Type: Householder Ward: Ickenham & South Harefield Applicant: Mr Gulbir Dhillon Site Address: 155 Swakeleys Road, Ickenham Proposal: Erection of a part single storey, part two storey rear extension, a first-floor side extension, and front porch following demolition of existing porch and conservatory. Conversion of roof space into habitable use to include a rear dormer, 1 rear facing roof light and 1 x front facing roof light. Removal of two existing chimneys. Conversion of garage to habitable use including amendments to fenestration. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 3 of the Planning Scheme of Dele gation (Petition received) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summar y 1.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a part single storey, part two storey rear extension, a first-floor side extension, and a front porch following demolition of the existing porch and rear conservatory. It is also proposed to convert the roof space into habitable use to include a rear dormer, one rear facing roof light and one front facing roof light, and to remove two existing chimneys. Lastly, it is proposed to convert the existing integral garage to habitable use includin g amendments to the fenestration. 1.2 The proposed development is considered to comply with the objectives of the relevant planning policies and the proposal would not give rise to any significant harm to the character and appearance of the application property or to the character and appearance of the immediate street scene and surroundin g area. 1.3 The proposal would have an acceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenity and would not adversely affect highway safety, or cause harm in other respects. 1.4 A significant material consideration is planning permission ref. 20345/APP/2021/1037 that was granted on 5 August 2021 for the same proposal. The timescale for commencing this development was before 5 August 2024 as required by Condition 1. Consequently, this planning permission has lapsed, hence the submission of this application under consideration. The submitted drawings are the same to this lapsed permission, and the relevant planning policies remain the same. Whilst due regard has been given to local residents’ objections, including the petition against the application, it is concluded that this resubmitted proposal complies with the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that a contrar y decision should be taken. 1.5 The planning application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 2 The Site and Localit y 2.1 The application site comprises a detached dwelling located on the southern side of Swakele ys Road. 2.2 153 Swakeleys Road is located along the eastern site boundary. A pedestrian route is located along the western site boundary, beyond which is located 157 Swakele ys Road. To the south, the rear of the site backs onto the rear garden of Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 17 Vinlake Avenue. 136 and 138 Swakeleys Road are located to the north, on the opposite side of the road. 2.3 The application site is located within Tree Preservation Order 299. The road in front of the property is located within the Flood Map for Surface Water, as identified in the Surface Water Mana gement Plan (SWMP) for Hillingdon. 2.4 The surrounding area is residential in character comprising of two-storey, semi- detached and detached dwellinghouses of a similar style and age to the application property. The site lies within the Developed Area as identified within the Hillin gdon Local Plan: Part Two - Saved UDP Policies (November 2012). 2.5 The application site is not designated within a Conservation Area, nor an Area of Special Local Character. The site does not contain an y Listed Buildings. Fi gure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application Property 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a part single storey, part two storey rear extension, a first-floor side extension, and a front porch following demolition of the existing porch and rear conservatory. The conversion of the roof space into habitable use is also proposed, to include a rear dormer, one rear facing roofli ght and one front facing rooflight. It is also proposed to remove two existin g Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press chimneys and the conversion of the existing integral garage to habitable use including amendments to the fenestration. 3.2 The existing 3.22m deep, 3.8m wide and 3.45m high rear conservatory would be demolished and replaced with the proposed rear extension. The proposed rear extension would be 4m deep at ground floor level and would extend the full width of the property. The ground floor rear extension would have a 2.85m high flat roof with a rooflight and a 0.45m high parapet on the eastern side elevation. The first floor of the proposed rear extension would be 4m deep and 5.55m wide. The first- floor rear extension would be set in 1.05m from the ground floor western side elevation and 3.8m from the ground floor eastern side elevation. The pitched roof above the first-floor rear extension would be set 0.38m below the main roof ridge and would match the existing eaves height. The proposed materials would match the existing materials. The proposed rear extension would provide a family sitting room and kitchen on the ground floor and a bedroom on the first floor. 3.3 The proposed first floor side extension would be 2.98m wide and set in 1.05m from the ground floor side elevation and would be set back 1m from the ground floor front building line. The proposed pitched roof would match the existing eaves height, and the roof would match the existing roof ridge height before a decrease in height to match the roof height of the proposed first floor rear extension. The proposed first-floor side windows are obscure glazed and non-opening below 1.8m from finished floor level. This would be secured by condition. The proposed materials would match the existing materials. The proposed first floor side extension would provide a stud y, a bathroom and an ensuite bathroom. 3.4 The existing 0.985m deep and 2.4m wide porch with a 3.2m high pitched roof and 2.38m high eaves height would be demolished. This is proposed to be replaced by a front porch that measures 1.5m deep and 2m wide with a 3m high pitched roof and 2.38m high eaves. The proposed front porch would be set in 4.17m from the existin g eastern and western side elevations. 3.5 The proposed conversion of the roof space into habitable use would include a rear dormer, one rear facing roof light and one front facing roof light. Two existing chimneys would also be removed. The proposed rear dormer would be 2.034m wide and 1.99m deep with a 1.4m high flat roof. The proposed rear dormer would be set in 0.6m below the main roof ridge and 0.5m above the eaves. The proposed materials would match the existing materials. The proposed roof conversion would provide a bedroom with ensuite shower room. 3.6 The existing integral garage is proposed to be converted to habitable use including amendments to the fenestration. The existing garage doors on the front elevation are proposed to be removed and replaced with a window and brickwork to match the existing dwelling. A new window would be provided on the side elevation. The converted garage would provide a bedroom and ground floor shower room. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Proposed Plans and Elevations (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4 Relevant Plannin g History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 20345/APP/2021/1037 - Part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension, conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer and 3 rooflights and conversion of garage to habitable use with alterations to front elevation - Approved on 5 August 2021. 4.3 Significantly, the current planning application is the same size, scale and design as the development approved under Planning Permission ref: 20345/APP/2021/1037 (dated 5 August 2021). This permission required the approved development to have commenced by 5 August 2024. The development has not commenced, contrary to this condition. Consequently, this application has been submitted seekin g a new planning permission. 4.4 Notwithstanding this expired permission, which is a material consideration, the proposed development sought under this current planning application has been assessed against relevant policies of the Hillingdon Local Plan, site context and plannin g history. Figure 4: Approved Plans - Planning Permission Ref: 20345/APP/2021/1037 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 5: Approved Elevations - Planning Permission Ref: 20345/APP/2021/1037 5 Plannin g 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 Consultation letters were sent to six local owners/occupiers and the Ickenham Residents Association, with the consultation period expiring on 30 January 2025. Six representations from four neighbouring residences were received in objection to the proposal. In addition, one petition with 38 signatories has been received, ob jecting to 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. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response A petition of 38 valid signatures has been received against the application. 1. Oversized development for the plot and would dominate the street scene. Discussed at paragraphs 7.9 – 7.18 of this report. 2. Two-storey side/rear extension affecting light, space and natural environment. Discussed at paragraphs 7.23 - 7.26, 7.31 and 7.36 of this report. Amended block plans have been provided with 45-degree lines. 3. Development would set a precedent for similar proposals and erode the character of the community. The proposed development has been assessed against relevant policies of the Hillingdon Local Plan, site context and planning history, and the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the application property and the surrounding area has been discussed at paragraphs 7.2 – 7.19 of this report. 6 letters of objection have been received. i) Excessive size, overdevelopment of the site & would set a precedent which is creeping into Ickenham. The proposed development has been assessed against relevant policies of the Hillingdon Local Plan, site context and planning history, and the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the application property and the surrounding area has been discussed at paragraphs 7.2 – 7.19 of this report. ii) Other rear extensions in the area are sin gle storey. The proposed development has been Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press assessed against relevant policies of the Hillingdon Local Plan, site context and planning history, and the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the application property and the surrounding area has been discussed at paragraphs 7.2 – 7.19 of this report. iii) Side and rear extension would exceed the rules on permitted volume size. The proposed development has been assessed against relevant policies of the Hillingdon Local Plan, site context and planning history, and the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the application property and the surrounding area has been discussed at paragraphs 7.2 – 7.19 of this report. iv) Impact on daylight/space/natural environment from size/overshadowing. The impact of the proposed development on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties has been discussed at paragraphs 7.20 – 7.29 of this report. v) Impact on character and appearance of the surrounding area. The impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the application property and the surrounding area has been discussed at paragraphs 7.2 – 7.19 of this report. vi) Concern over size/purpose of rear The plans submitted with the application do not indicate that the proposed Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press extension as non- incidental. rear extension would be sub-divided and used as separate accommodation or for other non-incidental purposes. vii) Loss of privacy/overlooking from added height and new upper-floor windows. The impact of the proposed development on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties has been discussed at paragraphs 7.2 – 7.19 of this report. A condition has been included to obscure- glaze side elevation upper floor side windows. viii) Possible increase in surface water drainage/potential flooding issues. Technical construction matters concerning drainage are addressed through the Building Regulations process which is separate from the planning process. Notwithstanding this, as the road in front of the property is located within the Flood Map for Surface Water, an informative advising the applicant that water runoff from the development should be directed to a soakaway, tank or permeable surface shall be added to any consent granted. ix) Potential increase in number of vehicles at the property/impact on on- street parking and road safety. The impact of the proposed development on parking and highway safety has been discussed at paragraphs 7.34 of this report. x) Concerns that statutory consultations have not been carried out as letters not received and no site notices were displayed. Consultation letters were sent to relevant neighbouring properties as per statutory requirements. A site notice for the proposal was not required Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press under statutory requirements. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Highways Officer No objection. Noted. Trees / Landscape Officer The removal of the existing tree (T5 – Lawson Cypress) is acceptable. Noted. 7 Plannin g Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The proposal is for an extension to an existing residential dwelling. As such, the principle of development is supported by national, regional and local planning policies, sub ject to the considerations set out below. Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.2 Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) requires that new developments achieve a high quality of design in all new buildings, alterations, extensions and the public realm which enhances the local distinctiveness of the area, contributes to community cohesion and a sense of place. 7.3 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) requires all development to be designed to the highest standards and incorporate principles of good design, either complementing or improving the character and appearance of the area. Policy DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) seeks to protect and improve the public realm, including streets. 7.4 Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) requires that alterations and extension of dwellings would not have an adverse cumulative impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and should appear subordinate to the main dwelling. It also requires that there is no unacceptable loss of outlook to nei ghbouring occupiers. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.5 Part B of Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) sets out specific requirements for rear extensions. Single storey rear extensions on detached houses with a plot width of 5m or more should not exceed 4m in depth. Single-storey extensions with flat roofs should not exceed 3m in hei ght. 7.6 Part C of Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that side extensions should not exceed half the width of the original property, appear subordinate to the main house and reflect the architectural st yle of the main building. 7.7 Part D of Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that alterations and extensions to the front of a house must be minor and not alter the overall appearance of the house or dominate the character of the street. 7.8 Part E of Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) sets out specific requirements for roof extensions. Roof extensions should be located on the rear elevation only, be subservient to the scale of the existing roof and should not exceed more than two thirds the average width of the original roof. They should be located below the ridge tiles of the existing roof and retain a substantial element of the original roof slope above the eaves line. The Council will not support poorly designed or over- large roof extensions. All roof extensions should employ appropriate external materials and architectural details to match the existin g dwelling. 7.9 The proposed part single storey, part two storey rear extension would not exceed the Council's recommended depth standard set out in Part B of Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). Whilst the ground floor element of the proposed rear extension would extend the full width of the application property, the first-floor element would be set in from both ground floor side elevations. The proposed flat roof on the ground floor extension would not exceed the Council's recommended height standard set out in Part B of Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). Regarding the proposed parapet wall along the eastern side elevation, whilst the combined height of the flat roof and parapet wall would result in a total height of 3.3m, given the modest increase above the recommended height standard, it is considered that the proposed part sin gle storey rear extension would be acceptable in this instance. 7.10 The roof of the proposed first floor rear extension would be set below the main roof ridge and combined with the proposed eaves matching the existing eaves height of the application property, it is considered that the roof form of the proposed first floor rear extension would be acceptable. Overall, it is considered that the proposed part single storey, part two storey rear extension would not appear as an overbearing addition to the rear of the application property and would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the application property and the surroundin g area. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.11 The proposed first floor side extension would be 2.98m wide, would be set in 1.05m from the ground floor side elevation and would be set back 1m from the ground floor front building line. The proposed pitched roof would match the existing eaves height, and the roof would match the existing roof ridge height before a decrease in height to match the roof height of the proposed first floor rear extension. The first-floor side windows would be obscure glazed and non-opening below 1.8m from finished floor level. The proposed materials would match the existin g materials. 7.12 The proposed first floor side extension would not exceed more than half the existing width of the application property and given the setbacks from the existing ground floor front and side building lines, it is considered that the proposed first floor side extension would be acceptable in regard to width and depth. The proposed roof form over the first-floor side extension would match the property’s existing eaves height and given that the roof would not exceed the existing roof ridge height before stepping down to match the proposed first floor rear extension roof, it is considered that the proposed first floor side extension would be acceptable regarding roof form. It is considered that the proposed first floor side extension would not appear as an overbearing addition to the application property and would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the application property, the immediate street scene and the surrounding area. The proposed side windows would match the design and proportions of the existing windows and would be in keepin g with the character and appearance of the property. 7.13 The existing 0.985m deep and 2.4m wide porch with a 3.2m high pitched roof and 2.38m high eaves would be demolished and replaced by the proposed front porch. The proposed front porch would be 1.5m deep and 2m wide with a 3m high pitched roof and 2.38m high eaves. The proposed front porch would be set in 4.17m from the existin g eastern and western side elevations. 7.14 Given the modest depth and width, the modest roof height which would be lower than the existing front porch roof height, that the proposed eaves would be the same height as the existing eaves and the set ins from the side elevations, it is considered that the overall size and scale of the proposed front porch would be acceptable. It is therefore considered that the proposed front porch would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the application property, the street scene and the surroundin g area. 7.15 The proposed conversion of the roof space into habitable use would include a rear dormer, one rear facing roof light and one front facing roof light. Two existing chimneys would be removed. The proposed rear dormer would be 2.034m wide and 1.99m deep with a 1.4m high flat roof. The proposed rear dormer would be set down 0.6m below the roof ridge and 0.5m above the eaves. The proposed materials would match the existin g materials. 7.16 Given the overall depth and width of the rear dormer and that it would be sufficiently set down from the roof ridge, set in from the eaves and sides of the roof, it is considered that the proposed rear dormer would appear as a subordinate addition to the application propert y. The proposed rooflights would be acceptable Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press regarding size and location on the front and rear roof slopes. The proposed rear dormer and roof conversion would therefore not cause harm to the character and appearance of the application property or to the character and appearance of the immediate street scene and the surrounding area. Whilst two existing chimneys on the existing eastern side roof slope would be removed, given that there are other properties within the street scene without chimneys, it is considered that the proposed chimney removal would not be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the immediate street scene and the surroundin g area. 7.17 The existing integral garage would be converted to habitable use including amendments to fenestration. The existing garage doors on the front elevation would be removed and replaced with a front facing window and brickwork to match the existin g dwelling. A new window is proposed on the side elevation. 