Planning

Minutes HILLINGDON PLANNING COMMITTEE 7 May 2025 Meeting held at Committee Room 5 - Civic Centre Committee Members Present: Councillors Henry Higgins (Chair), Adam Bennett (Vice -Chair), Keith Burrows, Elizabeth Garelick, Gursharan Mand and Jagjit Singh LBH Officers Present: Natalie Fairclough– Legal Advisor Anisha Teji – Democratic Services Ed Laughton – Area Planning Service Manager (C&S) Katie Crosbie – Area Planning Service Manager (North) Mike Kemp – Deputy Team Leader Dr Alan Tilly – Transport & Aviation Team Manager 42. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Roy Chamdal. 43. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS COMING BEFORE THIS MEETING (Agenda Item 2) Councillor Adam Bennett declared a pecuniary interest in agenda items 8 and 9 as he owned a property on the St Andrews development. He left the room during discussion of agenda items 8 and 9. 44. TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3) RESOLVED: That the minutes from the meeting on 9 April 2025 be approved. 45. MATTERS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OR URGENT (Agenda Item 4) None. 46. TO CONFIRM THAT THE ITEMS OF BUSINESS MARKED PART I WILL BE CONSIDERED IN PUBLIC AND THE ITEMS MARKED PART II WILL BE CONSIDERED IN PRIVATE (Agenda Item 5) It was confirmed that all items would be heard in Part I. 47. 155 SWAKELEYS ROAD - 20345/APP/2024/3156 (Agenda Item 6) Erection of a part single storey, part two storey rear extension, a first floor side extension, and front porch following demolition of existing porch a nd conservatory. Conversion of roof space into habi table 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. Officers introduced the application, took Members t hrough the plans and made a recommendation for approval. A petitioner in objection of the application addressed the Committee, noting that the new buyers had introduced themselves and stated that the orig inal proposal had been withdrawn. The petitioner ra ised objections against the volume and density of the new proposal, stating it did not fit with the environment. They opposed the two -storey rear extension, citing its impact on neighbouring properties, light and view. The petitioner also mentioned that th e extension on the garage was not in keeping with the environment. Local Ward Councillors had been contacted and they had emphasised the importance of retaining the character of the area and preventing ove rdevelopment. It was submitted that these developme nts were spoiling the area, setting a future precedent and not in keeping with the local area. In response to Member clarification questions, it was noted that the petitioner had not objected to any previous applications. A representative of the applic ation addressed the Committee, noting that the officers' report addressed many concerns raised in the petition. Denying the application would cause inconsistency, as other homes had undergone similar modif ications. The home had been designed for a growing family and local amenities and schools made it appealing for family housing. The Committee was asked to support the application, emphasising its respectful enhancement of the existing home and its natural progression and enhancement of the neighbourhood. Officers clarified several points raised in the petition and by the applicant. In terms of the light impact assessment, officers explained that the development cleared the 45° line from neighbouring window s, making it acceptable without needing further sun /day light assessments. It was also noted that planning permission had already been granted for the same development in 2021 and there had been no changes in planning policies or site circumstances since then. Although Members empathised with the concerns raised by the petitioner, it was noted that this application had been approved previously and the Committee had limited options to refuse it. The officers’ recommendation was therefore moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, was unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation. 48. 90 LONG LANE - 8905/APP/2024/2478 (Agenda Item 7) Demolition of the existing detached, single dwelling and the erection of a building consisting of 4 no. thre e-bed flats and 5 no. two -bedroom flats, with associated parking and amenities. Officers introduced the application, took Members through the plans and made a recommendation for refusal. A petitioner ob jected to the application, citing concerns about pr ivacy, the overwhelming nature of the proposal and its impact on neighbouring properties. The petitioner noted that the recent submission was larger than the original and compared it to previous applications. Concerns were raised about the impact on trees, the amount of concrete used and the proposal's inconsistency with the local character of the area. Additional issues included light pollution, noise pollution and the impact on the conservation area. The petitioner mentioned multiple windows and patio doo rs causing privacy issues, the small size of the property for the number of people and cars and a history of criminal activity impacting peace and quiet for local residents. It was noted that the Chair of the Ickenham Residents Association was unable to attend the meeting, but all the comments submitted in previous letters of objection still stood. The applicant and architect addressed the Committee and issues raised by the petitioner. It was noted that the proposal now included more family units, inclu ding four three-bedroom units. The proposal was initially refused due to the perceived impact on the character of the area and conservation area. After discussions with officers, the bulk and massing of the building were reduced by adjusting the depth, wid th and projection. This resulted in greater spacing to the boundary and improved views beyond the building. The architectural design followed that of number 88 Long Lane, characterised by its projected gab le and spanning the width of the plot while being s et over three floors. It was submitted that the development was set within a well - landscaped setting, screened by mature vegetation and oak trees, and was considered a significant improvement to the refusal scheme in 2024. It was emphasised that the proposal would complement the plot and wider context of the locality and conservation area. Although concerns had been raised about the impact on neighbouring properties, it was submitted that a sunlight and day light report demonstrated no loss of light or amenity to neighbouring properties. The primary windows serving habitable rooms faced either forward or rear of the site, with no concerns identified by officers. The proposed development was smaller than the initial scheme and was considered to have no overbearing impact on neighbouring properties. Officers advised the Committee that the tree report was deemed acceptable, with a construction management plan required for protection. Overlooking issues were addressed by recommending obscure glazing for the side windows. The proposal's impact on noise and light pollution was considered typical for residential areas. The retention of category A and B trees at the front was highlighted. Concerns about the scale of the building and its impact on outlook and sense of enclosure were noted. The Committee considered that this was a huge development and accepted the reasons outlined for refusal in the officers’ report. The officers’ recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, was unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be refused as per officer recommendation. 49. ST ANDREWS PARK - 585/APP/2024/1879 (Agenda Item 8) Hybrid planning application comprising: Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved) for residenti al 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 landscapin g, and all other associated works; Plus, full plann ing 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. Officers introduced the application and took Members through the plans and addendum. A recommendation for approval, section 106 and Stage 2 Mayor of London referral was made. The Committee consider ed these applications together however voted on eac h item separately. The Committee welcomed the completion of the site and considered the officers’ reports to be thorough. The officers’ recommendation, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, was unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application, section 106 and Stage 2 Mayor of London referral be approved as per officer recommendation. 50. FORMER CINEMA BUILDING, ST ANDREWS PARK - 85/APP/2024/1799 (Agenda Item 9) Application fo r 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)). Officers introduced the application and took Members through the plans and addendum. A recommendation for approval was made. The Committee considered these applications together however voted on each item separately. The Committee welcomed the completion of the site and considered the officers’ reports to be thorough. The importance of protecting and restorin g the cinema to a good quality standard before it deteriorated further was emphasised. The officers’ recommendation, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, was unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation. The meeting, which commenced at 7.00 pm, closed at 8.00 pm. These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of the resolutions please contact Anisha Teji on 01895 277655 or ateji@hillingdon.gov.uk . Circulation of these minutes is to Cou ncillors, Officers, the Press and Members of the Public.

Minutes HILLINGDON PLANNING COMMITTEE 8 May 2025 Meeting held at Council Chamber - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW Committee Members Present: Councillors Henry Higgins (Chair) Adam Bennett (Vice-Chair) Keith Burrows Roy Chamdal Jagjit Singh 51. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) Action by Apologies were received from Councillor Mand and Councillor Garelick 52. ELECTION OF CHAIR (Agenda Item 2) Action by RESOLVED: That Councillor Henry Higgins be elected as Chair of the Hillingdon Planning Committee for the 2025/26 municipal year. 53. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR (Agenda Item 3) Action by RESOLVED: That Councillor Adam Bennett be elected as Vice- Chair of the Hillingdon Planning Committee for the 2025/26 municipal year. The meeting, which commenced at 8.50 pm, closed at 9.05 pm. These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of the resolutions please contact Democratic Services. Circulation of these minutes is to Councillors, Officers, the Press and Members of the Public.