7.18 It is considered that the replacement of the garage doors with a front facing window and matching brickwork would be acceptable in design and would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the application property, the immediate street scene and the surrounding area. The proposed front facing window and proposed side window would match the design and proportions of existing windows and would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the propert y. 7.19 The proposal thereby complies with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) and Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) and the National Planning Policy Framework. Residential Amenity 7.20 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that new developments should not result in loss of privac y, overlooking and loss of sunlight and daylight. 7.21 Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) requires that alterations and extensions of dwellings do not result in an unacceptable loss of outlook to nei ghbouring occupiers. 7.22 The neighbouring residences most likely affected by the proposal are 153 Swakeleys Road (to the east of the site) and 157 Swakeleys Road (to the west of the site). No other properties are considered potentially impacts due to the separation distances from the proposed extensions. Potential Impact on 153 Swakeleys Road 7.23 153 Swakeleys Road is located along the eastern site boundary. Given the policy compliant depth along the shared site boundary, the modest ground floor flat roof/parapet height, the first floor set in from the shared site boundary, that the first floor would not extend into the 45 degree line from 153 Swakeleys Road, and that no side windows are proposed, it is considered that the proposed part sin gle Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press storey, part two storey rear extension would not impact on the residential amenity of 153 Swakeleys Road through the loss of light, privacy, overlooking or overbearing form. The proposed first floor side extension would be located on the opposite side of the property and would not extend beyond the proposed rear buildin g line and so would not impact on the residential amenity of 153 Swakeleys. 7.24 The proposed front porch would be modest regarding depth and width, with a pitched roof height less than the existing front porch (to be demolished). In combination with the 4.17m set in from the eastern side elevation, there would not be an impact on the residential amenity of 153 Swakeleys Road through the loss of light or overbearing form. The existing garage is located on the opposite side of the property and given that the proposed garage conversion would not involve increasing the width of the application property and would not encroach outside the application property's site boundaries, the proposed garage conversion would not have an adverse impact on the residential amenit y of 153 Swakeleys Road. Potential Impact on 157 Swakeleys Road 7.25 A public pedestrian route is located along the western site boundary, beyond which is located 157 Swakeleys Road. Given the policy compliant depth along the shared site boundary, the policy compliant flat roof height, the first floor set in from the shared site boundary, that the first floor would not extend into the 45 degree line from 157 Swakeleys Road, and that the first floor side windows would be obscure-glazed and high level opening, it is considered that the proposed development would not impact on the residential amenity of 153 Swakeleys Road through the loss of light, privacy, overlooking or overbearing form. Additionally, the existing pedestrian route would provide a degree of separation between the two properties. 7.26 The proposed first floor side extension would be set in 1.05m from the existing ground floor side elevation and given the existing pedestrian route between the application property and 157 Swakeleys Road, there would be a separation distance of approximately 6.48m between the proposed first floor side extension and the neighbouring property. It is considered that the proposed first floor side extension would not impact on the residential amenity of 157 Swakeleys Road through the loss of light or overbearing form. The proposed first floor side windows would be obscure glazed and non-opening below 1.8m from finished floor level to prevent loss of privacy and overlooking of 157 Swakeleys Road. This would be secured b y way of a condition on any consent granted. 7.27 The proposed front porch would be modest in regard to depth and width, with a pitched roof height less than the existing front porch (to be demolished) and given the 4.17m set in from the existing western side elevation and the existing pedestrian route between the two properties, would not impact on the residential amenit y of 157 Swakeleys Road through the loss of light or overbearing form. 7.28 Although the existing garage is proposed to be converted into habitable use, this would not involve increasing the width of the application property and would not encroach outside the application propert y's site boundaries. The proposed garage Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press conversion would therefore not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of 157 Swakeleys Road. Whilst a new window would is proposed on the ground floor side elevation facing 157 Swakeleys Road, this would serve a WC and shower room and is recommended to be conditioned to be obscure glazed and high opening to prevent any mutual loss of privacy and overlooking between the application site and 157 Swakeleys Road. The boundary treatment and interceding pedestrian route would also ensure that there is no loss of privacy to 157 Swakele ys Road. 7.29 The proposal thereby complies with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) and Policies DMHB 11 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020 ). External Amenity Space 7.30 Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) requires developments to provide good quality and useable private outdoor amenity space in accordance with the Council's standards (as per Table 5.2), whilst Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) seeks to ensure that proposals to extend dwellin gs retain adequate garden space. 7.31 The application site has a large rear garden of approximately 387sqm. The proposed extensions to the application property would not result in a significant loss of rear garden and so would comply with Policies DMHB 18 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020 ). Outlook/Li ght to Proposed Habitable Rooms 7.32 It is considered that all the proposed habitable rooms would maintain an adequate outlook and source of natural li ght, therefore complying with the local plan. Highways and Parking 7.33 Policy DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that development proposals must ensure they provide safe an efficient vehicular access to the highway network and do not contribute to the deterioration of the safety of all road users and residents. Policy DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) seeks to ensure that developments provide acceptable levels of car parkin g in line with the Council's Parking Standards (Appendix C Table 1). 7.34 The application site has a driveway and a substantial parking area at the front of the site, along with an existing garage. Whilst the existing garage would be converted into habitable use, given that the existing parking provision at the front of the site would be retained, it is considered that acceptable parking provision would be provided on the site and so would not impact on the local hi ghway. The Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press proposal is thereby in accordance with Policies DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). Impact on Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 299 7.35 Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) seeks to ensure that developments retain and enhance existing landscaping and trees, particularly trees of merit, and requires landscape schemes to be appropriate to the character of the area. 7.36 The application site is located within TPO 299. An Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report, Tree Constraints Plan (Drawing Ref: EAS-210 TCP) and Tree Protection Plan (Drawing Ref: EAS-210 TPP) have been submitted with the application. An existing tree (T5 - Lawson Cypress) along the western site boundary would be removed to facilitate the proposed development. It is noted the tree to be removed is not itself a Protected Tree. Subject to compliance with the tree protection measures (including protective fencing) set out in the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report and the Tree Protection Plan (Drawing Ref: EAS-210 TPP), to be secured by way of a condition on any consent granted, it is considered that the proposed development would not cause harm to retained trees within the application site and TPO 299. The proposal would thereby comply with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Mana gement Policies (January 2020). Drainage/Flood Risk 7.37 Policy DMEI 9 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) seeks to ensure that developments provide appropriate mana gement of flood risk. 7.38 The road in front of the property is located within the Flood Map for Surface Water, as identified in the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) for Hillingdon. An informative advising the applicant that water run off should be directed to a soakawa y, tank or permeable surface would be added to any consent granted. 8 Other Matters Human Ri ghts 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. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Equalit y 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 equalit y impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.3 Not applicable. The proposed development is not CIL liable. 9 Conclusion / Plannin g Balance 9.1 The proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 10 Back ground Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents taken into account in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential information) are available on the Council's website here, by entering the planning application number at the top of this report and using the search facility. Planning applications are also available to inspect electronically at the Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW upon appointment, by contacting Planning Services at planning@hillingdon.gov.uk. AAPPENDICES Planning Application 20345/APP/2024/3156 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 8 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. HO1 T Time Limit The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. HO2 A Accordance with approved The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on Drawing Ref: PH-155SR-01 Rev B Site Location Plan, Existing & Proposed Block Plan PH-155SR-02 Existing Floor Plans, Roof Plan and Elevations PH-155SR-03 Proposed Floor Plans and Roof Plan PH-155SR-04 Proposed Elevations EAS-210 TCP Tree Constraints Plan EAS-210 TPP Tree Protection Plan REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) and the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020), and the London Plan (March 2021). 3. HO4 M Materials The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building and shall thereafter be retained as such. REASON To safeguard the visual amenities of the area and to ensure that the proposed development does not have an adverse effect upon the appearance of the existing building in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 4. HO5 N No additional windows or doors Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no additional windows, doors or other openings shall be Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 8 constructed in the walls of the development hereby approved facing 153 and 157 Swakeleys Road. REASON To prevent overlooking to adjoining properties in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 5 5. HO6 O Obscure Glazing The ground floor and first floor windows on the side elevation facing 157 Swakeleys Road shall be glazed with permanently obscured glass to at least scale 4 on the Pilkington scale and be non-opening below a height of 1.8 metres taken from internal finished floor level for so long as the development remains in existence. REASON To prevent overlooking to adjoining properties in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 6. HO9 T Tree Protection The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the Tree Protection Plan and Methods detailed in the approved Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report prepared by Enviroarb Solutions (dated 10 December 2024, ref. EAS-210). Tree protection fencing shall be erected in accordance with the details set out in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report (dated 10 December 2024, ref. EAS-210) and the Tree Protection Plan (Drawing Ref: EAS-210 TPP). Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority such fencing should be a minimum height of 1.5 metres. The fencing shall be retained in position until development is completed. The area within the approved protective fencing shall remain undisturbed during the course of the works and in particular in these areas: 1. There shall be no changes in ground levels; 2. No materials or plant shall be stored; 3. No buildings or temporary buildings shall be erected or stationed. 4. No materials or waste shall be burnt; and. 5. No drain runs or other trenches shall be dug or otherwise created, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. REASON To ensure that the proposed development will preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and provide adequate facilities in compliance with Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) and Policies G5, G6 and G7 of the London Plan (March 2021). Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 8 IInformatives 1. I15 C Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work Nuisance from demolition and construction works is subject to control under The Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Clean Air Acts and other related legislation. In particular, you should ensure that the following are complied with:- A. Demolition and construction works which are audible at the site boundary shall only be carried out between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 hours Monday to Friday and between the hours of 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturday. No works shall be carried out on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. B. All noise generated during such works shall be controlled in compliance with British Standard Code of Practice BS 5228:2009. C. Dust emissions shall be controlled in compliance with the Mayor of London's Best Practice Guidance' The Control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition. D. No bonfires that create dark smoke or nuisance to local residents. You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Protection Unit (www.hillingdon.gov.uk/noise Tel. 01895 250155) or to seek prior approval under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act if you anticipate any difficulty in carrying out construction other than within the normal working hours set out in (A) above, and by means that would minimise disturbance to adjoining premises. 2. I47 D Damage to Verge - For Council Roads: The Council will recover from the applicant the cost of highway and footway repairs, including damage to grass verges. Care should be taken during the building works hereby approved to ensure no damage occurs to the verge or footpaths during construction. Vehicles delivering materials to this development shall not override or cause damage to the public footway. Any damage will require to be made good to the satisfaction of the Council and at the applicant's expense. For further information and advice contact - Highways Maintenance Operations, Central Depot - Block K, Harlington Road Depot, 128 Harlington Road, Hillingdon, Middlesex, UB3 3EU (Tel: 01895 277524). For Private Roads: Care should be taken during the building works hereby approved to ensure no damage occurs to the verge of footpaths on private roads during construction. Vehicles delivering materials to this development shall not override or cause damage to a Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 8 private road and where possible alternative routes should be taken to avoid private roads. The applicant may be required to make good any damage caused. 33. The road in front of the property is located within the Flood Map for Surface Water, as identified in the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) for Hillingdon. All developments in this area must contribute to managing the risk of flooding from surface water by reducing surface water runoff from the site. Therefore the applicant should minimise the water from the site entering the sewers. No drainage to support the extensions should be connected to any existing surface water sewer, other than as an overflow. Water run off from any roof or hard paving associated with e development should be directed to a soakaway, or tank or made permeable. This includes any work to front gardens not part of the planning application, which must be permeable or be collected and directed to a permeable area, otherwise it would need an additional permission. A water butt should be incorporated. 4. I2 E Encroachment You are advised that if any part of the development hereby permitted encroaches by either its roof, walls, eaves, gutters, or foundations, then a new planning application may have to be submitted. The validity of this planning permission may be challengeable by third parties if the development results in any form of encroachment onto land outside the applicant's control for which the appropriate Notice under Article 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 has not been served. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 8 AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History 20345/A/82/0109 155 Swakeleys Road Ickenham Householder development - residential extension(P) Decision: 01-03-1982 Approved 20345/APP/2021/1037 155 Swakeleys Road Ickenham Part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension, conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include a rear dormer and 3 rooflights and conversion of garage to habitable use with alterations to front elevation Decision: 05-08-2021 Approved 20345/APP/2021/3751 155 Swakeleys Road Ickenham Part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension, single storey front extension and front entrance porch, conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include a rear dormer and 3 rooflights and conversion of garage to habitable use . Decision: 30-11-2021 Refused 20345/APP/2021/383 155 Swakeleys Road Ickenham Proposal is for 6m rear extension. Decision: 04-02-2021 No Further Action(P) 20345/APP/2021/4364 155 Swakeleys Road Ickenham Erection of a single storey outbuilding to use as an indoor swimming pool, gym and game facility ancillary to the main use of the house. Decision: 24-01-2022 Refused 20345/APP/2022/1529 155 Swakeleys Road Ickenham Erection of outbuilding with pitched roof. Decision: 04-07-2022 Refused 20345/APP/2024/3228 155 Swakeleys Road Ickenham Erection of an outbuilding (Application for a Certificate of Lawful Development for a Proposed Development) Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 8 DDecision: 13-02-2025 Approved Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7 of 8 AAppendix 3: List of Relevant Planning Policies The following Local Plan Policies are considered relevant to the application:- Part 1 Policies: PT1.BE1 (2012) Built Environment Part 2 Policies: DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMHB 18 Private Outdoor Amenity Space DMHD 1 Alterations and Extensions to Residential Dwellings DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP D6 (2021) Housing quality and standards NPPF12 NPPF 2021 - Achieving well-designed places Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 8 of 8

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Planning Committee Report Case Officer: Emilie Bateman 8905/APP/2024/2478 Date Application Valid: 16.09.24 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 09.06.25 Application Type: Full Ward: Ickenham and South Harefield Applicant: Mr Soni Site Address: 90 Long Lane Proposal: Demolition of the existing detached, single dwelling and the erection of a building consisting of 4 no. three-bed flats and 5 no. two-bedroom flats, with associated parking and amenities. 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 – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: REFUSE planning permission for the reasons specified in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summar y 1.1 Full planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing detached dwelling and the erection of a new building comprising 4 three-bedroom flats and 5 two-bedroom flats, with associated parkin g and amenities. 1.2 The application is presented to Planning Committee following the receipt of three petitions: one in support of the scheme and two objecting to it. 1.3 A previous application for a similar development (ref: 8905/APP/2023/2419) was refused by the Planning Committee in April 2024, citing six reasons for refusal summarised as follows: x Inappropriate housing mix; x Harmful impact on character and appearance; x Adverse effects on neighbouring amenity; x Highway safety concerns; x Loss of valuable trees; and x Inadequate Fire Safety information. 1.4 The current application seeks to address these previous reasons for refusal. Notably, the proposed housing mix now includes 4 three-bedroom units capable of supporting family living, aligning with the Hillingdon Local Plan, the London Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). However, despite minor amendments to the design, the siting, scale, width, and massing, the overall design of the proposed building would continue to result in a harmful impact on the character, appearance, and visual amenities of the street scene and the setting of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. The public benefits offered would not outweigh the identified ‘less than substantial harm’ to the Conservation Area. 1.5 In terms of neighbouring amenity, whilst daylight and sunlight impacts have been adequately addressed, the proposal would still result in an unacceptable sense of enclosure and loss of outlook for adjoining occupiers, due to the building’s hei ght, depth, and bulk. 1.6 Highways concerns raised previously have been satisfactorily resolved. The revised access arrangements ensure both vehicular and pedestrian safety, and sufficient on-site parking provision is also proposed. With respect to trees, the current scheme now retains the previously identified high-value Category A and B trees. The Council’s Trees and Landscaping Officer has welcomed these amendments, and the previous reason for refusal on these grounds has been overcome. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 1.7 The proposal would provide acceptable living accommodation and sufficient outdoor amenity space for future residents. Furthermore, it would achieve a biodiversity net gain of approximately 15% and would retain the verdant character of the site throu gh tree retention and enhanced landscaping. 1.8 A Fire Statement has now been submitted. However, it fails to fully meet the requirements of Policy D12 of the London Plan. 1.9 Overall, the proposed development fails to fully overcome the previous reasons for refusal. The scheme would result in harm to the character and appearance of Ickenham Village Conservation Area, the streetscene, and the surrounding context, as well as to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. While the proposal delivers some public benefits, including family-sized housing provision, these benefits do not outwei gh the identified harms. 1.10 The planning application is therefore recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in Appendix 1. 2 The Site and Localit y 2.1 The application site is located on the north-western side of Long Lane, some 80m to the north-east of its junction with Swakeleys Drive. It comprises an attractive detached house, set back from the road on a lar ge plot with a deep rear garden. 2.2 The subject dwelling along with the majority of the adjoining detached houses to the south-west (Nos. 90 to 98 Long Lane) are of individual architectural design and have a spacious character with large gardens to the rear. The dwellings are set well back from the road, in an informal setting with a staggered relationship to the road frontage. To the northeast, is a flatted development at No. 88 Long Lane and beyond that is the Cardinal Hume Campus of the Douay Martyrs School (which contains a locally listed building). To the southwest is 92 Long Lane, another large two storey dwelling of individual architectural merit set back from the highway with gable features including a front projection and two dormer windows. Dormy House and the rear garden of No. 2 adjoins the rear boundary of the application propert y. 2.3 The character of the area has gained recognition through its inclusion within the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. The application site and the neighbouring property to the rear (known as Dormy House) are also covered by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs 438 and 482a). The site lies in Flood Zone 1 and has a PTAL ratin g of 2 (Poor). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figure 2: Block Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Image of the Application Property 3 Proposal 3.1 The application proposes the demolition of the existing detached, single dwelling and the erection of a building consisting of 4 no. three-bed flats and 5 no. two- bedroom flats, with associated parkin g and amenities. The application is a resubmission of a previously refused scheme (Planning Committee April 2024 ref. 8905/APP/2023/2419). The main changes from this original submission include: x Provision of 4 x 3-bedroom units. x Slight reduction in the depth of the two-storey rear projection (by 1.2m). x Slight reduction in the width of the building. x Removal of internal access to rear communal gardens. x Retention of Category A and B trees to the front of the property. x Reduction in size of waste storage space. x Inclusion of storage room along the common boundary with No.92 for equipment storage. x Repositioning of cycle storage. x Additional tree planting and fencing (2m height) along the common boundaries with No.88 and 92 Lon g Lane. It is noted that during the course of the application process the numbers of three (increased) and two (decreased) bed flats have been corrected in the description, however the total number of units remains the same. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4: Proposed Block Plan(please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Figure 5: Proposed Elevations (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 6: Proposed floor plans(please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) 4 Relevant Plannin g History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 Planning application reference 8905/APP/2 023/2419 is of particular note, given the similarities. The application was refused in April 2024 (Demolition of the existing detached, single dwelling and the erection of a building consisting of 9 no. two-bedroom flats, with associated parking and amenities) for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development fails to provide any three or more bedroom (family sized) units. Robust justification has not been provided to demonstrate that the provision of family sized units would be unsuitable or unviable. The proposal would therefore not provide a suitable mix of housing to support sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities contrary to Policy DMH 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020), Policy H10 of the London Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). 2. The proposed development, by reason of its siting, size, width, scale, massin g and overall desi gn would result in an incon gruous visuall y Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press prominent form of development that would fail to harmonise with the character and architectural composition of the surrounding properties, resulting in a visually dominant building which would be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the street scene and the setting of Ickenham Village Conservation Area. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies BE1 and HE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (2012), Policies DMHB 1, DMHB 4, DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020), Policies HC1, D1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) and the NPPF (2023). 3. Due to its depth, scale, bulk, siting and overall design, the proposed development would have an overbearing impact on the adjoining residents leading to a harmful sense of enclosure and loss of outlook to the residents of Nos 88 and 92 Long Lane. Furthermore, in the absence of a BRE daylight and sunlight assessment the application has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not lead to a loss of light or significant overshadowing to both adjoining neighbouring properties. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (2012), Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). 4. The proposal would fail to provide acceptable pedestrian, cycle and vehicular access to the application site which due to the increased number of vehicular movements onto a classified road would result in danger and inconvenience which fails to concur with the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020), Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 and Policies T2, T4 and T5 of the London Plan (2021) and NPPF (2023). The application also fails to concur with the Mayor's Transport Strategy which aims to encourage cycling, walking and the use of public transport. 5. The application has failed to justify the need for the layout of development which includes the removal of category A and B value trees. Accordingly, the development would result in adverse and irreversible impacts to landscaping, trees, biodiversity or other natural features of merit, detrimental to the visual amenities of the area and Ickenham Village Conservation Area, contrary to paragraph 136 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023), Policy G7 of the London Plan (2021), and Policies DMHB 4, DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 6. The proposal fails to demonstrate through a comprehensive fire statement how the development would achieve the highest standards of fire safety in regard to its design in incorporating appropriate features which reduce the risk to life in the event of a fire, its construction methods, means of escape, strategy of evacuation and providing suitable access and equipment for firefighting appropriate for the size and residential nature of the development. The proposal would therefore be contrar y to Policies D5 and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press D12 of the London Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). The current application seeks to overcome these reasons for refusal. 5 Plannin g 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 18 neighbouring properties were consulted by letter on 30-09-24. The consultation period expired on 11-02-25, followin g a reconsultation. 6.2 It is noted that one representation was received in support of the development, on the basis that the use of the existing dwelling has a detrimental impact on the local area in terms of anti-social behaviour. 6.3 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response Two petitions in objection to the application have been received. The first received 31 signatures and the second received 36 signatures bringing the total number of valid si gnatures to 67. 1. Against the development Discussed throughout the report. 2. Ickenham Residents Association wishes the application to be heard at Planning Committee (in the event of an approval). The recommendation is for refusal, which is in line with the petitioners desired outcome, usually it would not be heard at Planning Committee. However, due to a third petition being received in support, the application will be heard. A petition was received in support of the application with 26 si gnatures. 1. The development will provide family-sized dwellings. Discussed at paragraphs 7.1-7.10 9 objections were received from 6 I. Highways Issues - Congestion and traffic Discussed at paragraphs 7.51 -7.58 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press neighbouring dwellings. II. Noise and light pollution Discussed at paragraphs 7.37 – 7.38 III. Out of character Discussed in paragraphs 7.11-7.23 IV. Overdevelopment Discussed in paragraphs 7.11-7.23 V. Precedence Each application is assessed on its own merits and against the local Hillingdon, London and National Plans. VI. Neighbouring amenity concerns Discussed in paragraphs 7.24-7.40. VII. Flooding concerns Discussed in paragraphs 7.77-7.80. In the event of an approval, Sustainable Urban Drainage measures would be secured by condition. VIII. Anti-social behaviour It has been noted from the comments received that the site had some alleged previous criminal activity. However, this current application does not propose any illegal activities. In terms of security by design, Officers are satisfied that the scheme would create new units thereby improving the security of the site due to the level of presence and surveillance from windows. This is likely therefore to reduce any potential anti- social behaviour if the site is occupied. IX. Concerns regarding trees Discussed in paragraphs 7.61-7.67. X. Impact on infrastructure and services (including schools, sewage etc.) This is not a material planning consideration for this application. In the event of an approval, Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) would be applicable. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press XI. Decrease in property values This is not a material planning consideration. XII. Concern with building works and associated vehicle movements, noise and disruptions. If this application had been recommended for approval, an informative would have been included regarding Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work. Further conditions would also be added regarding construction mana gement. XIII. Foundations raising concern for existing houses and their structures This is not a material planning consideration. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Ickenham Residents Association Following the refusal of the previous application for this property in 2023, we note a resubmission entered on 16 September 2024, similarly for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a building containing 9 x 2 bedroom flats. We will be submitting a petition in respect of this application. As you are aware this property is located firmly within the Ickenham Conservation Area. We should therefore be grateful for your confirmation that the application will be scrutinised and have appropriate input from the Design and Heritage Officer particularly in relation to its character assessment within our Conservation Area. We note that few, if any, of the previous reasons for refusal have been addressed in this resubmission and we trust that the planning officer responsible will take those matters into account, notwithstanding the petition submitted by the applicant in favour. Thank you in advance. The application has been amended to 3 no. three- bed flats and 6 no. two-bedroom flats - a significant increase on the no. 9 2 bed flats on the original application. The ob jections we submitted in our The points raised by Ickenham Residents' Association have been noted. Material planning considerations are discussed in the following sections of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press letters of objection on 30th August 2023 and 8th October still stand, our concerns exacerbated by the increase in number of occupiers. We also submitted a petition against this development as did local residents. We assume these petitions still stand as the application number has not changed. We are concerned that the time limit for comments is very short. We are aware that the Inspectorate had removed the 10% rule allowed for flats in residential roads, but it is worrying to think of the extra traffic and parking involved, should this development go ahead. It is still a larger development than that at 88. There would be a minimum of 9 cars adding to the traffic congestion, which is already extremely high in Long Lane especially given the flat development at no. 88. The Association strongly objects to this application. Ministry of Defence Following review of the application documents, the proposed development would be considered to have no detrimental impact on the operation or capability of a defence site or asset. The MOD has no objection to the development proposed. Noted. Conservation Officer Given the proposed design hasn't changed from the previous refusal, much of the same design issues as pointed out in the refusal decision notice for 8905/APP/2023/2419 persist. The argument that a building should be larger simply because the plot is larger is invalid, as bulk and massing must respond to the surrounding context, not just plot size. Planning policy prioritises how well a building fits its environment, considering proportion, scale, and impact on the public realm. In this case, the proposal feels overly stretched horizontally, detracting from the vertical emphasis typical of traditional vernacular architecture, which features taller, narrower forms, gable ends, and a pronounced roofline. The wide spacing between windows and the roofline further accentuate this horizontal stretch, undermining the area's vernacular proportions and disrupting its character and scale. It is important to highlight that, while similar to 88 Lon g Lane, this application omits Noted. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press some of the vernacular features (e.g. weather- boarding, diagonal bracing, and the points made above regarding scale and proportion) that enhance the appearance and character of 88, overall resulting in a facade that, although attempting to echo vernacular forms, feels somewhat dishonest and value-engineered. Tree and Landscape Officer The retention of the front Category A and B trees is welcomed. There are some minor concerns with the tree report which can be addressed. - Question the structure located below T30. Should it be required, the location should be moved elsewhere on site to reduce the impact on trees. - T10 is within the neighbouring garden. This tree should only be tip pruned rather than crown lifted which would require agreement by the neighbours. - Lastly, T38 should be fitted with a tree guard after construction to ensure it doesn’t get knocked by cars manoeuvring within the car park. Otherwise, the tree report is accepted. Noted. The previous application had refused on loss of valuable trees. The revised plans now demonstrate that these trees would be protected. Whilst concerns raised regarding the positioning of the bin structure and certain works have been advised. This can be secured with a condition if the scheme is considered acceptable. Access Officer This proposal involving the demolition of a single dwelling house and its replacement with a three- storey building comprising 9 flats has been assessed against the requirements of London Plan policy D7 and H2 with no accessibility concerns raised. A condition is recommended to ensure the ground floor units meet the Technical Requirements set out in Approved Document M of the Building Regulations 2010. A further condition would be secured to ensure the property would provide step free access via all points of entry and exit. Noted. Highways The application has been reviewed by the Highway Authorit y who are satisfied on balance that the Noted. Following advice from Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress and would not raise any measurable highway safety concerns. The revised application has provided further information including a Transport Note and tracking information which addresses the original reason for refusal. The Highways Officer recommends inclusion of conditions relating to provision of secure bicycle parking, electric vehicle charging points and a Construction Mana gement Plan Highways, there would be no objection nor reason for refusal on this basis. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (2024) promotes effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Both London Plan (2021 - Policy GG4) and the Hillingdon Local Plan (Policy BE1 Part 1 Strategic Policies) seeks to ensure more homes are delivered. This is reinforced by Policy H1 of the Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (2012) which gives general support to housing provision to meet and exceed the Council's minimum strategic dwelling requirement, where this can be achieved in accordance with other Local Plan policies. 7.2 Policy DMH 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that the net loss of existing self-contained housing will be resisted unless the housing is replaced with at least equivalent residential floorspace. It seeks to ensure there is not an overconcentration of flat developments within a street with the policy restricting the number of conversions to no more than ten percent of the properties. 7.3 The site is within the settlement limits within an established residential area and the provision of new housing on the site is acceptable in principle, subject to consideration of other factors. The provision of nine dwellings would represent a net increase of eight units that would provide a valuable contribution towards meetin g local housing need. 7.4 The proposed development would not result in more than ten percent of properties within the area redeveloped into flats. It is noted that there is an existing conversion at the neighbouring property at No 88 Long Lane which received planning permission in 2016 for the existing dwelling to be demolished and replace with flats (ref. 29164/APP/201/4622). In the immediate area, this appears to be the sole propert y that has been converted to flats in recent years. 7.5 A survey of the properties along Long Lane (500m in both directions from the application site) confirms that the majority of properties are dwelling houses, and the level of conversions would be below ten percent. As such it would not lead to Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press an overconcentration of flat developments within the area. The existing property is greater than 120 sq.m in floorspace and although this is being replaced, it would meet that criteria set out for redevelopment of dwellings. Although there would be more than one flat per floor, these are considered suitable quality, and it is designed to provide a high-quality of internal accommodation in accordance with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021). It is, therefore, considered that the proposal passes the relevant tests set out in Policy DMH 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Mana gement Policies (2020). 7.6 There is no objection, in principle, to the creation of additional residential units in this location in land use terms. However, this would be subject to the proposal being in accordance with all relevant planning policies and guidance in the Development Plan. Housing Mix 7.7 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. The Secretary of State directed changes to Policy H10 to place greater emphasis on the delivery of new family homes, aiming to reduce the displacement of families from London. These changes were reflected in the final version of the London Plan (2021). Similarly, the adoption of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) marked a significant shift in housing size mix policy, aligning with the strategic focus on meeting identified housing needs. 7.8 Policy DMH 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that new developments should provide a mix of housing sizes that reflect the Council's latest evidence of need, including a clear requirement for larger homes, particularly three-bedroom units, as identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2016. The proposal is considered to provide an appropriate housing mix, in line with the Council's housing strategy and in compliance with Policy DMH 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) and Polic y H10 of the London Plan (2021). 