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Alan Corcoran 62963/APP/2024/3371 Date Application Valid: 04.02.2025 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 17.06.2025 Application Type: Full Ward: Ruislip Applicant: Lidl Great Britain Limited Site Address: The Orchard Inn, Ickenham Road, Ruislip Proposal: Construction of a discount food store (Use Class E) with car parking, landscaping works, and other associated works, following the demolition of the existing building. Summary of Recommendation: REFUSE planning permission Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 5 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (20 plus letters of support received) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 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 The Council has received a petition signed by 1,398 individuals objecting to the proposed development. Furthermore, The Council has received 669 objections, including from the Ruislip Residents' Association, Ickenham Residents' Association, Eastcote Residents' Associ ation, Eastcote Conservation Panel, Councillor Philip Corthorne (Mayor of Hillingdon and Ruislip ward councillor), and Councillor Peter Smallwood OBE (Ruislip ward councillor). In addition, the Council received 35 representations in favour of the proposed development and one comment (See Table 1 for summary of comments). 1.2 The Local Planning Authority cannot support the principle of development as the Applicant has submitted insufficient eviden ce to justify the out -of-centre retail floor space, which should take a town c entre first approach; and the loss of the locally listed public house, which is proposed to be demolished. 1.3 The proposed development would be an unc haracteristic form of development that would fail to harmonise with the Conservation Area's character and would unduly harm designated heritage assets (R uislip Conservation Area and the Grade II Listed White Bear Public H ouse) and non-designated heritage assets (locally listed Old Orchard and locally liste d Spitfire war memorial). The public benefits of the proposal would not outwe igh the harm it would cause to the heritage assets. 1.4 The proposed development would not appropriately facilitate trip-making by foot, cycle, or public transport and would incl ude an oversupply of car parking. The Applicant has failed to submit a Parking Management and Design Plan to detail the car park's management. Furthermore, the application has not demonstrated that the proposal would not increase road danger. 1.5 The proposed development would inappropr iately result in the net loss of biodiversity and an unacceptable loss of trees, and the Applicant has not submitted sufficient details regarding the proposal's Urban Greening Factor and the development's potential impact on onsite roosting bats. 1.6 The proposed development would cont ribute to unacceptable pollutant emissions in the Ruislip Town Centre Air Quality Focus Area. It would not be air quality neutral or air quality positive, and the measures proposed are insufficient to mitigate the total emissions. Furthe rmore, the Council has not secured an agreement with the Applicant regar ding the pre-commencement planning conditions necessary to mitigate t he air quality harm that the proposed development would cause. The Applicant has confirmed their agreement to pay Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the air quality mitigation contribution (£987,271) that would have been required had approval been recommended. 1.7 The Council’s Drainage Consultant advis ed that the applicant had submitted insufficient flood risk and drainage details. As such, recommended refusal reason no. 7 (refer to Appendix 1) has been included, as the proposal would be considered contrary to Policies SI12 and SI13 of The London Plan (2021), Policy EM6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), and Policies DMEI 9 and DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Pl an: Part 2 (2020). It shoul d be noted that the applicant has subsequently submitted additional flood-risk/drainage information, which is under consideration by the Council’s c onsultant and an update on this matter will be provided in the Addendum Report/at the Committee meetin g. 1.8 The proposal is unacceptable and would be inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, The London Plan, and the Hillingdon Local Plan. 1.9 The planning application is therefore recommended for refusal. 2 The Site and Localit y 2.1 The 0.65-hectare application Site (The Orchard, Ickenham Road, Ruislip) is located to the north of the five-a rm roundabout ('Fiveways Roundabout') comprising Ickenham Road western arm, Ickenham Road eastern arms, Sharps Lane, Kingsend, and Wood Lane. The Site is also positioned towards the south of Church Avenue and adjoins two residential properties – 87 Sharps Lane and 1 Church Avenue. 2.2 The Site contains a two-storey building that used to operate as The Orchard Pub. The Applicant states that the pub clos ed in December 2023. The building has been extended to the rear with a two-st orey modern addition (application reference 62963/APP/2007/3884, approved on 17-10-08) used as a Premier Inn Hotel. In April 2025, Hillingdon Council approved The Orchard Pub's addition to the Local List. Therefore, it is a locall y listed building. 2.3 The front garden (southeast of the Site ), which served as a pub garden, accommodates the Orchard Spitfire Wa r Memorial (temporarily removed for maintenance). The War Memorial is a one- third-scale model of a Spitfire plane with a stone plinth commemorating the Polish Airmen. The Spitfire model in front of The Orchard is locally listed. The se tting of the Spitfire within a spacious garden covering approximately 1,275 sq. m. is a key part of the social value given to this war memorial. It allo ws people to sit and contemplate the significance of the memorial in a generous green garden setting. 2.4 The Site lies within the Ruislip Village Conservation Area, which is characterised by three distinct sub-areas. The Site is within 'area three', which is defined as a 'Garden Suburb' with an architectural styl e that includes decorative timber framing, bold gables, brick detailing around windows, and large roofscapes of clay roof tiles within open and green verdant settin gs. The Site is prominent Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press because of its position north of a Five ways Roundabout and is a visual focal point from public vantage points along the streetscape. 2.5 Vehicular access to the Site is from Ickenham Road near its junction with Church Avenue towards the north-east of the Site. The Site access leads to an existing car park. 2.6 The Site is outside the Ruislip District Centre Town Centre (within approximately 350 metres) and has a Public Transport Acce ssibility Level (PTAL) of 3 and 4, which is considered good. 2.7 There are no trees protected explicitly by Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) within the Site. However, given that the Site is within a Conservation Area, trees with a diameter of 75 millimetres and greater are protected. The Site contains 27 individual trees and eight tree groups. Th ree trees or tree groups are Category B, 25 are Category C, and seven are Category U. 2.8 The Site is within Flood Zone 1 and, ther efore, has a low risk of flooding. The Site also lies within an Air Quality Focus Area and is located on Potentially Contaminated Land. It is also within the Airport Safeguarding Zone of the Royal Air Force Northolt base. 2.9 Area Tree Preservation Order (TPO 217) immediately adjoins the site's northeast corner. There are two statut ory Listed buildings within 100 metres of the Site - The White Bear Public House (Grade II Listed) and the Orchard Cottage, 65 Kingsend (Grade II Listed). Fiveways is a lo cally listed building on the opposite side of Ickenham Road from the Site. An Air Quality M anagement Area is approximately 500 metres southwest of the Site. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Aerial View of the Application Site Figures 3: Street View Images of the Application Property South (front) elevation of the locally listed ‘The Orchard Inn’ Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Locally listed Spitfire War Memorial East elevation of the Premier Inn Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press North (rear) elevation of The Orchard West elevation of the Premier Inn Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 The application seeks planning permission to construct a discount food store (Use Class E) with car parking, landscaping works, and other associated works, following the demolition of the existing building. 3.2 The proposal would be a single-storey building posit ioned towards the west of the site. It would have a width of approximately 62 metres and depth of approximately 34 metres. The building’s depth would step to approximately 29 metres and then 10 metres towards the north of the Site. The building would have a Gross Internal Area (GIA) of 1,825 sq. m., of which 1,212 sq. m. would be sales area (or ‘net sales area’). Approximately 970 sq. m. would be dedicated to convenience retail, and 242 sq. m. w ould be used for comparison retail. The remaining floorspace would comprise 353 sq. m. of ancillary warehouse floorspace and 260 sq. m. of ancillary space, consisting of an accessible customer toilet, an in-store bakery, staff we lfare facilities, ancillary office space and storage/utility space. It would have a pitched roof with a ridge height of approximately 10.5 metres and an eaves hei ght of approximately 6.5 metres. These heights vary across the Site as the ground slopes from the south of the Site downward to the north of the Site. The external walls would be mostly in painted render with small sections of bricks alon g the facade. 3.3 Vehicular access to the Site would remain on Ickenham Road, though it would be modified and repositioned further south. Pedestrian access to the Site is proposed via the Site's southern boundar y. The proposed development would include 72 car parking spaces, comprising: - Forty-six ‘standard’ parking spaces - Four accessible parking bays - Three enlarged bays - Three parent & child spaces - Two ‘rapid’ electric vehicle charging bays - Fourteen ‘passive’ electric vehicle ba ys 3.4 Twelve Sheffield bicycle stands ar e proposed beneath a canopy along the south- eastern elevation, to provide 24 short-stay spaces. A further 12 long-stay cycles are proposed next to the short-sta y cycle bays. 3.5 The Applicant’s Arboricultural Impact A ssessment states that 17 trees and tree groups would be removed to facilitate the proposed development. Of these, one is a Cate gory B tree (T8), while the remainder are Category C trees. 3.6 The locally listed Spitfire Memorial w ould be relocated towards the south of the site within a landscaped area, including benches and heritage information boards. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figures 4: Proposed Plans (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Proposed Site Plan Proposed North Elevation Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Proposed East Elevation Proposed West Elevation Proposed South Elevation 4 Relevant Plannin g History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning histor y related to the proper ty can be found in Appendix 2. 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 The Council consulted surrounding proper ties by letters dated 27-02-25. The Council also advertised the applicati on with a site notice dated 09-03-25 and press notice dated 05-03-25. The consultation period expired on 31-03-25. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 6.2 The Council has received a petition signed by 1,398 individuals objecting to the proposed development. Furthermore, The Council has received 669 objections, including from the Ruis lip Residents' Associati on, Ickenham Residents' Association, Eastcote Residents' Associ ation, Eastcote Conservation Panel, Councillor Philip Corthorne (Mayor of Hillingdon and Ruislip ward councillor), and Councillor Peter Smallwood OBE (Ruislip ward councillor). In addition, the Council received 35 representations in favour of the proposed development and one comment. 