7.9 As noted above there is established policy in favour of making effective use of sites and optimising the density of development. The proposed development would deliver four three-bedroom units and five two-bedroom units. The existing detached dwelling on the site is a family-sized unit, and the inclusion of three additional family units is therefore welcomed. The overall housing mix is considered acceptable overcoming the previous reason for refusal. It would provide a balanced mix of properties suitable for both families and individuals; whilst providing an uplift of an additional 8 homes which allows for an appropriate increase in the densit y of development. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Conclusion (Principle) 7.10 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. Desi gn / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.11 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, specifically Section 72, places a statutory duty on Local Planning Authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas. This requirement is reinforced through national and local planning policy. Paragraph 135 of the NPPF (2024) further emphasises that new developments should be well-designed, visually attractive, and sympathetic to local character and history, while contributing positively to a strong sense of place and ensuring safe, inclusive environments. Policies D1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) require proposals to respond positively to local context and to deliver high-quality, context-sensitive design. Specifically for heritage assets, Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) requires developments to conserve the significance of these assets and their settin gs. 7.12 At the local level, Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One (2012) seeks high quality design that contributes to the character and quality of the local area. More specifically, Policy DMHB 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020) requires that development within or on the edges of Conservation Areas preserves or enhances their character and appearance. Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 further require development to harmonise with local context and to demonstrate a high standard of design through scale, form, detailing and its relationship with surroundin g structures and spaces. Site Context 7.13 The application site is located within the Ickenham Village Conservation Area, within a predominantly residential setting. The existing building is an attractive, detached, one-and-a-half-storey dwelling that contributes positively to the character and appearance of both the Conservation Area and the Long Lane street scene. The Douay Martyrs School (Cardinal Hume Campus), which includes a Locally Listed Building, is situated to the north-east of the site. The wider Ickenham area is characterised by spacious, maturely landscaped residential plots, with Long Lane comprising a series of individually designed dwellin gs that positively contribute to the visual amenities of the street scene. 7.14 Whilst architectural styles and designs vary, the prevailing character, particularly around the site, is formed by detached and semi-detached properties occupying large plots with extensive rear gardens. Properties along Long Lane are generally set back from the road behind green verges and mature front gardens, contributin g to a distinctive spacious character. The application site retains a Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press large front and rear garden and is well landscaped with mature trees and shrubs, providing a soft, natural screen from the street scene. The existing dwelling is well-proportioned and appropriately sited within the plot. 7.15 It is acknowledged that a flatted development at the adjoining site (No. 88 Long Lane) has recently been completed (Ref: 29164/APP/2016/4622). While elements of the current scheme draw some inspiration from this neighbouring development, the proposed building would be significantly wider and bulkier than No. 88. The proposal would result in a building of substantial massing owing to its increased hei ght, width, built form and bulk. Proposal 7.16 The current application seeks permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a two storey plus loft building comprising 9 self- contained residential units. The original scheme (ref. 8905/APP/2023/2419) was refused by the Planning Committee in April 2024, with the design, scale and bulk forming key reasons for refusal. While the applicant has sought to address these concerns through minor reductions — including a 1m reduction in width, a 900mm reduction in the depth of the front element, and a 1.2m set-back of the first and second floors at the rear — these amendments are not considered sufficient to overcome the fundamental concerns previousl y raised. 7.17 The proposed building would measure approximately 19m wide along the front elevation with a height of approximately 10m and a depth of 23.5m at ground floor which steps in by 1.2m at first and second floor. The building would be set in 2.366m to the front common boundary with No 88 and 6.1m from the side with 92 Lon g Lane. 7.18 It is acknowledged that since the previous refusal, the proposed width has been reduced by approximately 1m, the length of front element has been reduced by 900mm, the first and second floor has been reduced in depth by over 1.2m. However, this does not go far enough to address the concerns of the previous refusal. Despite the applicant’s comparison in terms of percentage of built area, the development would continue to appear quite imposing due to its size, massing and scale which appears significantly greater than any of the existing buildings within the immediate area. The proposed bulk and massing should respond to the surrounding context, rather than plot size. As a result, the proposed development would appear disruptive and incon gruous within the street scene. 7.19 A key concern remains the overall scale and bulk of the projecting Dutch-style rear return which would appear disproportionate within the building. This element, by virtue of its depth, height, and width, would dominate the rear elevation and fails to appear as a subservient addition to the main building. The rear projection would extend approximately 12m, which is larger than the depth of the main front building section. Combined with its substantial width, even with a modest set-in of 1.2m on each side, this exacerbates the overall scale and bulk, causing harm to the building’s overall design and to the wider Conservation Area. Visuall y the combination of both the main frontage building and the rear Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press projecting element would be imposing. Whilst, the projecting element would be more visible from flank, and rear viewpoints, given its overall height and width in proximity to the main roof, there would be some visibility also from public vanta ge points. 7.20 The resultant form would appear cramped and overdeveloped compared to the prevailing looser urban grain and development pattern along Long Lane. Although the staggered building line reflects some aspects of the street’s character, this would not mitigate the excessive massing, which would be readily visible from both public and private viewpoints. The proposed development would therefore represent a cramped and overly intensive form of development, and a more significant reduction in the size and scale of the building would be necessar y to achieve an acceptable form. 7.21 The transition in scale between the proposed building and the modest dwelling at No. 92 Long Lane would be abrupt, resulting in a visually obtrusive and awkward relationship that fails to integrate appropriately into the streetscape. The increased footprint, extending beyond the rear of both neighbouring properties, would be clearly perceptible in views along Long Lane, especially given the staggered nature of the building line. Consequently, the development would cause harm to the settin g of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. 7.22 In terms of design detailing, whilst the proposal attempts to draw on the neighbouring development by incorporating mock Tudor features to the front elevation, this has been poorly executed. The detailing is basic and lacks the high- quality design expected within the Conservation Area. To the rear, the excessive fenestration and inconsistent window proportions result in an unduly prominent and visually discordant appearance, failing to respect the more restrained, local character. As such, the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and fail to preserve or enhance its si gnificance 7.23 Overall, the siting, size, width, scale, massing and design of the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the character, appearance, and visual amenity of the area. The development would fail to preserve or enhance the setting of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area and the public benefits would not outweigh the less than substantial harm, contrary to Policies BE1 and HE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One – Strategic Policies (2012); Policies DMHB 1, DMHB 4, DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies (2020); Policies HC1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021); and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024). Residential Amenity 7.24 Paragraph 139 of the NPPF (2024) requires that developments create places that are safe, inclusive, and accessible, promoting health and well-being with a high standard of amenity for both existing and future users, while ensuring that crime, disorder, and the fear of crime do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion. In line with this, Polic y DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press – Development Management Policies (2020) states that development proposals must not adversely impact the amenity, daylight, or sunlight of adjoining properties and open spaces. 7.25 To safeguard residential privacy, Paragraph 5.38 of the Local Plan outlines a minimum separation distance of 21 metres between windows of habitable rooms, with greater distances potentially required where there are significant changes in ground levels. Furthermore, Paragraph 5.40 defines outlook as the visual amenity experienced from windows or gardens and requires that proposals avoid creating an increased sense of enclosure or loss of outlook. Paragraph 5.41 reinforces the importance of protecting daylight and sunlight levels for habitable rooms, amenity areas, and public open spaces, requiring assessments to follow the most up-to- date BRE guidelines on site layout planning for daylight and sunlight. Collectively, these policies ensure that new developments respect the amenity of neighbours and deliver hi gh-quality, liveable environments. 7.26 The principle neighbouring dwellings to consider are numbers 92 Long Lane, located to the southwest and Number 88 Long Lane which has been replaced with a flatted development to the northeast. Privacy 7.27 The front elevation windows of the proposed development would front Long Lane, maintaining a separation distance of approximately 50 metres from properties opposite. As such, no concerns are raised in relation to overlooking or loss of privac y for those occupiers. 7.28 In respect of side windows at ground floor level, no material loss of privacy would arise given the presence of 2m high boundary fencing, which would screen views up to 1.8m. Had the application been recommended for approval, a condition would have been secured requiring first- and second-floor side-facing windows to be fitted with obscure glazing and to be non-opening below 1.8 metres from finished floor level. This would ensure the protection of neighbouring privacy without unduly impacting the quality of accommodation for future occupiers, as the side windows would be secondary windows to habitable rooms. Views from rear-facing windows would broadly replicate the existing situation. Light and Outlook 7.29 The current proposal is supported by a Daylight and Sunlight Assessment, which was not submitted with the previously refused scheme. A total of 34 windows serving neighbouring properties were tested. Two types of daylight assessments were carried out. The Vertical Sky Component (VSC) test found that only four windows would experience minor shortfalls against the recommended daylight standards. These are Window 22 (First Floor, Flat G, 88 Long Lane) and Windows 28, 29, and 30 (Ground Floor Flats A and C, 88 Long Lane). The second daylight test — the No Sky Line (NSL) assessment, which measures the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press distribution of daylight within rooms — confirmed that all affected rooms would continue to meet the required standards. 7.30 However, whilst the shortfall in daylight levels to the above windows is outside of BRE recommendations, this does not necessarily mean that the development’s impact would be significant or unacceptable. The BRE Guidance represents ‘Best Practice Guidance’ and it notes that the advice given in the report is not mandatory and “should be interpreted flexibly since natural lighting is only one of many factors in layout design”. For example, it is necessary to have regard to whether the affected rooms are dual aspect; whether the windows serve habitable rooms and whether the windows are located close to the boundar y of the site. 7.31 Consequently, any window that does not fully achieve the guidance contained within the BRE Report has been considered individually within the submitted Sunlight and Daylight Report to assess their likely significance. Officers agree with the overall assessments contained within the submitted sunlight and daylight report (pp. 17-18) as follows: x Window 22 serves the living room / kitchen of Flat G at 88 Long Lane. The proposed development will reduce the proposed VSC to this window marginally below 27% and the proposed level of daylight would be 0.71 times the former. However, Window 22 is a secondary window with Windows 19, 20 and 21 all also serving the same room, two of which will retain a VSC of over 27% and all three with a reduction in daylight that would be considered acceptable. Given this is a secondary window without further impacts to the other windows, it can be concluded that the room will remain well-lit regardless to the impact to this window and therefore any impact to this rooms is considered insignificant. x Windows 28 and 29 serve the living room / kitchen of Flat C at 88 Long Lane. As with the living room / kitchen of Flat G, windows 28 and 29 are secondary windows, with the primary window located at Window 27 which will retain over 36% VSC and will be significantly larger than both window 28 and 29combined. Consequently, it can be concluded that the room will remain well-lit despite the impact to these two windows and therefore any impact to this rooms is considered insignificant. x Window 30 serves a bedroom to Flat A at 88 Long Lane. This bedroom is also served by window 34 where the impact is considered acceptable. Consequently, it can be concluded that the room will remain well-lit despite the impact to this window and therefore any impact to this rooms is considered insignificant. 7.32 In terms of sunlight, the Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH) assessment confirms compliance, with only two windows (Windows 28 and 29, Ground Floor, Flat C, 88 Long Lane) falling marginally short of the Winter Probable Sunlight Hours target. Importantly, these windows serve a room where the principal source of li ght is from the rear, thus reducing the overall impact. 7.33 On balance, the assessment demonstrates that the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable loss of daylight or sunlight to neighbouring flats, and overall li ght levels would remain satisfactory. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.34 However, significant concerns remain in relation to the scale, depth and massing of the proposed building and its consequent impact on outlook and sense of enclosure. The proposed building would project significantly beyond the main rear wall of both neighbouring residential dwellings at Nos. 88 and 92 Long Lane and given the overall height of the secondary projection element, it would cause harm to these ad joining neighbours amenity. 7.35 There are a number of windows on both neighbouring properties where the outlook would be compromised by the extended depth beyond the established rear building line. The building would maintain a uniform height of approximately 10 metres from front to rear, with limited articulation or relief along its rear elevation. Although the rear roof adopts a barn-style profile, it retains substantial height and mass, which would appear particularly dominant when viewed from the rear gardens and habitable rooms of neighbouring properties. 7.36 At No. 92 Long Lane, the neighbouring dwelling features a dining room and conservatory facing towards the proposed development. Although there would be a degree of separation, the scale, height and proximity of the proposed building would result in an unacceptable sense of enclosure and loss of outlook for these occupiers. Similarly, at No. 88 Long Lane (the adjacent flatted development), several ground floor windows, including a lounge window, face towards the application site. The depth and bulk of the proposed building would similarly create an overbearing impact and lead to a loss of visual amenity for these occupiers. 7.37 In summary, while the revised scheme has satisfactorily addressed previous concerns relating to daylight and sunlight, it fails to overcome concerns regarding the impact on neighbouring amenity through the loss of outlook, a sense of enclosure, and an overbearing relationship. Noise, Activity and Disturbance 7.38 The development site is located within a dense residential area with smaller and larger homes. The intensification of residential use, arising from the provision of additional units, would not be considered out of character or of a scale that would generate unacceptable levels of noise or disturbance. Had the application been recommended for approval, a condition requiring the submission of a Construction Management Plan would have been secured to minimise noise, disruption, and pollution durin g the construction phase. 7.39 It is noted that the internal arrangement of the proposed flats would place kitchen/living/dining areas above bedrooms of ground floor flats. However, compliance with Approved Document E of the Building Regulations would be sufficient to address potential noise transmission between units, and no additional planning conditions would have been considered necessary in this re gard, in the event of an approval. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Conclusion 7.40 It is therefore concluded that the proposed development would cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, specifically through an unacceptable loss of outlook, an overbearing impact, and a resulting sense of enclosure. The development would therefore fail to accord with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies (2020) and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) Quality of Residential Accommodation (Internal and External) Internal Amenity Space 7.41 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 in order 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. 7.42 Based on the submitted plans, all nine proposed flats would meet the minimum internal space standards as set out in Table 3.1 of the London Plan (2021). The proposed internal layouts, including floor-to-ceiling heights, would provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future occupiers. Each flat would benefit from a primary outlook to either the front or rear of the building, with additional secondary windows to the flanks providing improved cross-ventilation and access to natural light. 7.43 Although the design incorporates a barn-style roof, which results in some restricted headroom at the sides, the main living areas would retain substantially higher floor-to-ceiling heights than the minimum requirement. Officers are satisfied, on review of the floorplans, that the majority of the top floor flats would meet the minimum 2.3 metre height standard in line with the Housing Technical Standards. On balance, given the additional internal floorspace provided, the accommodation would achieve suitable headroom for future residents. 7.44 The open-plan kitchen/living areas would be served by large unobscured windows or glazed doors leading onto patios, ensuring good levels of natural light. Ground floor bedrooms would benefit from unobscured side-facing windows, while first and second floor bedrooms would retain satisfactory levels of light and outlook, despite the use of obscured glazing to side-facing windows. Although two of the loft bedrooms would rely solely on rooflights, given that they are secondary bedrooms, this arrangement is considered acceptable and would provide an adequate standard of residential amenity. 7.45 It is acknowledged that the communal garden would be accessed via pathways running alongside the building, which could potentially impact the privacy of ground floor occupiers. However, this issue could be appropriately mitigated by a landscapin g condition requiring the provision of defensible planting between Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press flank windows and the access routes, similar to the arrangement at No. 88 Long Lane, in the event of an approval. 7.46 Taking all of the above into account, it is considered that the proposal would provide an acceptable standard of residential accommodation for future occupiers, with adequate internal space, natural light and outlook. The development would therefore comply with Policy DMHB 16 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies (2020) and Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021). External Amenity Space 7.47 Policy DMHB 18: Private Outdoor Amenity Space states that applications for residential development should provide adequate levels of private, well designed and located amenit y space. 7.48 Table 5.2 of the Local Plan specifies that two-bedroom and three-bedroom flats should provide a minimum of 25 sqm and 30 sqm of private amenity space respectively. While none of the upper floor flats would benefit from private balconies, two ground floor flats would have private patios of approximately 16 sqm, which falls below the minimum standard. 7.49 However, the development proposes a substantial communal garden to the rear of the site, exceeding 600 sqm, which would be landscaped to a high standard (details to be secured by condition in the event of an approval). This provision is considered sufficient to offset the shortfall in private amenity space. Landscaping details would also ensure that a suitable defensible buffer is maintained around the private patios to ensure their usability and protect the privacy of ground floor occupier 7.50 A soft and hard landscaping scheme would be conditioned, in the event of an approval, to ensure the standard and quality of the communal space is good. Given the communal space is large and usable, the short fall of private amenity space would be, on balance, acceptable. 7.51 Overall, it is considered that the quantity and quality of external amenity space would be sufficient to serve the proposed dwellings. The proposal would therefore comply with Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies (2020), Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021), and paragraph 135(f) of the NPPF (2024). Highways and Parking 7.52 The application site is located on B466 Long Lane, a classified road with a 30mph speed limit which is subject to single yellow line parking restrictions Monday – Saturday between 8am and 6.30pm. An advisory cycle lane runs along Long Lane across the site frontage. The application site is located in an area with a PTAL ranking of 2 indicating that the proposal would be located in an area with poor access to public transport which fails to concur with National Plannin g Polic y Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Framework (NPPF) 9: Promoting Sustainable Transport and The Mayor’s Transport Strategy which aims to encourage people to walk, cycle and travel by public transport. Parking Provision 7.53 The London Plan (2021) Table 10.3 - Maximum Residential Parking Standards requires all dwellings in Outer London PTAL 2 to have a maximum 0.75no. spaces. Drawing 3321-BP2-02 titled Proposed Block Plan shows 9no. parking spaces which would be acceptable. The London Plan Policy T6: Car Parking - Paragraph J states that a Parking Design and Management Plan should be submitted alongside all applications which include car parking provision, indicating how the car parking would be designed and managed, with reference to Transport for London guidance on parking management and parking design. A Parking Design and Management Plan would therefore be required that should ensure that all car parking spaces are allocated and leased, not sold, to the dwellings to which they relate and should include drawings/documents addressing the demarcation of the shared surface which should be secured b y condition in the event of an approval. Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCP's) 7.54 The London Plan (2021) requires that an EVCP is provided for the proposed parking spaces. The Application form states that 2no. active and 7no. passive ECVPs would be provided which would be acceptable. In the event of an approval, a condition would secure the provision and retention of 2no. 7kw active EVCPs and 7no. passive EVCPs. Cycle Parking and safety 7.55 The London Plan (2021) Table 10.2 - Minimum Cycle Parking Standards requires two- bedroom dwellings to have a minimum of 2no. cycle parking spaces and that developments of 5-40 dwellings provide 2 visitor cycle parking space which should be provided with acceptable access between the dwelling, the cycle storage and the adopted highway. Drawing 3321-BP2-02 titled Proposed Block Plan shows 18no. cycle spaces which is an acceptable level of cycle parking for the dwellings, however, 2 visitor cycle parking spaces would be required which should be located close to the main access to the flats. 1no. ‘Sheffield’ type cycle stand would be acceptable. In the event of an approval, this would be secured b y condition. Access 7.56 In terms of vehicular access, the previous application raised concerns regarding the access gate due to vehicles having to wait on the road. Additional information has been provided, including vehicle tracking and the removal of the gate. A Transport Note produced by Magna Transport Planning Ltd has also been provided, detailing analysis of the site location within the Local Highway Network. The document provides details of collisions, information on non-vehicular forms of transport and public transport availability. The tracking details demonstrates that vehicles enterin g the site and stoppin g in front of the entrance can be achieved Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press without causing a safety concern to the highway. On the basis of the additional information provided, the Highway’s Authority no longer object to the scheme on hi ghway safety grounds. Vehicular Trip Generation 7.57 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 an y specific highway concerns. Refuse Collection 7.58 Refuse bins are indicated on the proposed site plans with the elevations, further details of materials would be secured by condition in the event of an approval. Construction Management Plan 7.59 As the site is situated on a busy classified road (B466), were the scheme to be considered acceptable, a Demolition and Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) would be required. These details should clearly demonstrate how all risks to personal safety would be managed. It should also detail how interaction between construction traffic and vehicles already on the network would be planned which should concur with Construction Logistics and Community Safety (CLOCS) Construction Logistics Planning (CLP) Guidance Version: v1.2 (April 2021 ). This would be required by condition in the event of an approval. Accessibility 7.60 London Plan (2021) Policy D7 states: 'To provide suitable housing and genuine. choice for London's diverse population, including disabled people, older people and families with young children, residential development must ensure that: 1) at least 10 per cent of dwellings (which are created via works to which Part M volume 1 of the Building Regulations applies) meet Building Regulation requirement M4(3) 'wheelchair user dwellings' 2) all other dwellings (which are created via works to which Part M volume 1 of the Building Regulations applies) meet Building Regulation requirement M4(2) 'accessible and adaptable dwellin gs'. 7.61 The proposed development does not include a lift, meaning upper floor units would only meet the M4(1) baseline standard via Building Control. However, in accordance with Policy D7 of the London Plan (2021), which seeks to ensure inclusive housing options, all new dwellings must meet either M4(3) wheelchair user standards (for at least 10% of homes) or M4(2) accessible and adaptable standards. The submitted floor plans confirm that the ground floor units comply with the M4(2) requirements, and the Council’s Accessibility Officer has raised no ob jection, sub ject to conditions. These include submission of details to ensure Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press step-free access and verification that the ground floor units meet M4(2) standards. Subject to these conditions, the proposal is considered to accord with the inclusive desi gn objectives of Policy D7 of the London Plan (2021). Trees and Landscaping 7.62 Policy G1 of the London Plan (2021) requires development proposals to incorporate appropriate elements of green infrastructure that contribute to London’s wider green infrastructure network. Policy G7 states that existing trees of value should be retained wherever possible, and that adequate replacement plantin g should be provided where tree loss is unavoidable. 7.63 Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies (2020) require that developments are high quality, sustainable, and respond appropriately to their local context. Proposals must include landscaping that enhances amenity, biodiversity, and green infrastructure, particularl y in areas where such infrastructure is limited. 7.64 The site benefits from a number of mature trees, particularly along the Long Lane frontage, which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. An Arboricultural Report submitted with the application identifies 33 individual trees and five groups of trees, with several specimens classified as Category A and B quality. Three trees located at the rear of the site are protected by Tree Preservation Order (TPO 482a), and other trees within the site are protected by virtue of their location within the Conservation Area. 7.65 The scheme has been revised since a previous refusal to retain the Category A tree (T38), which had previously been proposed for removal. The Council’s Trees and Landscaping Officer has welcomed this amendment but raised some concerns which Officers are

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Mike Kemp 585/APP/2024/1879 Date Application Valid: 11/07/2024 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 09/05/2025 Application Type: Hybrid (Outline and Full) Ward: Uxbridge Applicant: VSM Estates Limited Site Address: St Andrews Park, Hillingdon Road, Uxbridge Proposal: Hybrid planning application comprising: Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved) for residential development and commercial uses, to be occupied flexibly within Use Classes E(a), E(b), E(c), E(e), E(g)(i), E(g)(ii) and a convenience store (Use Class E(a)); plus car parking, hard and soft landscaping, and all other associated works; Plus, full planning permission for reinstatement of gym use (Use Class E(d)) and change of use to provide a cafe (Use Class E(b)) within the former cinema building; and external alterations; and associated car parking, hard and soft landscaping and all other associated works. 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 – 7th May 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. Section 106 Legal Agreement Heads of Terms: It is recommended that delegated powers be given to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth to grant planning permission subject to the following: 1. That the application be referred back to the Greater London Authority. 2. That should the Mayor not issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the Local Planning Au thority for the purposes of determining the application, delegated powers be give n to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth to approve this application subject to: 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. To secure on-site affordable housing, to include a provision of 35% by habitable room with 70% being London Affordable Rent (LAR) and 30% Shared Ownership. 2. Air Quality Mitigation Contribution of £270,527. 3. Residential Parking Permits restriction (excluding Blue Badge holders). 4. Provision of car club parking. 5. An Employment/Construction Training Scheme secured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD. 6. Carbon Offset contribution: In the event that the reserved matter applications are not net zero a carbon offset payments shall be paid to the Council's carbon offset fund. 7. London Healthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU) financial contribution of £127,720 to fund enhanced or new health facilities within the London Borough of Hillingdon. 8. Designation of public open space within the site to remain publicly accessible in perpetuity. 9. A Healthy Streets/Active Travel Zone contribution of £100,000. 10. A Section 278 Agreement to implement the proposed off-site Highways Works. 11. PROW: Contribution of £1,500 to fund Council legal costs diverting Public Right of Way U63. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 12. A Strategy outlining the timescales/phasing associated with the delivery of the works to the former cinema building and St Andrews Gate 13. 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 wording of the heads of terms, the proposed Legal 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 and Sustainable Growth), delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth to refuse planning permission for the following reason: The applicant has failed to mitigate the impacts posed by the proposed development (in respect of affordable housing, air quality, parking restrictions and sustainable travel, employment/construction training, carbon offsetting, health, highways safety and public acce ss). The scheme therefore conflicts with Policies DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020); the adopted 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 The application site comprises a parcel of land which forms part of the St Andrews Park site, which was formerly RAF Uxbridge. The site consists mainly of cleared land, the only building on the site is the Grade II listed former cinema building which lies in the south west corner of the site. The site lies immediately to the east of Uxbridge Town Centre and occupies a prominent gateway location along Hillingdon Road. 1.2 Policy SA 28 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part 2 Site Allocations and Designations (2020) covers St Andrews Park, Uxbridge, including the application site. The policy states that development shall be delivered in accordance with the approved planning permission (585/APP/2009/2752) which covered the provision of 1340 residential units; 14,000 sq. m. of office floorspace; a 90-bedroom hotel; associated commercial uses; education facilities; and associated landscaping, car Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press parking, and amenity space provision. Planning permission 585/APP/2009/2752 has expired and the site remains the only parcel of land associated with the site allocation that has not been developed or does not benefit from extant planning permission. 1.3 Hybrid planning permission is sought, comprising: Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved) for residential development and commercial uses, to be occupied flexibly within Use Classes E(a), E(b), E(c), E(e), E(g)(i), E(g)(ii) and a convenience store (Use Class E(a)); plus car parking, hard and soft landscaping, and all other associated works . Full planning permission is sought too for the renovation of the former cinema building for use as a gym and café alongside external alterations; and associated car parking, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works. 1.4 The development is considered to broadly comply with the aims of the site Policy SA 28 and would bring forward the effective use of a prominent brownfield site to provide a mixed-use development of an appropriate density. The outline planning permission includes the provision of up to 356 residential dwellings, of which 35% would be affordable which would provide an important contribution towards meeting local housing need, in particular the need for affordable homes with the development achieving compliance with Policy DMH 7 of the Local Plan Part 2 and Policy H6 of the London Plan with regard to affordable housing provision. 1.5 The detailed element of the planning permission would secure the viable re-use of the Grade II former cinema building as a gym and a café. This would include the repair and renovation of a disused heritage asset that has been identified by Historic England as being at risk, which would provide significant heritage benefits. The proposals include the repair and renovation of the locally listed St Andrews Gate . Owing to the scale of development within the outline element of the scheme, it is considered that the development would result in less than substantial harm to the setting and the significance of the former cinema building. This limited harm is considered to be outweighed by the substantial public benefits of the development, including the provision of a substantial quantity of housing, of which 35% would be affordable, as well as the provision of commercial space. Further significant benefits include the renovation and reuse of the Grade II listed former cinema building, the provision of new high quality public open space, the renovation of the locally listed St Andrews Gate , the provision of 10% biodiversity net gain across the site and significant placemaking benef its given the prominence of what is a large town centre site. 1.6 The submitted parameter plans and indicative drawings accompanying the outline application indicate that appropriate provision is set out to ensure that future occupiers would benefit from acceptable internal amenity standards in terms of the quantity of floorspace and levels of natural light. Acceptable provision is made for external amenity space in the form of private balconies and communal gardens. It is considered that the parameters of the development would not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding residential occupiers, whilst allowing scope for the adequate standards of internal and external amenity space for future occupiers. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 1.7 Whilst noting the concerns expressed by the GLA, it is considered that the level of parking provision is acceptable accounting for the location of the site, transport accessibility and levels of parking provision elsewhere within the St Andrews Park development. It is considered that subject to the relevant conditions and obligations highlighted in this report that the development would not have an adverse impact on highway safety or amenity. 1.8 The proposals are considered to adequately address where necessary matters of energy efficiency, air quality, land contamination, protection of trees and protection of biodiversity and provision of biodiversity net gain , subject to the various conditions outlined in this report and Appendix 1. 1.9 On balance, the proposal is acceptable and would comply with the overarching aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), The London Plan (2021) and the Hillingdon Local Plan. 1.1 0 The planning application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the conditions contained in Appendix 1; the Section 106 Heads of Terms detailed above, and Stage II referral to the Greater London Authority. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site comprises a 1.8 hectare parcel of land which forms part of the St Andrews Park site, that was formerly RAF Uxbridge. The site consists mainly of cleared land, the only building on the site is the Grade II listed former cinema building which lies in the south west corner of the site. There are five trees within this part of the site which are protected through a blanket Tree Preservation Order (TPO) covering the whole of the St Andrews Park site. St Andrews Gate, which is a locally listed heritage asset is located along the western edge of the site, which is a brick entrance gate associated with the former RAF Uxbridge site. To the side of the main gateway is a public right of way which crosses the site leading between Park Road and St Andrews Road. 2.2 The site lies within Uxbridge Town Centre and occupies a prominent gateway location along Hillingdon Road and Park Road. A parcel of land to the east of the site has been recently developed for a high-density residential scheme consisting of apartment buildings which forms an earlier phase of the development, this is known as ‘The Triangle’. Construction has commenced on another phase of development to the south east of the site known as Town Centre West, consented under application reference 585/APP/2016/4504. To the south east of the site is the locally listed Mons Barracks building and to the east of this is a clear ed site with planning perm ission also for a high-density residential development ( 585/ APP/2022/665). The site lies within an Air Quality Management and Air Quality Focus Area. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red). The full element of the hybrid planning permission is shaded re d, the remainder of the site forms the outline element of the planning permission. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Aerial Image of Application Site Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Street View Images View from the roundabout to the West of the site adjoining Park Road. View of the south of the site and former cinema buidling from Hilingdon Road adjoining the junction with Burton Road. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press View of the north of the site from St Andrews Road adjoining the junction with Park Road 3 Proposal 3.1 Hybrid planning permission is sought, this consists of a mix of outline and full elements. Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved) is sought for: x Up to 356 residential dwellings, in buildings ranging up to 10 storeys; of which, 35% of units are affordable homes. x Up to 660sqm GIA of flexible commerci al space (Use Classes E(a), E(b), E(c), E(e), E(g)(i) and E(g)(ii)). This includes retail, food and drink, financial and professional services, medical/healthcare, office and research/development uses. x Up to 440sqm (GIA) of additional commercial space fixed for use as a convenience store (Use Class E(a)). x Retention and refurbishment of St. Andrew’s Gate in its current location. x A minimum of 2,500sqm publicly accessible open space. x Provision of private communal spaces. 3.2 Parameter plans have been submitted in support of the planning application. Should outline planning permission be granted, the parameter plans woul d form control documents, and any future reserved matters application would be expected to comply with the details set out within the submitted parameter plans. The following parameter plans have been submitted: x Parameter Plan 1 – Building Zones – the location /footprint of any new buildings. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press x Parameter Plan 2 – Building Uses Parameter Plan – the location/distribution of commercial and residential uses at ground floor level. x Parameter Plan 2.1 – the location/distribution of all uses above ground floor level (all residential). x Parameter Plan 3 – Building Heights Parameter Plan – the distribution of maximum building heights. x Parameter Plan 4 – Access and Movement – location of vehicle and pedestrian accesses, servicing, on and off-street parking; and public rights of way. x Parameter Plan 5 - Landscape and public realm – distribution of public realm and streetscapes, hard and soft landscaping and private spaces. 3.3 The outline application is also accompanied by a design code. This document sets out a series of design cri teria which must be incorporated within the detailed design for the buildings under any forthcoming reserved matters applications. An indicative landscape masterplan has also been submitted showing the indicative layout of the development and siting of the public realm and provision of hard and soft landscaping. 