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 The Ruislip Residents' Association (objection) (1) Unsympathetic design. (2) Traffic congestion. (3) Road safety. (4) Sufficient supply of supermarkets already in the area. Noted. Material planning considerations discussed in relevant section of assessment below. The Ickenham Residents' Association (objection) (1) Insufficient parking spaces. (2) Road safety. (3) Traffic congestion. Noted. Material planning considerations discussed in relevant section of assessment below. The Eastcote Residents' Association (objection) (1) Road safety. (2) Traffic congestion. Noted. Material planning considerations discussed in relevant section of assessment below. The Eastcote Conservation Panel (objection) (1) Road safety. (2) Traffic congestion. Noted. Material planning considerations discussed in relevant section of assessment below. Councillor Philip Corthorne (Mayor of Hillingdon and Ruislip ward councillor) (objection) (1) Harm to Conservation Area. (2) Detrimental to locally listed war memorial. (3) Traffic congestion. (4) Road/pedestrian safety. (5) Parking overspill. Noted. Material planning considerations discussed in relevant section of assessment below. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press (6) Air quality. Councillor Peter Smallwood OBE (Ruislip ward councillor) (objection) (1) Traffic impact. (2) Highway safety. (3) Impact on the Conservation Area. (4) Design. Noted. Material planning considerations discussed in relevant section of assessment below. Remaining 663 objections (1) Harm to heritage assets. (2) Harm to outlook. (3) Loss of trees/planting. (3) Harm to landscaping. (4) Loss of biodiversity. (5) Traffic congestion. (6) Road safety. (7) Retail impact. (8) Insufficient drainage. (9) Design. (10) Noise. (11) Air pollution. (12) Loss of pub. (13) Sufficient supply of supermarkets already in the area. (14) Light pollution. (15) Harm the town centre. Noted. Material planning considerations discussed in relevant section of assessment below. One individual neutral letter has been received. (1) Better than the alternative of the Site remaining vacant but raised concerns regarding the car park and highway safety. Noted. Material planning considerations discussed in relevant section of assessment below. 35 representations in favour of the proposed development (support) (1) Better than a vacant building. (2) Need for additional supermarkets in the area. (3) Employment opportunities. (4) Locals could walk instead of driving to the shop. (5) Shopping choice. (6) Design. Noted. Material planning considerations discussed in relevant section of assessment below. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press (7) Prefer over a housing development. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response External Consultee Comments Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service: No objection subject to a pre-commencement written scheme of historic building investigation. This pre- commencement condition is necessary to safeguard the archaeological interest on this site. Approval of the WSI before works begin on site provides clarity on what investigations are required, and their timing in relation to the development programme. If the applicant does not agree to this pre-commencement condition, please let us know their reasons and any alternatives suggested. Without this pre- commencement condition being imposed the application should be refused as it would not comply with Paragraph 218 of the NPPF. The applicant has confirmed their agreement to the proposed pre- commencement condition to secure a Written Scheme of Investigation. Historic England: Historic England has concerns regarding the application on heritage grounds. A heritage impact refusal reason has been recommended. Internal Consultee Comments The LPA’s Retail Impact Consultant (Nexus): Inadequate information submitted to justify the out-of- centre retail floorspace, cont rary to Chapter 7 of the NPPF (2024), Policy E5 of the Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Policy DMTC 1 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020). A refusal reason has been recommended in line with the Retail Impact Consultant’s recommendations. LBH Conservation Officer: Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Objection raised due to the harm that would be caused to designated and non-designated heritage assets that would not be outweighed by public benefits. A refusal reason has been recommended in line with the Conservation Officer’s recommendations. LBH Landscape and Urban Design Officer: Objection raised. The site benefits from mature boundary tree and shrub planti ng that adds to the verdant character of the Conservation Area. The landscape proposals enlarge the hardstanding area to allow large vehicles to manoeuvre, necessitating the removal of trees and reducing and harming the site's green edge character. The scale and massing of the building is considered incongruous to the townscape and detrimental to the area’s character. A refusal reason has been recommended in line with the Landscape and Urban Design Officer’s recommendations. LBH Trees Officer: Objection due to inappropr iate replacement tree planting and inconsistent reporting regarding trees. A refusal reason has been recommended in line with the Tree Officer’s recommendations. LBH Economic Development Officer: No objection subject to an Employment/Construction Training Scheme and post-construction local employment scheme secured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD. The Applicant has agreed to this Section 106 obligation that would have been recommended for inclusion in a Section 106 agreement had planning approval been recommended. LBH Accessibility Officer: No objection. Noted. LBH Refuse and Recycling Officer: No objection. Noted. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press LBH Planning Policy Officer: Insufficient information submitted to justify the loss of the public house, contrary to Policy HC7 of the London Plan (2021). A refusal reason has been recommended in line with the Planning Policy Officer’s assessment. LBH Highways Officer: Objection as the propos ed development would not appropriately facilitate trip-ma king by foot, cycle, or public transport and would include an oversupply of car parking. The Applicant has failed to submit a Parking Management and Design Plan to detail the car park's management. The application has not demonstrated that the propos al would not increase road danger. Therefore, the proposed development is contrary to Chapter 9 of the NPPF (2024) and Policies T1, T4, T6, and T6.3 of The London Plan (2021). A refusal reason has been recommended in line with the Highways Officer’s recommendations. LBH Air Quality Officer: No objection subject to an Air Quality Mitigation contribution of £987,271 secu red by a Section 106 Agreement and pre-comm encement conditions regarding a low emission st rategy (LES), air quality dust management plan, and reducing emissions from demolition and construction. Whilst the Applicant has agreed to pay the Section 106 financial contribution (had planning approval been recommended), they have not agreed to the recommended pre-commencement conditions. Accordingly, an air quality refusal reason is recommended. LBH Noise Pollution Officer: No objection subject to a noise impact condition and informative. Conditions and an informative would have been recommended in line with the Noise Officer’s recommendations had approval been recommended. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press LBH Environmental Health Officer (Land Contamination): No objection subject to a condition regarding land contamination. Conditions and an informative would have been recommended in line with the Land Contamination Officer’s recommendations had approval been recommended. LBH Environmental Specialist (Energy and Biodiversity): Objection due the net loss of onsite biodiversity. No objection regarding energy and sustainability subject to a zero-carbon energy condition and Section 106 obligations regarding ‘Be Seen’ post-construction energy monitoring and the Carbon Offset sum based on an Updated Energy Strategy. A refusal reason has been recommended in line with the Environmental Specialist’s recommendations. The Applicant has agreed the two energy-related Section 106 obligations that would have been recommended had planning approval been recommended. The LPA’s Flood Risk and Drainage Consultants (Metis): The Consultant raised concerns regarding several application shortcomings on 06 March 2025 which Planning Officers shared with the Applicant. The Applicant subsequently submitted revisions. The Consultant reviewed these revisions and still raised the following remarks on 12 May 2025: ‘We recommend that the following information is provided before approval of the application: It should be noted that the applicant has subsequently submitted additional flood-risk/drainage information, which is under consideration by the Council’s consultant and an update on this matter will be provided in the Addendum Report/at Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press - The applicant should provide an area summary within the calculations which should demonstrate use of the full site area. The following items can be addressed at Discharge of Condition stage: - The applicant has not provided the greenfield, proposed or existing run off volumes for the 1 in 100 year 6-hour storm event. - The applicant should provi de the existing run off rates for the site.’ the Committee meeting. 7 Plannin g Assessment Principle of Development Out-of-Centre Retail 7.1 The application Site is outside of a defined ‘town centre’ in the Hillingdon hierarchy, with the nearest centre being Ruislip District Centre, approximately 350 metres east of the Site. The route between the application Site and the Ruislip District Centre, via Ickenham Road, is largely characterised by residential uses. There are footpaths on either side of the road, although there is no intervisibility between the application Site and the uses within the defined centre boundar y. 7.2 As such, the Applicant has submitt ed a Sequential Site Assessment within the Planning and Retail Statement. With re gards to the area of search for alternatives, there are two factors to consider: (a) the overall area of the search; and (b) the defined ‘town centres’, including the areas around them, that should be included in the assessment. 7.3 Regarding the overall area of the search, the submi ssion suggests that a five- minute drive-time catchment is appropriate, and this has been used to guide the Applicant’s search area. Officers rec ognise that a five-minute drive-time is regularly used as an indicative catchment by food store operators such as Lidl and ALDI across the country for proposals in urban environments. However, this drive-time area is only indicative and, in the Council’s retail consultant’s opinion (agreed by Officers), it should always be supported by empirical evidence in relation to the specific area around the proposed development. In this instance, the Applicant has not provided up to date shopping patterns information for the Ruislip and wider Hillingdon area and, therefore, the catchment area details for the nearby district centre, and nearby competing food stor es, has not been established by the Applicant. Consequently , it cannot be confi rmed that the list of centres at Paragraph 7. 