3.4 To provide further guidance to aid assessment of the application, CGI plans have been submitted showing how development may come forward in line with the submitted parameter plans and measures set out within the design code and other accompanying documents . The colour rendered visuals show how the development may appear in terms of the height, massing, use of materials and distribution of uses and public realm/o pen space, however it must be noted that these visuals are indicative only, as the detailed design of the buildings would be determined under future reserved matters applications. 3.5 Amendments have been made to the design code and parameter plans to provide differentiation between the hard and soft landscaping and to include a landscaping strip along the Hillingdon Road and Park Road frontages. 3.6 Full planning permission is sought for the reinstatement/change of use of the Grade II listed former cinema building for a 776sqm gym (Class E(d)) and a 216sqm café (Class E) and the provision of adjoining landscaping, parking and public realm. A series of external alterations are proposed to the building to facilitate the change of use, which include the installation of new flat roof above existing squash courts with cast iron gutters and rainwater pipes , replacement of existing windows and doors , installation of new window and door openings and the addition of an access ramp to the west of the entrance steps into the main hall. 3.7 An associated listed building consent application has been submitted for the internal and external alterations to the listed building (585/APP/2024/1799) and is included on the agenda for the 7th May 2025 Planning Committee. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Proposed Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Parameter Plan 1 – Building Zones Parameter Plan - showing development zones A, B and C within the outline phase (shaded blue) and the development area for which detailed permission is sought – shaded red. Illustrative landscape masterplan for outline and detailed elements. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Illustrative Visual showing view from St Andrews Gate Illustrative Visual of Park Road frontage and streetside landscaping Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Illustrative view of Squadron Square Public Realm Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Illustrative Visual of Roundell Place Public Realm to rear of former cinema building Illustrative visual of front of renovated former cinema building Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the application site can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 The relevant planning history is discussed in detail within the report, particularly hybrid planning permission 585/APP/2009/2752 which relates to the St Andrews Park site in its entirety. The permission which was granted in 2012 and has now expired is referenced under site allocation Policy SA 28 related to the following: 1. Outline application (all matters reserved, except for access) including demolition of some existing buildings and: a) Creation of up to 1,296 residentia l dwellings (Class C3) of between 2 to 6 residential storeys; b) Creation of up to 77 one-bedroom assisted living retirement accommodation of between 3 to 4 storeys; c) Creation of a three-form entry primary school of 2 storeys; d) Creation of a hotel (Class C1) of 5 storeys of up to 90 beds; e) Creation of a 1,200 seat theatre with ancillary cafe (Sui Generis); office (Class B1a) of up to 13,860sq.m; energy centre (Sui Generis) of up to 1,200sq.m; and retail (Class A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) of up to 2,850sq m; in buildings of between 4 to 6 storeys as well as a tower element associated with the theatre of up to 30m; f) Creation of a local centre to provide up to 150sq.m of retail (Class A1 and A2) and 225sq.m GP surgery (Class D1); Means of access and improvements to pedestrian linkages to the Uxbridge Town centre; car parking; provision of public open space including a district park; landscaping; sustainable infrastructure and servicing. 2. In addition to the above, full planning permission for: a) Creation of 28 residential dwellings (Class C3) to the north of Hillingdon House of between 2 to 3 storeys as well as associated amenity space and car parking; b) Change of use of Lawrence House (Bui lding No. 109) to provide 4 dwellings (Class C3), associated amenity space and car parking including a separate freestanding garage; c) Change of use and alterations to the Carpenters building to provide 1 residential dwelling (Class C3); d) Change of use and alterations to the Sick Quarters (Building No. 91) to provide 4 dwellings (Class C3) as well as associated amenity space and car parking; e) Change of use of Mons barrack block (Building No. 146A) to provide 7 dwellings (Class C3) as well as associated amenity space and car parking; f) Change of use of the Grade II listed former cinema building to provide 600sq.m Class D1/2 use (no building works proposed); g) Change of use and alterations to the Grade II listed Hillingdon House to provide 600sq.m for a restaurant (Class A3) on th e ground floor and 1,500sq.m of office (Class B1) on the ground, first and second floors. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to t he consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 A total of 1108 separate neighbouring properties were consulted directly regarding the proposed development. Three site notices were posted on 21 st August 2024. Following the amendments to the design code and parameter plans, further consultation was carried out by direct notification and through the posting of new site notices on 4 th March 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 ha ve also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response A total of 10 public comments have been received in objection to the planning application. 1. Concern regarding increase in residents and impact on facilities and amenities. The provision of new facilities and demand on existing facilities is discussed within paragraphs 7.147 to 7.150 of this report. 2. Design and scale of development is excessive. The height and scale of the development is addressed with in paragraphs 7.29 to 7.54 of the report. 3. Scale and impact on RAF Northolt Flight Path. RAF Northolt have been consulted and appropriate conditions have been attached to ensure airport safeguarding. 4. No reference to how sustainable the buildings would be and whether the buildings would achieve net zero. An Energy Statement has been submitted in support of the application which addresses this matter. This is addressed within paragraphs 7.179 to 7.185 of the report below. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 5. Insufficient parking is provided and existing issues of parking management at St Andrews Park. Parking provision and management is addressed in paragraphs 7.112 to 7.222 below. 6. Query need as development has halted on earlier phase of development. The need for additional homes is addressed in paragraphs 7.1 to 7.10 below. This has not diminished notwithstanding that development has stalled on the adjoining site. 7. Potential for increased crime and anti-social behaviour. Safety and security is addressed in paragraph 7.53 below. 8. Waste collection on the estate has been inadequate. Waste management as proposed within the scheme layout is addressed in paragraphs 7.176 to 7.178 of the report. 9. Build quality on the site has been poor, particularly the quality of roads. Design matters relating to the development proposals are addressed in paragraphs 7.29 to 7.54 below. 10. Concern regarding increased traffic generation. Traffic and associated highways impacts are addressed in paragraphs 7.102 to 7.111 of the report below. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Greater London Authority (GLA) Conditions requested to secure a fire statement, provision of M4(2) and M4(3) accessible homes, London Plan compliant cycle parking, Whole Life- Cycle Carbon Assessment, Circular Economy Statement, Urban Greening Factor and biodiversity net gain. The Applicant has submitted additional information following the GLA’s Stage I comments. Conditions have been recommended in line with the GLA’s recommendations. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Stage II referral to the GLA is required if resolved for approval at Planning Committee. Land Use Principles: The optimisation of the site for residential led mixed uses on this brownfield, town centre site is fully supported in strategic terms. Affordable Housing The indicative mix and quantum of affordable homes is supported. Transport The ATZ should be updated and appropriate contributions secured. Trip generation calculations should be revised. Parking provision should be reduced given the town centre location and residents should not be allowed to apply for a parking permit. Comments should be addressed in respect of the draft servicing, construction logistics and travel plans. Other issues on urban design, heritage, sustainable development environmental issues also require resolution prior to the mayor’s decision-making stage. Officers consider that the matters raised in the GLA’s Stage I comments have been addressed with the exception of the reduction in parking numbers following a request for further information to be provided by the applicant. The comments raised by the GLA with regard to access and parking are addressed within the relevant section of this report. The Local Planning Authority will refer the application back to the GLA for Stage II (as required) if the Planning Committee resolves to grant planning permission. Transport for London (TfL) To support facilitating a strategic modal shift towards active travel and the high-density development coming forward in this area, further contributions towards improving the active travel environment should be secured from this development. Proposals for the public realm on Park Road and St Andrew’s Road both include a second footway separated from the existing footway by a landscape buffer. While the inclusion of trees and other planting on these thresholds is supported, this fails to make best use of the space available for pedestrians and risks introducing confusion about what is public space and where people should walk. On Hillingdon Road, the scheme fails to address the lack of footway space around the St Andrew’s Church / Hillingdon Road bus stop. A financial contribution is sought towards active travel improvement to facilitate the remodelling of the adjoining roundabout improving the attractiveness of this route for pedestrians. Whilst the comments regarding the width of the pedestrian routes are noted, these meet minimum requirements and there is a need to balance accessibility Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press The proposed turning head in the northern part of the scheme detracts significantly from the quality of public realm. This is a space where pedestrian movement should be prioritised. If servicing has to happen here, it will be important to ensure that it is integrated sensitively into the space through choice of materials and includes features that promote pedestrian priority. The quantum of parking along the Spine Road raises concerns that a car -dominated landscape is being created, contrary to Policy T2, which in turn makes this road less attractive street for walking and cycling. The relationship between the development and Burton Road is poor, with a surface car park and servicing area proposed at the southern end of the site, occupying a prominent location when approaching the site from the south. While the proposed SUDS feature is welcome, there is little other indication what the green space wrapping around this car park is intended to be used for, other than as a buffer to the surrounding roads. Proposals for safe cycling around the scheme are lacking, and do not meet London Plan Policy T5 requirements on supporting the delivery of a network of cycle routes or improving infrastructure. In general, no safe means of accessing cycle storage areas has been provided and an opportunity has been missed to enhance cycle permeability through the area. Advise that the residential development should be car free. Request that details of cycle storage and EVCP’s are secured by planning condition. A Delivery and Servicing Plan and Construction Logistics Plan are requested by condition. A Travel Plan should be secured through the Section 106 Agreement. with the need to improve the public realm through additional street tree planting. The space adjoining the St Andrews Church bus stop is constrained by the location of the former cinema building. The size of the turning head is necessary, design measures to improve safety would be addressed under future reserved matters applications. The provision of landscaping adjoining Burton Road is required to deliver biodiversity net gain and urban greening. It is considered that the layout facilitates adequate permeability for cyclists in principle. Specific provision for access across the areas of public open space would be expected to be provided at Reserved Matters stage. Parking provision is assessed in detail within the transport section of this report. Details of cycle storage, EVCP’s, a delivery and servicing plan, and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press construction logistics plan would be secured by planning condition. A Travel Plan would also be secured. Airport Safeguarding - Heathrow No objection subject to submission of Bird Hazard Management Plan. A condition has been added to include the submission of a Bird Hazard Management Plan prior to the first occupation of the development. Transport for London – Underground Infrastructure Protection No comments to make. Noted Ministry of Defence Safeguarding At this consultation stage, where grid references for the location of each different height section of the proposed buildings over 10.7m in height and the design of every proposed building including roof structure are not available, and details concerning the proposals for addressing Biodiversity Net Gain or landscaping/planting for the proposed development have not been provided, the MOD representations are limited to the principle of the development only. Therefore, the MOD has safeguarding concerns and should be consulted at all future stages for this proposed development and on any reserved matters applications in relation to the outline application for this development in order to perform the appropriate safeguarding assessments. No objection to the full and change of use applications in relation to this development. The applicant has provided relevant information relating to building heights within the originally submitted plans as well as an aviation safeguarding assessment, a further update has been issued to the MOD and is pending review. A bird hazard management plan condition is recommended to be added to any permission. NAT’s (National Air Traffic Services) No objection Noted Thames Water The proposed development is located within 15 metres of a strategic sewer and a condition will be required specifying that no piling is carried out until a Comments are noted and the recommended condition has been Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press piling method statement has been submitted and approved in writing. Recommend that petrol / oil interceptors be fitted in all car parking/washing/repair facilities. Failure to enforce the effective use of petrol / oil interceptors could result in oil -polluted discharges entering local watercourses. No objection regarding foul water network capacity. The application indicates that surface water will not be discharged to the public network and as such Thames Water has no objection, however approval should be sought from the Lead Local Flood Authority. Should the applicant subsequently seek a connection to discharge surface water into the public network in the future then we would consider this to be a material change to the proposal, which would require an amendment to the application at which point we would need to review our position. added to the list of proposed conditions. NHS – Healthy Urban Development Unit There are significant issues with healthcare infrastructure capacity in the direct vicinity of the proposal site, particularly within the Synergy primary care network which is under notable pressure and operating substantially over ideal patient capacity limits. With this in mind, discussions with NHS Trust Partners have determined that the future growth in primary care demand created by this scheme could be accommodated through expanding, upgrading and reconfiguring local clinical space. There are a number of local primary care facilities which have been identified as opportunities for improvement. Plans are in the pipeline to increase local healthcare capacity and we therefore request a financial contribution of £126,720 in order to help facilitate the delivery of these plans, provide sufficient capital to improve NHS capacity in the area and subsequently accommodate the future population growth which would be created by this proposal. This figure equates to an average capital cost of £355 per unit. A S106 agreeme nt for this application should specifically require a financial contribution be used to Comments are noted and officers agree that the suggested financial contribution would be proportionate, reasonable and necessary. The contribution is included with the draft H eads of Terms set out within this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press expand the capacity of primary care health facilities which could serve the application site. National Cinema Theatre Association Overall, the CTA supports this creative re-use of a fine building in traditional style of the WW1 period: 1. Use as a gym is fully in keeping with the building's original purpose, of providing entertainment and recreation. 2. The restoration of the hall's interior is sensitively designed. 3. The squash court walls have small historic value, and conversion to a cafe is very appropriate. However, we also urge that: 4. Replacement of the original Crittall windows is more contentious and must be done strictly 'like for like', with new windows to the original design. 5. The opportunity must be taken to reinstate two original features of the exterior: the central turret or lantern on the roof, and the ball finials on the outer corners. The comments made in support of the planning application are noted. Details of the replacement windows which are like for like in appearance have been included in the related application for listed building consent. The reinstatement of the central turret or lantern on the roof, and the ball finials on the outer corners was discussed with the applicant, however this has not been proposed. Whilst desirable these are not currently features of the building and even in the absence of the reinstatement of these features works would represent an enhancement to the significance of the listed building. Metropolitan Police No response received following consultation Conditions have been added to include a requirement to achieve secured by design accreditation. London Fire Brigade No response received following consultation In the absence of a response a condition has been added requiring the submission of a fire statement for each relevant phase of the development. Further Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press details relating to fire safety would be required at reserved matters stage. Internal Consultees Comments Highways No objections subject to conditions requiring the submission of a Travel Plan, car parking management plan, construction logistics plan, EV charging and cycle parking, plus an Active Travel Zone contribution. The suggested conditions have been included at Appendix 1 of the report. A Healthy Streets/Active Travel Zone contribution of £100,000 is included within the Heads of Terms. Access Officer No objection raised in relation to the detailed element of the proposals, attention is brought to the following matters in respect of the outline proposals: x Convenient drop off points required for door- to-door transport. x 10% of the residential units in the development required to meet M4(3) wheelchair user standards. x Affordable units to each meet M4(3) wheelchair user standards. x Where lift access is necessary to achieve a step free approach to the principal private entrance, all M4(3) units. x All remaining units must be designed to the standards for Category 2 M4(2) Accessible and Adaptable dwellings. x Any full planning application would need to provide details of the materials palette, with particular attention given to the paver types intended for use within the public realm. x The development should be served by at least two lifts. x All new developments are required to ensure reliable, convenient and dignified means of escape for all building users. x Details should be required on the accessible play equipment for disabled children. The requirement for 10% of dwellings to meet M4(3) standards and for all other dwellings to meet Category 2 M4(2) standards shall be secured by planning condition. The other matters raised are noted and should be detailed under any subsequent reserved matters applications. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press x The commercial units should be designed to accord with the prescribed standards set out in Approved Document M to the Building Regulations 2010 (2015 edition). Noise Officer No objection subject to conditions to secure appropriate levels of noise for residential occupiers. The proposed conditions are included in the list of recommended conditions. Contaminated Land Officer No objection subject to a condition requiring the submission of a scheme to deal with unacceptable contamination, to be submitted prior to the commencement of development. The suggested condition is included in the list of recommended conditions. Conservation Officer Impact on the significance of the cinema: The building would be enhanced through its restoration and improvements to its immediate setting. When viewed from within the site the impact of the building would not be changed as the new towers would be behind from east. To the south approaching the entrance there would be a change due to the new buildings rising above and similarly views from Hillingdon Road, (TVA view 3 & 9) and the north from Park Road where the views would be lost. Overall, the setting of the cinema wh en viewed from the south towards the main approach would suffer a level of harm. This is due to it losing its focus as the dominant feature within this area. The benefits of its restoration and enhancements to the landscaping would reduce this harm but not completely alleviate it. Overall, therefore, we would consider the level of harm to be less than substantial and at a low level. Impact on the Gates: The gates are as described in the heritage statement. The context would substantially change and so they would in essence be left as a relic within the site. The works proposed to the gates are minimal and would not reinstate the missing features Officers have reviewed the comments and have duly assessed the heritage impact of the works in the relevant section of the report below in addition to a consideration of the balance of public benefits against the degree of harm to the affected heritage ass ets. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press which as the heritage report notes detract from their significance. We note that there is some landscaping and planting proposed but this is now a curved avenue which would block most views from squadron square. The impact on the gates themselves would be less than substantial and at a low level. Impact upon St Andrews Church: We would agree with the heritage statement with regards to the description of the church and the areas where views are impacted from. In particular Park Road as demonstrated in TVA view 8. This would be detrimental as the view is currently open and the church forms the main visual landmark. This would in our view cause harm to the setting of the church. This would be less than substantial and at a low level when considering the overall context of the setting of the church. Waste Strategy Officer No objection Noted. A delivery and servicing plan is recommended to be secured by condition for the full and outline elements. Economic Development No objection subject to an Employment/Construction Training Scheme secured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD via a S106 Agreement. This request is a recommended Heads of Terms to be secured in the S106 Agreement. Air Quality Officer No objection subject to an Air Quality Mitigation contribution of £270,527 secured by a Section 106 Agreement and conditions regarding a low emission strategy (LES) and reducing emissions from demolition and construction. A S106 financial contribution is included in the recommended Heads of Terms and the recommended conditions have been included in Appendix 1. Lead Local Flood Authority No objection, subject to conditions requiring the submission of a detailed drainage strategy and details of management and maintenance of the drainage system. The recommended conditions have been included in Appendix 1 of the report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Planning Policy The site is allocated for residential-led mixed use development within the Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). This is based on the implementation of the Outline Planning Application (Ref: 585/APP/2009/2752) which included an expectation of 14,000 sqm of office flo orspace and a 90-bedroom hotel. Neither of these two elements are included within the scheme and there would not be any remaining locations within the site for them to be located. The application is therefore not consistent with Policy SA 28 of the Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). The proposal includes a small amount of commercial floorspace (Use Class E) at ground floor level which is deemed to be consistent with the site allocation. Policy SA 28 is based on an outline planning application that was approved in 2012. The need and availability of office and hotel floorspace has changed since this period. The Council ’s Employment Land Review (2023) outlines that average office rents in Hillingdon are £30 per sq ft. and have not grown since 2016. There is also existing supply within the town centre for occupiers that is closer to the tube station and established amenities. This therefore makes sizeable investment in office floorspace in this location improbable in the short to medium term. A new hotel (162 bedrooms) is proposed within planning application (Ref: 78696/APP/2024/867), which was approved by Planning Committee (09/04) subject to a S106 agreement. Comments are noted and matters relating to the in-principle acceptability of the proposed uses are addressed in further detail in the relevant section of the report that relates to the principle of development. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development Provision of Housing: 7.1 Policy H1 of the Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies (2012) states that the Council will meet and exceed its minimum strate gic dwelling requirement in accordance with other Local Plan policies. 7.2 Policy DMTC 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2: Development Management Policies (2020) states that the Council will support 'main town centre uses' where the development proposal is consistent with the scale and function of the centre. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.3 Policy SA 28 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part 2 Site Allocations and Designations (2020) covers St Andrews Park, Uxbridge, including the application site. It states that in accordance with the approved planning permission (585/APP/2009/2752) the Council will support the following development on the site of 1340 residential units; 14,000 sq. m. of office floorspace; a 90 -bedroom hotel; associated commercial uses; education facilities; and associated landscaping, car parking, and amenity space provision. The Council will seek to secure the development of the site in accordance with this permission. 7.4 It should be noted that hybrid consent 585/APP/2009/2752 has now expired, and that outline planning permission is no longer in place on the application site, although site allocation Policy SA 28 remains a material consideration when considering the principle of development. 7.5 The application site is the last substantial parcel of the St Andrews Park site that has not been developed, or benefits from extant planning permission. Accounting for all previous consents, including dwellings constructed and under construction across the various development plots on the site, permission is in place for 1388 homes. The proposals would provide 356 additional homes, which would increase the total number of dwellings on the St Andrews Park site to 1744 units. This exceeds the number of dwellings referenced under Policy SA 28; however, as noted the policy refers directly to the now expired hybrid permission for the site. There remains evidenced need within the borough for the provision of new homes and the site comprises previously developed land within a central location in Uxbridge, which represents a sustainable location for the development of new homes and therefore the provision of additional housing above the quantum of housing previously consented should be considered positively. 7.6 Paragraph 124 of the NPPF 2024 sets ou t that planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Paragraph 125 of the NPPF states that decisions should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land. 7.7 Policy H1 of the London Plan (2021) states that Boroughs should optimise the potential for housing delivery on all suitable and available brownfield sites through their Development Plans and planning decisions. The Policy states that this is particularly the case on sites with exist ing or planned public transport access levels (PTALs) 3 -6 or which are located within 800m distance of a station or town centre boundary. 7.8 There is substantial justification for the provision of additional homes above the figure set out under Policy SA 28. As noted, the previous planning permission on the site has now expired and development on the wider site as constructed has Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press evolved from the masterplan consented under the 2012 hybrid permission. It is noted in the subsections below that uses that were previously consented under the original hybrid permission are no longer proposed on this part of the site, namely the hotel, theatre and office uses. The provision of additional homes would make best use of a presently vacant site, whilst also making a significant contribution to meeting local need. 7.9 In relation to the quantum of units proposed, Policy DMHB17 of the Local Plan Part 2 requires that all new residential development should take account of the Residential Density Matrix contained in Table 5.3. The Density Matrix sets out that for mostly flatted development in Uxbrid ge Town Centre, a residential density of 165-405 units per hectare is approp riate. The outline part of the application site covers 1.5 hectares, whilst the application site as a whole covers an area of 1.8 hectares. Taken across the whole of the site, the density would equate to a density of 197 dwellings per hectar e, whilst across the outline part of the site this would equate to 237 dwellings per hectare. The density of development and overall provision of units is considered acceptable whe n accounting for the town centre location of the site, its sustainability inc luding access to public transport, as well as the need to provide a mix of uses and high-quality public realm. 7.1 0 It is considered that the proposals represent an efficient and appropriate re-use of previously developed land, and that the principle of the proposed development is therefore acceptable. The principle of residential development on this site has been established under the previously consented hybrid planning application. The provision of additional homes, above the number of dwellings previously consented is acceptable in principle in line with the Local Plan, London Plan and NPPF, subject to all wider implications which are assessed further below. Provision of Retail and Commercial Space and Non-Provision of Previously Consented Office Space: 7.1 1 The outline part of the application includes the provision of 660sqm GIA of flexible commercial space (Use Classes E(a), E(b), E(c), E(e), E(g)(i) and E(g)(ii); and up to 440sqm (GIA) of floorspace fixed as a convenience store (Use Class E(a)). All commercial uses would be provided at ground floor level and would be centred around the proposed areas of public open space. The Class E commercial uses that would be permitted could include retail, restaurants/cafes/ bars, financial/professional services; and office uses. The outline proposals do not include uses falling under Class E (d) or E (g) (iii) which relate to sports/recreation uses, and industrial uses respectively. 7.1 2 Policy E4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) states that the Council will strengthen the status of Uxbridge Town Centre as a Metropolitan Centre by delivering growth set out in Table 5.4 and promoting Uxbridge as a suitable location for retail, offices, hotels, recreation and leisure, entertainment and culture, evening and night -time economy, education, community services, and mixed-use development. The Council will secure improvements to Uxbridge public transport interchange and the town centre boundary will be expanded. The plan accompanying the policy showed an extension to the Town Centre which included Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the St Andrews Park site. Policy SEA 2 of the Local Plan Part 2 – Site Allocations and Designations includes the site within the defined area of Uxbridge Town Centre. 7.1 3 Uxbridge is identified as a Metropolitan Centre within the London Plan. Policies E4 and E5 of the Local Plan Part 1; Policy DMTC 1 of the Local Plan Part 2; Policies SD7 and E9 of the London Plan; as well as Part 7 of the NPPF 2024 supports prioritising the provision of main town centre uses, including retail uses within town centres such as Uxbridge. The provision of flexible Class E commercial uses such as those proposed on the site would be suitable in locational terms and would contribute positively to the vitali ty of Uxbridge Town Centre. Given the location of the site within the Town Centre, a sequential test or retail impact assessment would not be required in support of the planning application. 7.1 4 The submitted Uses Parameter Plan shows the location of the commercial uses, and this is considered acceptable in principle. Commercial uses adjoin the public realm, thereby maximising activity and the extent of active frontages which is appropriate in design terms and would serve to optimise the viability of the commercial space. 7.1 5 The site policy refers to the now expired hybrid permission granted in 2012, which included the provision of 14,000 sq. m. of office floorspace. A small proportion of office floorspace was provided at Hillingdon House, however it was initially anticipated that most of the office space would be provided within the parts of the site that would form an extension to Uxbridge Town Centre. Reserved matters permission was granted in 2016 for the erection of 1x5 storey office building and 1x4 storey office building which would have provided 13 ,782sqm of office floorspace on the application site. The consent was never implemented and has since expired. 7.1 6 The proposals do not include the provision of office floorspace on the site and given that this would be the last undevel oped part of the St Andrews Park site there would be a much lower level of office space than the figure of 14,000sqm set out in Policy SA 28 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part 2 Site Allocations and Designations (2020). As noted, the hybrid consent has expired and there have been considerable economic changes that have occurred since 2012 that have impacted on the demand for office accommodation, including an increase in hybrid and home working following the Covid pandemic. 7.1 7 A Commercial Office Assessment has been prepared by Rose Williams, Commercial Property Consultants in support of the planning application who are stated to be marketing over 20,159sqm of office space in Uxbridge annually. This includes several relatively new large-scale offices either within or close to the Town Centre, including The Charter Building, Belmont and Uxbridge Business Park. The Office Assessment also indicates declining demand for larger single let offices, which has resulted in the subdivision of offices into smaller suites. 7.1 8 The London Borough of Hillingdon Employment Land and Capacity Study December 2023 provides a reasonably up to date assessment of demand for office Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press space within Uxbridge. Uxbridge town centre remains suitable for some office uses (EG(i)/(ii)), high vacancy rates indicate that there is a need to diversify and re- orient the existing stock to better serve the town centre. This includes consideration of a lternative uses, including residential mixed- use schemes in suitable locations. The study identifies approximately 52,229sqm of vacant office space. The Councils Employment Land Review (2023) also outlines that average office rents in Hillingdon are £30 p er square foot and have not grown since 2016 therefore substantial investment in large scale office floorspace is assessed to be unlikely in the short to medium term. The council’s draft Uxbridge Town Centre Vision document (September 2024) specifically highlights high levels of vacancy within large footprint office blocks wi thin the Town Centre. The document highlights the strategic aim of diversifying the offer of Town Centre uses particularly around the eastern end of the Town Centre, which the development would facilitate. A much lower provision of office accommodation is therefore accepted in the absence of there being any demonstrable need for the delivery of substantial office floorspace within Uxbridge Town Centre. Previously Consented Hotel Use: 7.1 9 The 2012 hybrid consent included the provision of a 90-bedroom hotel. This is similarly reflected under Site Policy SA 28. A hotel use has not been provided on the St Andrew’s Park site under any previous consents and is not proposed within the submitted application. The applicant’s Planning Statement indicates that there is insufficient demand for a hotel use on the site. Reasons for this relate to the existence of other hotels in the Uxbridge area and the lack of on-site parking which would impact on the viability of any hotel use on the site. It must also be noted that a resolution was made at the Planning Committee held on 9 th April 2025 to grant planning permission for a new 162-bedroom hotel on the 148-154 High Street and Bakers Yard site subject to completion of a Section 106 agreement. A hotel use was not specifically included in the site allocation for this site (Site Policy SA 26) and the provision of a hotel on this site would provide a significant uplift in visitor accommodation in Uxbridge, which would be much greater than the 90- bedroom hotel included in the St Andrews Park site allocation. The decision to not provide a hotel use within the planning application is considered acceptable on balance and the benefits of providing additional h ousing instead of the hotel use would outweigh a reduced provision of visitor accommodation. The Council’s Planning Policy Team have been consulted on the proposals and raised no objections to the scheme. The 2012 hybrid consent also included the provision of a 1200 seat theatre; however, Hillingdon Council resolved that a viable business case did not exist to deliver the theatre. A deed of variation to the original Section 106 agreement has since been agreed to secure £1.25 million towards the provision of social, environmental, recreational and community schemes/projects in lieu of the theatre site being provided. Housing Mix 7.2 0 Policy H10 of the London Plan (2021) states that schemes should generally consist of a range of unit sizes. Policy DMH 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that the Council will require the

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Planning Committee Report Case Officer: Mike Kemp Date Application Valid: 08/07/2024 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 07/05/2025 Application Type: Listed Building Consent Ward: Uxbridge Applicant: Vinci St Modwen Site Address: Former Cinema Building, Burton Road, Uxbridge, UB8 1LE Proposal: Application for Listed Building Consent for internal and external alterations to former cinema building, to enable reinstatement of gym use (Use Class E(d)) and change of use to provide a cafe (Use Class E(b)) Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 8 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (associated Planning Application being reported to Committee) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 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 A series of works are proposed to the Grad e II listed former cinema building to facilitate the conversion of the listed building for use as a commercial gym and café as proposed under related planning application 585/APP/2024/1879. A detailed schedule of works document has been submitted in support of the planning application ( 243052-PUR-00-XX-RD-A-0001). The building is presently vacant and has been identified and is included in the Historic England ‘at risk’ register owing to the poor condition of the building. A series of internal and external repairs and refurbishment works are proposed, which include the replacement of windows and doors, insertion of new window and door openings and the addition of a replacement roof to the former squash courts to enable use of this part of the building as a café. 1.2 The proposed works would provide an overall enhancement to the significance of the Grade II listed building and would bring the building back into viable use and should therefore be considered positively in line with the aims Paragraph 210 of the NPPF. The proposals include important repairs and renovation to an historic ‘at risk’ building. 1.3 Elements of the proposed works would result in a low level of less than substantial harm to the significance of the Grade II listed building as the proposals would result in the removal of existing window s and the insertion of new openings. The low level of less than substantial harm would be demonstrably outweighed by the substantial cumulative public benefits that the works would facilitate in bringing the listed building back into a viable use consist ent with its long- term preservation, alongside the direct repair and renov ation works proposed within this listed building consent application. There would also be minor economic benefits arising from employment provided as part of the end use as a gym and café. 1.4 The proposals are compliant with Policy HE1 of the Local Plan Part 1; Policy DMHB1 of the Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies; Policy HC 1 of the London Plan 2021; and the NPPF 2024. It is recommended that listed Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press building consent is granted in subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the report. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The site comprises the Grade II listed former Cinema Building which is located on the St Andrews Park (Former RAF Uxbridge) site located to the west of Uxbridge Town Centre. 2.2 The building was constructed in 1919 for use as a cinema and lecture hall with the attached squash courts a later addition. The building was converted to use as a gym and concert hall in 1960 . The pitched roof above the squash courts was replaced around this ti me with a flat roof. The use of the building as a gym is understood to have ceased in the 1970’s. The building alongside the Mons Barracks Building and St Andrews Gate are the only remaining buildings within this part of the St Andrews Park site ar e the only surviving buildings on the RAF Uxbridge site located to the west of the River Pinn. 2.3 The building consists of a main block which houses the former Cinema building and a lower flat roofed block located on the northern side of the building, housing the former squash court. A two-storey pitched roof porch is located to the front of the building. Two later 20th century single storey flat roofed single storey structures are located to the side of the two-storey front porch. 2.4 The building has been vacant for an extended period and its condition has deteriorated. The building has been identified as a Category A building (immediate risk of further rapid deterioration or loss of fabric) on Historic England’s Heritage at Risk register. 2.5 A dual carriageway section of Hillingdon Road adjoins the site to the west. The land to the south and the north comprises vacant areas of land which forms part of the Town Centre East site subject of linked planning application 585/APP/2024/1879 . Construction is underway on a phase of the development to the north east of the site (Town Centre West - 585/APP/2016/4504)). To the east of the site is the locally listed Mons Barracks building and to the east of this is a clear ed site with planning permi ssion also for a high-density residential development (585/ APP/2022/665). Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Aerial View of the former Ci nema taken from Applicants Heritage Statement Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 A series of works are proposed to the Gra de II listed building to facilitate its conversion to use as a commercial gym and café as proposed under related planning application 585/APP/2024/1879. A detailed schedule of works document has been submitted in support of the planning application (243052-PUR-00- XX- RD-A-0001). 3.2 Internal alterations throughout include the removal of redundant electrical cables and utilities, repainting/plastering and redecoration of internal walls, installation of new doors and replacement of existing doors, installation of lighting and electrical items, installation of M&E/extract fans. Within the main hall, the stage would be Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press retained and incorporated into the use as a gym with refurbishment carried out. The existing cornice would be repaired. 3.3 External works include the following: x Repair of existing render and brickwork where required. x Removal of graffiti. x Installation of new flat roof above existing squash courts with cast iron gutters and rainwater pipes. x Installation of external lighting. x Replacement of existing windows and doors. x Installation of new window and door openings. x Install new MEP louvres within existing high-level openings to former squash courts. x Install new condenser units to north and south of shower block. x Installation of new signage zone to front, side and rear elevation. x Addition of access ramp to the west of the entrance steps into the main hall. Figure 3: Proposed External Elevation Plan (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. Hybrid planning permission 585/APP/2009/2752 which was submitted in 2009 and was approved in 2012 included the reuse of the former cinema Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press building for a non- residential institution’ (D1) us e or ‘assembly and leisure’ use (D2) use, although no alterations were proposed to the building as an end user had not been identified at the time. 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 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 total of 7 representations have been received. Five representations were in support of the application. one representation was in objection and one representation raised comments for and against the proposals. 1. The proposed use of the building as a gym and café is supported. Comments in support are noted. 2. The proposals would bring the derelict building back into a positive use. Comments in support are noted. 3. Public electric vehicle charging infrastructure is required. This matter is addressed under the related detailed planning application 585/APP/2024/1879 and is referenced within the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press report accompanying this application. 4. The building should be reused for a community purpose such as a Town Hall. The principle of the use of the building is addressed in further depth under planning application 585/APP/2024/1879 . 5. The gym and café would be a positive community resource and is well located. Comments in support are noted. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Conservation Officer No objection subject to conditions requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the schedule of works document June 2024 243052- PUR-00-XX-RD-A-0001; and that all materials shall match the existing original work and materials used. The recommended conditions are included in the list of conditions at Appendix 1. 7 Planning Assessment Impact on the Grade II Listed Building 7.1 Policy DMHB 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states: The Council will expect development proposals to avoid harm to the historic environment. Development that has an effect on heritage assets will only be supp orted where: i) it sustains and enhances the significance of the heritage asset and puts them into viable uses consistent with their conservation; ii) it will not lead to a loss of significance or harm to an asset, unless it can be demonstrated that it will provide public benefit that would outweigh the harm or loss, in accordance with the NPPF; iii) it makes a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness of the area; iv) any extensions or alterations are designed in sympathy, without detracting from or competing with the heritage asset; Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press v) the proposal would relate appropriately in terms of siting, style, scale, massing, height, design and materials; vi) buildings and structures within the curti lage of a heritage asset, or in close proximity to it, do not compromise its setting; and vii) opportunities are taken to conserve or enhance the setting, so that the significance of the asset can be appreciated more readily. Development proposals affecting designated heritage assets need to take account of the effects of climate change and renewable energy without impacting negatively on the heritage asset. The Council may require an alternative solution which will protect the asset yet meet the sustainability objectives of the Local Plan. The Council will seek to secure the repair and reuse of Listed Buildings and monuments and improvements to Conservation Areas on the Heritage at Risk Register, through negotiations with owners, the provision of advice and guidance, the use of appropriate legal action, and through bids for external funding for improvement works. 7.2 Paragraph 210 of the NPPF 2024 sets out that in determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of: the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the pos itive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new develo pment making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. 7.3 In line with Paragraph 212 of the NPPF 2024 consideration must be given to the impact of a proposed development on the significance of this designated heritage asset and great weight should be given to the asset's conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to s ubstantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. 7.4 Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. 7.5 The proposals seek to restore and renovate the existing building with the aim of facilitating the use of the building as a commercial gym and café. The building is in a deteriorated condition, having been vacant for an extended period. As such there is damage to areas of the building, notably the squash courts where the original roof is missing, whilst in othe r areas fabric has deteriorated and parts of the interior and exterior have been vandalised. The condition has resulted in the building being placed on Historic England’s heritage at risk register . The vacant condition of the building and lack of upkee p and preservation has contributed to the buildings deteriorated condition. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.6 The proposed works are considered highly beneficial in enhancing the condition of the building and its historic fabric. The internal and external works would secure repairs to parts of the building that have deteriorated, including the external brickwork and render and replacement of the roof above the former squash courts to the rear of the building as well as the removal of graffiti. Repair and replacement of the roof and render/brickwork is proposed on a like for like basis , thereby preserving the historic fabric of the building. The internal works set out within the submitted plans, schedule of works and draft method statements are considered appropriate and beneficial overall in carrying out essential repair and renovation works necessary to facilitate the proposed use of the building as a gym and café. 7.7 Replacement of original windows and doors is proposed throughout, alongside the replacement of later fire doors. The loss of the original windows would amount to a harmful change; however, the windows are single glazed and are in a poor condition and retention would not be viable accounting for the reuse of the building. The proposal would also improve the thermal functionality of the building. New openings have been kept to a minimum. The most prominent would be the large window opening to the rear (north) elevation serving the proposed café in the former squash courts. New window and doors are proposed to be of a design that matches the appearance of the exis ting windows. Detailed drawings of the replacement windows and doors are requested by planning condition. 7.8 The installation of appropriate signage is considered acceptable in principle given the intended commercial use of the building. A condition is recommended to be attached requiring the submission of detailed drawings relating to the signage prior to the installation of any signage on site. 7.9 The addition of the proposed access ramp would adjoin the 1960’s extension and would have a neutral impact on the significance of the listed building. The changes are considered necessary, to allow disabled access to the building , which would constitute a public benefit of the works. 7.10 Overall, the scope of the works would result in a low level of less than substantial harm to the significance of the Grade II listed building. This would predominantly be as a result of the removal of the existing windows and the addition of new doubled glazed windows, as well as the insertion of new window and door openings. 7.11 Paragraph 215 of the NPPF states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. 7.12 The works would facilitate the buildings use as a gym and café, which would secure a long term viable commercial use for the building thereby helping to preserve its condition and historic fabric, compared with its current vacant condition. This should be considered positively in line with Paragraph 210 of the NPPF 2024 and is considered would equate to a major public benefit. The installation of the proposed double glazing would assist in improving the energy Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press performance of the building, which has sust ainability benefits and is considered necessary to facilitate the end use of the building. There would also be minor economic benefits arising from employment provided as part of the end use as a gym and café. The impact of the new windows may be mitigation through the selection of appropriate windows which rela te to the historic character of the building, which are indicated within t he supporting documents, but would be secured by way of planning condition. It is considered that the public benefits of the works would clearly and demonstrably outweigh the low level of less than substantial harm that would be caused to th e significance of the Grade II listed building . The council’s Conservation Officer has reviewed the proposals and raised no objections. 7.13 The proposed development therefore complies with the NPPF, Policy HC1 of The London Plan, Policy HE1 of the Local Plan Part 1, and Policy DMHB 4 of the Local Plan Part 2 and it is recommended that listed building consent is granted. 8 Other Matters Human Rights 8.1 The development has been assessed against the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and in particular Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the Act itself. This Act gives further effect to the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to the applicant's reasonable development rights and expectations which have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / the Devel opment Plan and Central Government Guidance. Equality 8.2 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the assessment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The works proposed would enhance the significance of the Grade II listed by providing much needed repairs to the historic fabric of the listed building and are proposed with the aim of securing a long term viable commercial use that would secure the buildings long term preservation. 9.2 Elements of the proposed works would result in a low level of less than substantial harm to the significance of the Grade II listed building as the proposals would result in the removal of existing window s and the insertion of new openings. The low level of less than substantial harm would be demonstrably outweighed by the substantial cumulative public benefits that the works would facilitate in bringing the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 7th May 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press listed building back into a viable use cons istent with its long-term preservation, alongside the direct repair and renov ation works proposed within this listed building consent application. There would also be minor economic benefits arising from employment provided as part of the end use as a gym and café. The council’s Conservation Officer has reviewed the proposals and raised no objections. 9.3 The proposals are therefore considered to comply with Policy DMHB 1 of the Local Plan Part 2; Policy HC1 of the London Plan 2021; and the NPPF 2024 and it is recommended that listed building consent is granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the report. 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents taken into account in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential information) are available on the Council's website here, by entering the planning application number at the top of this report and using the search facility. Planning applications are also available to inspect electronically at the Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW upon appointment, by contacting Planning Services at planning@hillingdon.gov.uk. AAPPENDICES Planning Application 585/APP/2024/1799 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 7 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. LB1 T Time Limit (3 years) - Listd Building Consent The works hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent. REASON To comply with Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 2. COM4 A Accordance with Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers and supporting documents: Site Location Plan ref 243052-PUR-00-XX-DR-A-1000 Rev C01 Proposed Site Plan ref 243052-PUR-00-XX-DR-A-2002 Rev C01 Existing Lower Ground and Ground Floor Plans - Demolitions ref. 243052-PUR-00-ZZ-DR- A-1050 Rev C01 Existing First and Second Floor Plans - Demolitions ref. 243052-PUR-00-ZZ-DR-A-1051 Rev C01 Existing Roof Plan - Demolitions ref. 243052-PUR-00-RF-DR-A-1055 Rev C01 Existing External Elevations - Demolitions ref. 243052-PUR-00-ZZ-DR-A-1060 Rev C01 Existing Sections - Demolitions ref. 243052-PUR-00-ZZ-DR-A-1065 Rev C01 Existing Internal Demolitions - Main Hall - Demolitions ref. 243052-PUR-00-ZZ-DR-A-1070 Rev C01 Existing Internal Elevations - Squash Courts - Demolitions ref. 243052-PUR-00-ZZ-DR-A- 1071 Rev C01 Proposed Lower Ground and Ground Floor Plans ref. 243052-PUR-00-ZZ-DR-A-2010 Rev C01 Proposed First and Second Floor Plans ref. 243052-PUR-00-ZZ-DR-A-2011 Rev C01 Proposed Roof Plan ref. 243052-PUR-00-RF-DR-A-2015 Rev C01 Proposed External Elevations ref. 243052-PUR-00-ZZ-DR-A-2020 Rev C01 Proposed Sections ref. 243052-PUR-00-ZZ-DR-A-2025 Rev C01 Proposed Internal Elevations - Gym ref. 243052-PUR-00-ZZ-DR-A-2030 Rev C01 Proposed Internal Elevations - Cafe ref. 243052-PUR-00-ZZ-DR-A-2031 Rev C01 Proposed Door and Window Types ref. 243052 -PUR-00-ZZ-DR-A-3000 Rev C01 Proposed Treatment of Glazed Bricks ref. 243052-PUR-00-ZZ-DR-A-3010 Rev C01 Proposed Balustrade and Handrail Details ref. 243052-PUR-00-ZZ-DR-A-3015 Rev C01 Schedule of Proposed Works ref. 243052-PUR-00-XX-RD-A-0001 Accessible WC's Plan ref.243052-PUR-00-ZZ-DR-A-3020 Design and Access Statement June 2024 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 7 Fire Strategy, dated 29/05/24 Rev A and shall thereafter be retained/maintained for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions Hillingdon Local Plan Parts 1 (November 2012) and 2 (January 2020) and the London Plan (2021). 3 3. NONSC S Schedule of Works All works to the former cinema building shall be carried out in accordance with the schedule of works document June 2024 243052-PUR-00-XX-RD-A-0001 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To safeguard the special architectural and/or historic interest of the building in accordance with Policies DMHB 1 and DMHB 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 4. NONSC S Samples of Materials Samples of all materials and finishes to be used for all external surfaces of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the relevant part of the work is begun. All brick, render and lime mortar pointing, external joinery shall match the existing original work adjacent in respect of methods, detailed execution and finished appearance unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To safeguard the special architectural and/or historic interest of the building in accordance with Policies DMHB 1 and DMHB 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 5. NONSC H Hidden features During the works, if hidden historic features are revealed they should be retained in-situ. Works shall be halted in the relevant area of the building and the Local Planning Authority should be notified immediately. REASON To safeguard the special architectural and/or historic interest of the building in accordance with Policies DMHB 1 and DMHB 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020), Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and Section 16 of the NPPF (2024). 6. LB2 M Making good of any damage Any damage caused to the building in execution of the works shall be made good to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority within 3 months of the works being completed. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 7 REASON To safeguard the special architectural and/or historic interest of the building in accordance with Policies DMHB 1 and DMHB 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020), Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and Section 16 of the NPPF (2024). 7 7. NONSC S Signage Detailed drawings of the proposed signage, to be located within the signage zones, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the relevant signage is installed. REASON To safeguard the special architectural and/or historic interest of the building in accordance with Policy DMHB 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 8. NONSC M Materials including windows No development shall take place until details of all materials and external surfaces, including details of windows and doors have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All brick, render and lime mortar pointing, external joinery shall match the existing original work adjacent in respect of methods, detailed execution and finished appearance unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and be retained as such. REASON To ensure that the development presents a satisfactory appearance in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Informatives 1. I52 C Compulsory Informative (1) The decision to GRANT listed building consent has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act (1998) (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). I53 C Compulsory Informative (2) The decision to GRANT listed building consent has been taken having regard to the policies Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 7 and proposals in the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020) set out below, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and to all relevant material considerations, including The London Plan (2021) and NPPF (2024). DMHB 1 Heritage Assets LPP HC1 (2021) Heritage conservation and growth NPPF16 -24 NPPF16 2024 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment H Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 7 AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History 585/APP/2015/1297 St Andrews Park Hillingdon Road Uxbridge Reserved Matters Application for the erection of 1 x 5 storey office building and 1 x 4 storey office building with associated plant, parking and landscaping Decision: 21-06-2016 Approved 585/APP/2016/4504 St Andrew'S Park Hillingdon Road Uxbridge Reserved matters (layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) for the erection of 294 dwellings and up to 469 sq.m of retail floorspace (use classes F.2, E and Public House/Takeaway (Sui Generis), formerly A1-5) development together with associated parking and landscaping within the Town Centre Extension (West) Phase of planning permission ref. 585/APP/2015/848 dated 21-12-2015. Decision: 30-11-2021 Approved 585/APP/2024/1879 St Andrews Park Hillingdon Road Uxbridge Hybrid planning application comprising: Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved) for residential development and commercial uses, to be occupied flexibly within Use Classes E(a), E(b), E(c), E(e), E(g)(i), E(g)(ii) and a convenience store (Use Class E(a)); plus car parking, hard and soft landscaping, and all other associated works; Plus, full planning permission for reinstatement of gym use (Use Class E(d)) and change of use to provide a cafe (Use Class E(b)) within the former cinema building; and external alterations; and associated car parking, hard and soft landscaping and all other associated works. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 7 AAppendix 3: List of Relevant Planning Policies The following Local Plan Policies are considered relevant to the application:- Part 1 Policies: PT1.HE1 (2012) Heritage Part 2 Policies: DMHB 1 Heritage Assets LPP HC1 (2021) Heritage conservation and growth NPPF16 -24 NPPF16 2024 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7 of 7