11 of the Applicant’s submitted Planning and Retail Statement is the full and appr opriate extent of centres to be examined. In addition, given that the Applicant has incorrectly classified the application site as Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press an edge-of-centre site, rather than out-of-centre site, then the area of the search in relation to defined ‘town centres’ must be widened, to include those out-of- centre locations which are more a ccessible and better connected to defined centres than the application Site. 7.4 Regarding the flexibilit y which the Applicant has adopted for its assessment of alternative locations, this can be f ound at Paragraphs 7.15-7.18 of the Applicant’s Planning and Retail Statement. Paragraph 7.17 is particularly relevant, providing a range of parameter s associated with ‘suitability’. Officers consider that many of the paramete rs put forward by the Applicant are reasonable and, in principle, demonstrate flexibility with regards to the size of alternative sites and the need for adequate parking and servicing arrangements. Regarding the format of st ore and car parking areas ( points (v) and (vii) at Paragraph 7.17 of the Plann ing and Retail Statement), whilst Officers would agree that the sales area of the proposal s hould be on a single level, there are circumstances where parking provisi on associated with food stores may be provided at a different level. This type of flexibility is particularly prevalent in London, given the scarcity and value of land. There are instances of food stores, such as those operated by Lidl, which have parking and sales areas on different levels. An example of this is the Lidl in Epsom. Consequently, this should be considered when assessing sequentially preferable alternative locations. 7.5 The final area of the Applicant’s Seque ntial Site Assessment is the assessment of alternative specific locations. This is limited to one paragraph – Paragraph 7.20 of the Planning and Retail Statement – which simply states that the alternatives which have been considered are too small or not available. Officers consider that such an assessment is insufficient for the purposes of demonstrating compliance with the s equential test. Paragraph 7.20 suggests that the Applicant has considered alternatives, but Officers highlight that: (a) The Applicant’s Planning and Retail Statement has not provided the identity of those alternatives; and (b) It has also not clarified the specific reasons for dismissing those individual alternatives. 7.6 Therefore, the Applican t’s Planning and Retail Statem ent has failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed development complies with the sequential test. The key areas where the submitted information is deficient are: (a) Information to confirm the area or search for alternative sites and premises; (b) The level of detail which has been submitted in relation to the Applicant’s assessment of alternative sites and premises; and (c) An inconsistent definition of the application Site and exclusion of some sites/areas from the assessment of alternatives. 7.7 The Applicant and the Local Planning Au thority must duly consider the likely impact of the proposal on the health of, and investment within, nearb y defined Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press ‘town centres’ given the Site’s locati on and the scale of the proposed retail floorspace. 7.8 Paragraph 8.3 of the A pplicant’s Planning and Retail Statement indicates the Applicant has surveyed three defined ‘town centres’ in relation to their health. These three centres (Ruislip District Centre, Ruislip Manor Minor Centre, and Ickenham Local Centre) are some of the closest centres for inclusion within the impact assessment. Based upon the scope of information within the submission, the Applicant has not dem onstrated that these are the only centres to be examined. Policy E5 of the Local Plan Part 1 (2012) indicates that ‘local parades’ should be protected and enhanced. It is, therefore, necessary for the Applicant to confirm which parades are within the proposal’s catchment. Secondly, the Applicant has not yet properly defined the proposal’s catchment area in relation to existing shopping patterns. Consequently, the Local Planning Authority cannot yet confirm that the three defined ‘town centres’ listed are the only centres to be included in the Applicant’s impact assessment. 7.9 Furthermore, the information that the Applicant provided for the three defined centres in Appendix 4 of their Planning and Retail Statement makes no reference to the role, function, and catchment ar ea of the centres, with regards to convenience and comparison goods shoppi ng, and leisure uses (such as food/beverage uses). This is a further reas on why it is necessary to include up to date shopping and leisure patterns information in the Applicant’s supporting information. 7.10 The Council’s retail consultant has undertaken a review of the Applicant’s financial impact assessment, contained withi n Section 9 and Appendix 5 of the Planning and Retail Statement and has reached the conclusion that it does not provide a robust assessment in relation to the following areas: (a) Shopping patterns information; (b) Forecasting the pre-impact turnover of existing stores and centres; and (c) The use of an ‘available expenditure’ assessment to support the case for the proposed store. 7.11 As noted, the application is not informed by a survey of shopping patterns. Not only is the lack of such information probl ematic for the scope of the sequential site assessment process and the assessment of ‘town centre’ health, but it is also a key deficiency in relation to the assessment of the likely financial impact of the proposed retail stor e. In particular, up-to- date evidence based data on shopping patterns is required to: (a) Assess the overall catchment of the proposed food store; (b) Consider the likely patte rn of trade draw to the proposed store on different parts of the surrounding area; (c) Calculate the current turnover of existing retail stores and centres in the surrounding area; and (d) Inform the assessment of the likely pattern of trade diversion to the proposal from existin g facilities. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.12 To provide a robust baseline for the financ ial impact assessment, it is essential to understand current shopping patterns, to define the catchment areas of existing stores and centres in the wi der area and calculate the current convenience and comparison goods turnover of existing stores and centres. The absence of a survey of household sho pping patterns (or similar/comparable data) is a significant constraint. The absence of local shopping pattern data means the Applicant’s Planning and Retail Statement has estimated pre-impact store/centre turnover levels bas ed upon national aver age grocery store performance. This general approach, and the level of detail provided within the Planning and Retail Statement, has several shortcomings: (1) The Applicant’s assessment of the performance of individual main food stores (i.e. those operated by national multip le retailers) is based on national performance levels and takes no account of local performance. Therefore, this has the potential to provide misleading pre-impact turnover levels. (2) Whilst the notes to Table 6 at A ppendix 5 of the Applic ant’s Planning and Retail Statement indicate t hat the turnover for indivi dually named retailers has been calculated using Global Data research, there is no indication as to what sales density information has been adopt ed for other (unnamed) convenience and comparison goods retail floorspace in the local area. (3) The Applicant has not provided any information regarding the net sales floorspace data used to estimate pre-im pact turnover levels in Table 6 at Appendix 5. 7.13 In light of the above, Officers do not a ccept this part of the financial impact assessment. 7.14 The assessment of a ‘need’ for a propos al, in either quantit ative or qualitative terms, is not a planning policy test for retail proposals located outside of defined ‘town centres’. However, Paragraphs 9.24 to 9.26 of the submitted Planning and Retail Statement provide an assessment of the total level of available (convenience and comparison goods) expenditure within the five-minute drive time area and compare these levels to the turnover of the proposed food store. 7.15 Aside from the potentia l that the five-minute drive-time area is not a representative area for the catchment of the proposal and/or convenience goods retailing in Ruislip, the Applicant’s a ssessment in Tables 9.5 to 9.7 of the Planning and Retail Statem ent does not provide a robus t justification for the proposed food store as the benchmark turn overs of existing stores and centres in the five-minute drive-ti me are excluded from the assessment. Therefore, it cannot be concluded there is ‘capacity’ to accommodate the proposed additional floorspace. Secondly, no allowance has been made of whether it is realistic to allow all of the expenditure generated by residents of the five-minute area to be genuinely available to stores in this area. Overall, Planning Officers do not consider that the Applicant’s assessment of available expenditure can be relied upon to demonstrate support for the proposed retail floorspace. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.16 It is common practice for an assessment of financial impact to incorporate the likely pattern of trade draw to a retail proposal. The use of trade draw information and forecasts would show the likely market penetration rate of a proposal across different parts of the catchment/study ar ea and would, in turn, be useful for the assessment of trade diversion. The A pplicant has not s ubmitted trade draw information, primarily due to their decision to rely upon a single catchment zone (the five-minute drive-time). This is a further deficiency in the Applicant’s financial impact assessment, which is reinforced by the lack of shopping patterns data to inform the trade diversion assessment. 7.17 Paragraph 9.42 of the Applicant’s Pl anning and Retail Statement provides the extent of the Applicant’s assessment of the ‘impact on investment’ policy test. It is indicated that there are not any existing, committed, and planned public or private sector investments which woul d be impacted by the proposed retail study. The Applicant has not adequately a ddressed ‘existing investment’. To properly assess the potential impact on t he attitudes and actions of existing investors, further information in relati on to the wider impact of the proposal (as outlined above ) is required. 7.18 In conclusion, the Applicant has subm itted insufficient supporting information to robustly justify the acceptability of t he proposed out-of-centre retail floorspace. As such, the proposal is contrary to Chapter 7 of the Na tional Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy SD7 of the London Plan (2021), Policy E5 of the Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Policy DMTC 1 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and the principle of development is not supported. Loss of Public House 7.19 The 'Orchard Pub' closed in December 2023. Notwithstanding, the proposal to demolish it and change its use would result in the loss of a public house with heritage, cultural, economic, and social va lue. Therefore, the Applicant is required to submit robust marketing ev idence to demonstrate that there is no prospect of the Site bein g used as a pub in the foreseeable future. 7.20 The submission states t hat marketing started in Ap ril 2024, just eight months prior to the Applicant’s submission of th is planning application. The submitted planning statement continues, ‘At the time of writing the report, there has been no firm offer or interest from any co mmunity uses or pu b operators. The marketing campaign will be ongoing during the application process, and once the marketing is complete, a full marketing report will adjoin a the [sic] planning application.’ Since the application’s submission, the Local Planning Authority has not received a full marketing report. Gi ven the limited and insufficient active marketing timeframe and details, the submitted evidence is inadequate in demonstrating that there is no realistic prospect of the building being used as a pub in the foreseeable future. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.21 In the absence of robust and acceptable marketing evidence to justify the loss of the public house, the proposed change of use is contrary to Policy HC7 of The London Plan (2021) and, as such, is not supported. Loss of the Hotel (Use Class C1): 7.22 Whilst the existing Premier Inn Hotel rema ins in operation at the rear of the Site, Officers accept the principle of a change of use that involves the loss of this visitor accommodation (Use Class C1) in this instance given the hotel’s location outside of a designated Town Centre, Hote l Growth Location, or Opportunity Area. 7.23 As such, the development would not c onflict with Policy E10 of The London Plan (2021), and the loss of the hotel is acceptable. Herita ge / Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.24 The Site is the Old Orchard, a fo rmer hotel, bar, and dance hall located within the Ruislip Village Conservation Area. The locally listed Old Orchard is modest, and the architectural style of the mock timber framing respects and responds to the historic character of the area. It is a focal building within the Ruislip Conservation Area. The Site is of histor ical significance due to its links with the Polish airmen and support staff who served in the RAF in the Second World War, in particular during the Battle of Britai n, and used the building as a space for relaxation and to create a sense of community. The Site also contains the locally listed sculpture within a war memorial garden at the front (south) of the Site. 7.25 Other notable nearby her itage assets are Fiveways, a nearby locally listed house; the Grade II Listed building of t he White Bear Public House, an 18th- century two-storey building, which is noted within the list description as being of interest in part due to its landmark st atus; Grade II Listed Orchard Cottage (65 Kingsend); and Grade II Listed Laurel Cottage, Primrose Cottage, Tudor Cottage on Wood Lane. 7.26 Historically, the Grade II Listed Whit e Bear Public Hous e would have been located within a hamlet at the edge of Ruislip with the Grade II Listed Orchard Cottage (65 Kingsend) and Grade II Listed Laurel Cottage, Primrose Cottage, Tudor Cottage on Wood Lane, in rural Middl esex. Following the expansion of London in the Metroland era, it became the focus of the Fiveways roundabout. Opposite this was the other landmark of the locally listed Old Orchard. The view across from the White Bear towards the Orchard retains a sizable green space, which reflects the more historic rural scene. 7.27 The submitted Heritage Assessment (prepared by Border Archaeology, dated June 2024 and updated February 2025) states that the proposal would have a Moderate to Large impact on the locally listed Old Orchard, Grade II Listed White Bear Public House, locally listed Fivewa ys, the locally listed Spitfire and War Memorial, and on the Ruislip Villa ge Conservation Area. It further states that it Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press would have a neutral impact on the Grade II Listed Orchard Cottage and Grade II Listed Laurel, Primrose and Tudor Cottage. 7.28 The proposed building would be a large, uniform, single-storey retail unit with an increased footprint from the existi ng pub and hotel. Alt hough the proposed building would be single storey, it would be approximately 10.5 metres tall. This is broadly the same height as the tallest element of the existing structure. The proposed retail unit would deliver a cont inuous uniform building mass directly along the site boundary with limited boundary greening. This would be a stark contrast to the varied massing of the existing building. The replacement building would include some architectural elements common to the surrounding townscape, such as the roof form and roof material with gables. However, below the roof, the proposed architecture is bland, with large ex panses of render, advertising, and brick detailing. The comb ination of the building's proposed scale, mass, and uniform blank elevations t hat lack the articulation, variation, texture, and human scale of surrounding developments would be incongruous and detrimental to the Conservation Area's character. 7.29 The position of the existing building delivers an entrance and building frontage that faces the Fiveways junction focal po int. The position of the existing locally listed Orchard is set broadly central to th e Site, providing a green setting to the building, which is a key characteristic of the Conservation Area. The proposed building would be located close to the Si te’s western boundary with a large car park to the rear of the bu ilding. This proposed building location within the Site would reduce the frontage garden setting and would necessitate the removal of the mature boundary tree and shrub plantin g along the western boundary. This approach would harm the character of the Conservation Area. 7.30 Officers agree with the Applicant's Heri tage Assessment that the proposal would have a negligible impact on the Grade II Listed Orchard Cottage and Grade II Listed Laurel, Primrose, and Tudor Cottage due to the location of other later developments, which broadly block direct views between the heritage assets and the proposed buildin g. 7.31 The proposed building would be substantia l in size and of lesser architectural quality when compared to the existing development. It would also reduce the green space towards the Site's frontage. This would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the Grade II Listed White Bear Public House. This harm would be less than substantial due to the impact on the setting and the impact only being within part of the setting. However, given the impact on the principal elevation and view and due to the scale, mass, and prominence of the proposed structure, it would diminish the setting of the public house, and this harm would be at a moderate level. 7.32 The proposal would result in complete loss of the locally listed Old Orchard, a visually important gateway building to the Conservation Area. There would be a loss of green space, harming the setting of the locally listed war memorial. This would cause less than substantial harm at a hi gh level to the Conservation Area. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.33 Paragraph 215 of the Nati onal Planning Policy Framew ork (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, wher e appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.’ 7.34 The submitted Heritage Assessment’s c onclusion suggests that there would be heritage gain through the recording of the Old Orchard, the construction of a memorial garden for the relocated Spitfire memorial, and provision of appropriate information boards onsite. Paragraph 10.31 of the Applicant’s Planning Statement states that ‘the proposal would provide a public benefit by preserving the long-term use of the site with a viabl e occupier, increase consumer choice for the local residents and provide a me morial garden to enhance the setting of the locally listed Spitfire memorial. Cumulatively, these public benefits outweigh the harm to the Conservation Area and nearby heritage assets’. Paragraph 10.17 of the Planning Statement states the proposal wo uld provide forty new employment opportunities. 7.35 The recording of the Old Orchard would not outweigh the harms noted above due to its very limited nature. Further , Paragraph 218 of the NPPF states, 'However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be pe rmitted.' The current location of the locally listed war memorial is within a larger garden than wh at the Applicant proposes, and it relates to the locally listed building that the Applicant proposes to demolish. As such, the proposed change would not be a heritage gain or public benefit. Officers acknowledge the construction and use of a Lidl on the Site would increase consumer choice for local residents; would be a use for the Site; and it would offer employment. Notwithstanding the Applicant’s stated public benefits, Officers highlight, as previously detailed, that the Applicant has not submitted sufficient marketing evidence to justify the loss of the Pub lic House. Without robust justification the loss is to the detriment of heritage, economic, social, and cultural value of the local community, nor has the Applicant submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed out-of-town centre retail floor space would not be a disbenefit to the town centre’s vitality and viability. As such, the cumulative harm to designated herit age assets is not outweighed by the Applicant’s stated public benefits. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to policy. 7.36 The proposals would impact three non-designated heritage assets. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF states that ‘The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non- designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of an y harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.’ 7.37 The proposal would cause substantial ha rm to the locally listed Old Orchard due to the asset's destruction. 7.38 The locally listed war memorial would lose its context with the loss of the Old Orchard. As such, it would be more difficult to understand why it was located at Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the Site and the armed forces it commemorates. In addition, it would be relocated within the Site. The garden space it curr ently occupies would be substantially reduced and, with the pr oposed layout changes, it would appear more challenging to allow commemorative events to take place on the Site. The harm to the significance of the locally listed war memorial would be substantial. 7.39 There would be further harm to the setti ng of the locally listed Fiveways. This significant building dates from the 20th century. It is two storeys in height with a hipped tiled roof and is in use as flats. It is a prominent building on the adjacent junction and due to its proximity and visual interrelationship with the Old Orchard would be detrimentally impacted by the proposed change in appearance and character of the area. This impact would be less than substantial and at a moderate level. 7.40 The harm to these non-des ignated heritage assets is not justified by the proposal’s stated public benefits. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to policy. 7.41 Cumulatively, the proposal woul d unduly harm designated and non-designated heritage assets and have an unacceptable design. It would not comply with the NPPF (2024), Policies HC1, HC7 and D3 of The London Plan (2021), Policies BE1 and HE1 of the Local Pl an Part 1 (2012), and Polici es DMHB 1, DMHB 2, DMHB 2, DMHB 3, Policy DMHB 4, DMHB 9, DMHB 11, and DMHB 12 (2020). Thus, refusal is recommended. Archaeological Impact 7.42 Historic England's Greater London Arc haeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) has been consulted, and they raised no objection subject to a pre- commencement written scheme of historic building investigation (WSI). This pre- commencement condition is necessary to safeguard the archaeological interest in this site. Approval of the WSI before works begin on the Site provides clarity on what investigations are required an d their timing in relation to the development pro gramme. 7.43 The applicant has confirmed thei r agreement to the recommended pre- commencement planning condition (in the event of approval of planning permission) to secure a Written Scheme of Investigation, thus satisfying this requirement. Residential Amenit y 7.44 The proposed building would have a pitched roof with a ridge height of approximately 10.5 metres and an eaves hei ght of approximately 6.5 metres. The proposed building would be set in approximately three metres from the Site's west boundary. It would be approximately 28 metres from residential properties to the west and would be separated by Sharps Lane. The nearest residential property to the south of the proposed building would be approximately 25 metres away and separated by Ickenham Road. The nearest residential property to the east of the proposed buildin g would be approximatel y 33 metres awa y and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press separated by Ickenham Road. The closest residential property to the north of the proposed building would be approximately 17 metres away. This property's gable wall faces the Site. 7.45 The proposal woul d not impact the outlook, priva cy, daylight, or sunlight of adjacent properties or open spaces, given its proposed height, scale, mass, use, location, and separation distances from nearby residential properties. 7.46 Please see the relevant section below re garding noise. 7.47 The proposed scheme is acceptable in te rms of residential amenity impacts and complies with Policy D3 of The London Pl an and Policy DMHB 11 of the Local Plan Part 2. Hi ghways and Parking 7.48 For customers arriving by bicycle, t here would be 12 covered Sheffield stands offering secure short-stay parking for 24 bicycles. There would be a further 12 long-stay spaces for staff to use. 7.49 The application proposes t hat the food store would have 72 car parking spaces, including 46 ‘standard’ spaces, four disabled persons bays, three enlarged bays, three parent and child spaces, two ‘rapid’ electric vehicle charging points, and 14 'passive’ electric vehicle charging points. 7.50 For customers and servicing, vehicular access to the Site would be provided via a widened Ickenham Road access. The Applicant proposes a pedestrian entrance at the south of the Site, ad jacent to the junction. 7.51 The Applicant proposes a dedicated deliv ery bay on the northern elevation of the food store. The delivery vehicles would drive onto the site in forward gear and line up with the delivery bay before reversing into the dock. They would drop off goods directly into the warehouse area and drive away in forward gear. 7.52 Many public objections (received in re sponse to the public consultation on the planning application) state t hat traffic turning right into the Site would lead to queues forming and that the road layout is unsuitable for the anticipated uplift in traffic. The objectors also highlight that the proposal would lead to parking displacement on nearby residential streets and that there are no facilities for staff and customers either walking or cycling to the Site to use. Objectors also raise the negative impact delivery and servici ng vehicles would have on residential amenity. 7.53 The Council’s Highways Team has been consulted, and they object to the proposed development, stating that the proposed development would not appropriately facilitate trip-making by f oot, cycle, or public transport and would include an oversupply of car parking. The Applicant has failed to submit a Parking Management and Design Plan to detail the car park's management. The Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press application has not demonstrated that the proposal would not increase road danger. 7.54 The Applicant submitted a Transpor t Assessment (refer ence 16-2273, T002 Issue No. 2, prepared by Cora IHT, dated January 2025), a Delivery and Service Management Plan (reference 16-2273, T003 Issue No. 1, prepared by Cora IHT, dated January 2025), and a Travel Plan (re ference 16-2273, T002 Issue No. 2, prepared by Cora IHT, dated January 2025). 7.55 This submission draws upon the results of traffic surveys undertaken on Friday 17 May 2024, and Saturday 18 May 2024. The Highways Officer queries the validity of these results as traffic surveys underta ken on a Friday are not representative of a typical weekday. This is because people may be on annual leave, takin g a long weekend, working from home, or simply leaving work early. 7.56 The Transport Assessment reports that tr affic flows to the food store would peak on Saturdays between 12:00 and 13:00. During this period, there would be 200 two-way trips. It is anticipated that people shopping at t he store would have previously visited other stores near by, including Waitrose off Wood Lane and Iceland, Tesco Express, Sainsbury Local, Nisa Local, and Ruislip Food Centre, all situated to the east along Ruislip Hi gh Street. The proposal would result in longer trip lengths, more vehicles on the network resulting in congestion, increased road safety risk, traffic noise , and poor air quality. This would be contrary to Policy T1 of The London Plan (2021), which requires that development proposals should facilitate 'the delivery of the Mayor's strategic target of 80 per cent of all trips in London should be made by foot, cycle or public transport by 2041.' 7.57 Council Highways Engineers visited the site during the AM Peak and observed long traffic queues on the Ickenham Road eastern arm westbound and Kingsend westbound. These traffic queues are believed to occur each weekday, however, Tables 5.5 and 5.7 of the submitted Transport Assessment show queue lengths of just one vehicle. There are notable concerns regarding the validity of these outputs. 7.58 The Proposed Site Plan illus trates that access would be in the same position as the existing, though widened. This would necessitate moving the bus stop on the Ickenham Road eastern arm south nearer to the White Bear roundabout. According to the Proposed Site Plan, when there is a bus parked at the relocated bus stop, if there is a delivery vehicle waiting behind, then it would overhang into the Black Bear roundabout; the same would apply if there were more than three cars waiting behind a bus. Cars overhangi ng onto the roundabout would result in gridlock as vehicles circulating would have their path ahead blocked by queuein g traffic. 7.59 The Proposed Site Plan shows the swept path of a delivery vehicle leaving the Site. The vehicle would clip the footwa y on the northern side of the bellmouth. The Highways Officer requires that vehi cular swept paths include 300mm error mar gins. A delivery driver may overrun the footway in this location, presenting a Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press road safety risk to pedestrians and cyclists. This would contradict Policy T4 of The London Plan (2021) which requires that development proposals do not increase road danger. 7.60 The Proposed Site Plan illustrates how delivery vehicles would manoeuvre into the loading/unloading docking bay. This would involve reversing within the customer car park, raising further r oad safety concerns as the manoeuvring delivery vehicle would share the space with people walking between their parked cars and the food store. This practice should be managed by only allowing deliveries when the store is closed. Ho wever, the submitted Delivery and Servicing Management Plan states in Para graph 3.1.2 that there would be 'no time restrictions for servicin g', which raises highway safety concerns. 7.61 Therefore, the proposed dev elopment is contrary to Chapter 9 of the NPPF (2024), Policies T1, T2, T4, T6, and T6 .3 of The London Plan (2021), and Policies DMT 1, DMT 2, DMT 5, and DMT 6 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Thus, the application is recommended for refusal. Air Quality 7.62 The proposed development is located within the Ruislip Town Centre Focus Area and approximately 480 metres outsi de the London Borough of Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area. 7.63 The proposed development is not ai r quality neutral and therefore the suitable level of damage cost has been calculated as per London Plan Air Quality Neutral Guidance. Mitigation measures to reduc e emissions can be applied on-site or off-site. Where this is not practical or desirable, pollut ant off-setting will be applied. The level of miti gation required associated with the operational phase of the proposed development is calculated using London Plan Air Quality Neutral Guidance in this instance. Any mitigati on measures proposed will be evaluated in terms of likely emission reductions onto local air quality. Wherever quantifiable, these are calc ulated and subtracted from the overall value due. When no quantification is possible, a flat rate discount is applied. 7.64 The undiscounted level of mitigation r equired to the proposed development for traffic emissions is £1,161,495. Deduc tions were applied in line with the proposed mitigation. Flat rate deductions applied are as follow: Travel Plan (15 per cent), Green Sustainable M easures (0 per cent), contribution to long term London Borough Hillingdon strategic long-term strategies (e.g. multimodal shift, contribution to local services) (0 per cent), totalling a reduction of £174,224. 7.65 Therefore, a Section 106 agreement is required to secure the Applicant’s payment of a planning contribution of £987,271 to the London Borough of Hillingdon to mitigate the development’s harm. 7.66 Further to the necessary Section 106 Agreement, the Council’s Air Quality Officer recommended pre-commencement conditions regarding a low emission

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Rhian Thomas 9197/APP/2025/239 Date Application Valid: 31-01-25 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 20-06-25 Application Type: Full Ward: Hillingdon East Applicant: Mr Ravinder Shoor Site Address: 42 The Larches, Hillingdon Proposal: Demolition of rear outbuilding and erection of a double storey side extension to form a new house with associated bin and cycle stores and separation of rear garden for private amenity space. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 2 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Member call-in request) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 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 The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of rear outbuilding and erection of a double storey side extension to form a new house , with associated bin and cycle stores and the separation of the rear garden for the creation of private amenity space. 1.2 During the process of the application, a Cllr called in the application due to the potential impact to the neighbouring properties No’s 44 and 46 The Larches, requiring the determination of the application at Planning Committee. The main issues which shall be addressed within this Committee Report relate to the impact to neighbouring properties in terms of loss of daylight & sunlight and loss of outlook. 1.3 It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions ( see Appendix 1) as it is considered that the development would not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, the character and appearance of the area or on the highway network. 1.4 The Committee Report seeks to provide a comprehensive assessment of the full application and supporting documentation. All material planning considerations have been considered. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site comprises a two-storey semi-detached property and its garden located on the southern side of The Larches, Hillingdon. Within the rear garden of the property is a large single storey outbuilding . To the front of the property is an area of soft landscaping and a vehicle crossover to provide off street parking for assumed one vehicle. The site has a PTAL ranking of 1b. 2.2 The surrounding area is residential in character comprising a mix of property types. To the east of the site are bungalow properties and to the north of the site are two storey terraces. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Street View Images of the Application Property Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the ‘Demolition of rear outbuilding and erection of a double storey side extension to form a new house with associated bin and cycle stores and separation of rear garden for private amenity space.’ Figure 3: Proposed Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Proposed Block Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Proposed Front Drive and Kerb Layout Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Proposed Front Elevation Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Proposed Side Elevation Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Proposed Side Elevation Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Proposed Rear Elevation Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Proposed Ground Floor Plan Proposed First Floor Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Proposed Sections Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Proposed Site Section 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 13 Neighbouring Properties were consulted on the application by letter dated 18- 02-25. The consultation period expired 11-03-25. Two neighbouring representations have been received in addition to a Cllr call in request. 6.2 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 1 letter of objection from 2 neighbouring properties and a Cllr call in request has been received. 1. Concerns regarding loss of sunlight to neighbouring properties. An assessment of the impact to neighbouring properties has been made at paragraphs 7.17 to 7.24 with particular regard to loss of sunlight to neighbouring properties. 2. Concerns regarding loss of view from neighbouring properties windows and overbearing impact. An assessment of the impact to neighbouring properties has been made at paragraphs 7.17 to 7.24 of this report. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Access Officer No accessibility concerns are raised subject to the inclusion of conditions relating to step free access and compliance with the technical specifications for an M4(2) dwelling. The relevant conditions have been added to the decision notice. Highways Officer The applicant has a revised proposed block plan and revised proposed front drive and kerb layout (drawing no. A103 Rev C and A117 Rev C). The proposal involves the provision of 2 spaces to serve the existing dwelling and 1 new space to serve the proposed dwelling. A new crossover would need to be constructed to access the 2 spaces for the existing dwelling. The parking and cycle provision is adequate and policy compliant. Concerns are raised regarding the proposed visibility splays as they are not illustrated as being taken from within the site boundary which is a requirement to accord with the Councils Domestic Crossover Policy. The highway officers’ comments are noted. A full assessment of the highway impact has been discussed at paragraph 7.31 of this report. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.1 The property is located within an established residential area; however, the London Plan recognises the contribution of gardens (especially back gardens) and suggests a presumption against their loss where it can be locally justified. Local Plan Policy DMH 6 provides a presumption against the loss of gardens due to the need to maintain local character, amenity space and biodiversity. 7.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (2024) has a requirement to encourage the effective use of land and The London Plan Policy H2 states that well designed housing schemes on small sites should be actively supported. The Hillingdon Local Plan details how small-scale sites will make a contribution to housing supply. 7.3 The proposal i s for the erection of a new two-bedroom dwelling attached to the side of No.42 The Larches within its garden, to the side o f the property . The surrounding area is residential in character and the proposed development would maintain the established pattern of development. Although the development would be sited within the side garden of the existing dwelling, it is not considered that the new dwelling would cause substantial harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area given its adequate set in from the side boundary, set back from the front elevation and set down from the main ridge. The development would appear more intimate in mass and scale than the existing dwelling and has been designed to appear as a side extension. 7.4 Furthermore, the symmetry of the existing semi -detached pair has been diminished by the extensions to both propertie s, the conversion of the adjoining properties roof form to habitable use , including the construction of a hip to gable end and rear dormer. The proposal would respect the existing front and rear building lines therefore in the round is appropriate garden land development. The proposal would not result in the loss of the existing single family dwellinghouse and would result in the provision of 1 new dwelling which would contribute to the local housing stock. Although this benefit carries limited weight it is a benefit which weighs in favour of the proposal. 7.5 As such, the development would comply with Policies H2 of the London Plan (2021), Policy DMH 6 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and the NFFP (2024). The principle of development is therefore accepted. Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.6 The proposed development involves the demolition of the existing rear outbuilding and the erection of a double storey side extension to No.42 The Larches to form a new two bed dwelling with associated bin and cycle stores and separation of rear garden for private amenity space. 7.7 The existing site comprises a pair of semidetached properties with a spacious gap on the eastern side which is a prominent feature within the street scene. This gap provides a form of separation between the two storey semi -detached properties and the adjacent bungalows on the eastern side. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.8 The proposed development follows a pre -application submission, where design changes have been implemented. The proposed new dwelling would be attached to the side of the existing property No.42 and would measure approx. 4.8m in width, 9m in depth, it would be set down from the main ridgeline by 1.3m , set back from the front building line by 1m and set in from the side boundary by a minimum of 2m at its narrowest point extending to 2.3m. The dwelling would be characterised by with a hipped roof to match the existing dwelling and it would extend beyond the rear building line of No.42 by approx. 1.5m at ground and first floor level, incorporating a pitched roof to the rear. 7.9 Whilst it is acknowledged that that existing property and its plot hosts a spacious gap within the street scene which provides a visual separation between the existing semi-detached properties and the adjacent bungalows located east of the site; the proposed development has been designed respectfully with its set down from the main ridgeline, set back from the front elevation and set in from the side boundary. It is considered that the proposed development would appear more of a side extension than a new dwelling from street level. 7.10 The bungalows to the east are orientated differently to the application property. The front elevation of the bungalows faces east with the rear elevation facing west. This results in the rear gardens abutting the side boundary of the application site. Subsequently this creates a large separation distance between the application site boundary and the rear elevations of the bungalows to the east. At present the separation distance between 42 and the rear elevation 44 of 19 metres. This would be reduced to 13.7 metres according to the prop osed block plan. A separation distance of 13.7 m between buildings is generous and would certainly prevent the potential terracing affect which DMHB 11 and DMD 1 seek to prevent) Figure 4: Image of the existing street scene at the application site 7.11 Furthermore, upon visiting site most properties within the street are either two storey semi-detached dwellings or rows of terraced dwellings. The modest row of bungalows to the east are a minority. A lot of the properties are joined by a brick Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press wall with an access gate to the side of the properties providing access to front doors on the side of properties and/or rear gardens. The main separation is viewed from the first floor upwards, and this is limited to less than 5 metres. As such the provision of a new dwelling to the side of the property would retain a significant separation distance above that which is seen within the existing street scene. The proposal is therefore not considered to be cramped or contrived and not an overdevelopment of a garden land site. Figure 5: Image of the example of the average separation distance within the street scene 7.12 Although the proposed dwelling would measure more than half the width of the original property, it would still appear subordinate given its overall design. It is not considered that the infilling of this gap is significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area for the above reasons, nor would it appear cramped within the plot given the separation distance from the side boundary. 7.13 The proposed development would include two front elevation windows. One at ground floor level and one at first floor, it would include a side access door with a projecting brick pattern at first floor level to provide an articulated façade. This is a welcomed feature which adds detail to what could be considered a blank wall. As neighbouring properties would look out onto this side wall, it would provide a welcomed design feature. The materials listed on the pro posed drawings and within the Design and Access Statement would march the appearance of the existing house and as such would not appear out of character within the street scene and in the event of an approval, a compliance condition will be added. 7.14 As described above, the design of the scheme is not considered to be harmful to the character and appearance and visual amenities of the area, and as such the proposed development complies with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies and Policies DMH 6, DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020), as well as relevant design guidance contained within the London Plan (2021) and NPPF (2024). Heritage 7.15 The site is not located within a designated area and as such this section is not applicable to the assessment of this application. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Impact on the Green Belt 7.16 The site is not located within the Green Belt and as such this section is not applicable to the assessment of this application. Residential Amenity 7.17 Number 40 The Larches is located west of the application site and forms the other half of the semi -detached properties. Given the proposed dwelling is separated from this neighbour it is not considered there would be any harmful impact in terms of loss of light, overshadowing, loss of outlook, nor would it be overbearing 7.18 The proposed development would be attached to the side wall of No.42 The Larches. The proposed dwelling would extend approx. 1.5m deeper than the rear building wall of this neighbour at both ground and first floor level. The proposed floor plans indicate that the development would not extend into the 45-degree line of sight from the closest neighbouring habitable room windows which indicates there would be no significant loss of light or overshadowing to this neighbouring property; thi s has been confirmed by the submitted Daylight and Sunlight Assessment which concludes that there would be no harm to this neighbour in terms of loss of light and level of sunlight received. It is not considered that the development would be overbearing neither. 7.19 Numbers 44, 46, 48 The Larches are located east of the application site and are bungalow properties. The proposed development would be sited approx. 13.7m away from the rear building line of these properties. These dwelling include habitable rear facing ro oms which would face the side wall of this new development. 7.20 Although it is only the 21m separation distance between habitable room windows which is referenced within the Local Plan, there is a general rule applied to the relationship of existing and proposed residential buildings whereby a 15 -metre separation distance should be adequate to allow for daylight, sunlight and outlook to be safeguarded. The proposed development would fall marginally short of the 15 metres. The application has been accompanied by a Daylight and Sunlight Assessment which concludes that the scheme is compliant with BRE guidance in relation to sunlight impacts and the development would not cause adverse harm on the neighbouring residents in terms of daylight. The report has assessed the impact to all the neighbouring properties including numbers 40-48 The Larches. 7.21 The Vertical Sky Component is measured at the centre of a window and should be no less than 27%, or if reduces to below this, should be no less than 0.8 times the former value. The window should receive at least 25% of available annual sunlight hours and more than 5% during the winter months (September 21st to March 21st), or, where this is not the case, 80% of its former value. The report indicates that all tested windows meet the Vertical Sky Component guidance. The report also shows that the assessed windows retain in excess of 25% of available annual sunlight hours and 5% of hours during the winter months. The goes on to demonstrate that there would be no impact to the amount of sunlight the assessed Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press properties gardens receive. The report indicates that properties No’s 40-48 would retain 100% of their existing garden sunlight that already receives 2 hours. 7.22 The scheme is therefore compliant with BRE guidance in relation to sunlight impacts. 7.23 There would be a ground floor side access door which would face these neighbouring properties; however, this would mainly face the boundary treatment and would not cause any loss of privacy or overlooking given its ground floor position. There are side fac ing windows in the direction of these neighbours and as such there would be no harmful impact. As indicated on the submitted drawings, the upper floor side elevation of the dwelling would include projecting brick to add articulation to this façade, which p revents these neighbouring properties looking out onto a blank wall. It is not considered that the development would be significantly overbearing for the above reasons. 7.24 As such, the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the neighbouring properties amenities complying with Policies DMHD 1 and DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan, Part 2 (2020). Quality of Residential Accommodation (Internal and External) Internal 7.25 The proposed dwelling would be considered a 2 bed, 3-person unit and would have approx. 78sqm of GIA over two floors. Policy D6 of the London Plan requires a property of this size to have at least 70sqm of GIA and as such the development meets this standard. All habitable rooms would have an adequate source of light and outlook and as such would also comply with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021). The proposed section drawing indicates that the dwelling would have a floor to ceiling height of 2.5m on both floors again meeting the standards. 7.26 As such, it is considered that future occupiers would have a good standard of living accommodation complying with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan, Part 2 (2020). External 7.27 The proposed development would involve the demolition of the existing rear outbuilding structure and the separation of the regard garden to provide private gardens for both the retained and proposed dwellings. The retained property would have approx. 89s qm of rear garden and the new dwelling would have approx. 81sqm which would comply with this standard. 7.28 As such, the development would comply with Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan, Part 2 (2020). Highways and Parking 7.29 The London Plan (2021) Table 10.3 - Maximum Residential Parking Standards allows dwellings in Outer London PTAL ranking of 1b to have a maximum 1.5no. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press spaces each, therefore the development should provide a maximum of 3no. car parking spaces. The proposal would include the provision of one new vehicle crossover to provide vehicular access to the new and retained dwelling. 3 parking spaces have been shown, 2 for the retained dwelling and 1 for the new dwelling. The applicant has shown a 1.2m wide pedestrian path leading to both dwelling entrances, the proposed floor plans indicates that the front porch of No.42 would have a new side access door which ensures that there is an unobstructed access for pedestrians (see Figure 6). This is considered an acceptable arrangement. Figure 6 (Proposed ground floor plan): 7.30 The new dwelling would be served by 1 new car parking space accessed via the existing dropped kerb. The existing dwelling would be served by 2 parking spaces which would require the construction of a new crossover. The proposed new crossover is broadly in compliance with the Councils Domestic Crossover Policy; however, the visibility splays are not indicated as being measured from within the site. The Domestic Crossover Policy requires pedestrian visibility splays of 2.4m by 2.4m to be measured from within the site itself. Having reviewed the submitted drawings and visited the site, it is unlikely that the visibility splays could be provided from within the site as the porch restricts the parking spaces from being moved any further back from the footway. 7.31 Notwithstanding this point the use of visibility splays is to ensure pedestrian safety from vehicles turning in and out of the site. As the site would require a new crossover and the retention of the existing crossover the proposed Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press boundary treatment would be limited in terms of width as it would require a substantial proportion of the frontage to remain open. Where there is a need for a boundary treatment to the sides of the properties in order to safeguard the boundaries to the site, this would be limited to 1m in height. Furthermore, the depth of the front gardens is similar and modest across the entire street scene. As such there are a plethora of examples where the car parking provided to the front of the properties would fail to meet the required visibility splays set out within the Domestic Crossover Policy. Based on these factors no highway concerns are raised. An informative is to be added to the decision notice Requiring the vehicle crossover be constructed under a s184 Highways Act (1980) or similar agreement at the applicant's/developer's expense. 7.32 The submitted drawing show that one of these spaces would be provided by an active Electric Vehicle Charging Point (EVCP) and the other 2 spaces would have a passive provision which is acceptable. Should the application be approved, a landscape condition will be added to ensure this is provided and maintained throughout the lifetime of the development. 7.34 The development would include the provision of one cycle store with space for 2 bicycles for the new dwelling. The store would be located an accessible position with a 1.2m wide path. Should the application be approved, a condition will be secured to provide the details of the cycle storage to ensure it is secure and covered. 7.35 Given the sensitivities of the site, a Construction Management Plan will be secured via condition should the application be approved. As such, the development would comply with the Policies DMT 1, DMT 2, DMT 5 & DMT 6 and Policies T4, T5 and T6 of the London Plan (2021). Noise 7.36 The site would be used in an exclusively residential capacity. As such, in terms of the operational phase of the proposed development, no significant issues are raised by the proposal, in respect to noise. Air Quality 7.37 The site is located within an Air Quality Management Area. Given the proposed development is for one new dwelling, it is not considered that the proposal would cause unacceptable levels of dust and disturbance during the construction phase. 7.38 The control of dust and construction hours is governed under separate legislation and the relevant informative note has been added to the decision to remind the applicant of this. Accessibility 7.39 The Councils access officer has been consulted on the application and has no concerns regarding accessibility subject to conditions regarding step free access Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press and compliance with the technical specifications for an M4(2) dwelling which will be added to the decision should the application be approved. Trees and Landscaping 7.40 The proposed development would involve the loss of soft landscaping to the front and side of the existing property (mainly grassed areas). Drawings, A103 Rev C and A117 Rev C show the provision of soft landscaping in the form of vegetated planters around the front of both properties which is welcomed. Should the application be recommended for approval, a detailed soft and hard landscaping scheme will be secured via condition to ensure the development integrates well with the surrounding area. Biodiversity Net gain and Ecology 7.41 During the process of the application, the applicant provided the statutory BNG metric, Preliminary Ecology Appraisal (PEA) and BNG report. The report indicates that there would be a decrease of 0.02 Area -Based Habitat Units from 0.06 to 0.04, achieving a net loss of 35.78% which falls short of the mandatory net gain requirement. This is primarily due to the loss of vegetated garden habitat, which could not be adequately compensated for within the plans for the development. 7.42 As the required units to meet a 10% net gain is under 0.25, should the application be approved, a condition will be secured requiring a BNG net gain plan and justification why 10% cannot be provided on site. If this cannot be achieved on - site, off-site credits must be purchased with confirmation of this. 7.43 The Preliminary Ecological Assessment submitted in support of the application identifies a low habitat value for bat roosting within both buildings (main building and outbuilding) As such, the submitted report recommends that further bat surveys are carried out, this would require 1 survey visit by 2 surveyors at dusk or dawn. The visit should be carried out between May and August inclusive, with at least half of visits needing to be between mid-May and end of August. Should bats be found to be roosting in the buildings two further survey visits will be required and then a licence applied for from Natural England to allow demolition of the building. A condition has been included requiring the submission of the recommended surveys, and if required, the proposed mitigation. 7.44 Additionally, mitigation and enhancement measures detailed in the Preliminary Ecological Assessment , such as a low impact lighting strategy , bird and bat boxes/bricks would be implemented to minimise disturbance to foraging and commuting bats. Compliance with the recommendations detailed in this submitted report would be secured by condition. 7.45 Subject to the above conditions and compliance with the Preliminary Ecological Assessment, the proposal would have an acceptable impact on biodiversity interest, in terms of protected species. This would be compliant with Policy G7 of the London Plan (2021), Policy DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) and the NPPF (2024). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Flooding and Drainage 7.46 The proposed development site is not located in Flood Zones 2 or 3. Nor is it located within a critical drainage area, or an area known for surface water flooding. Should the application be recommended for approval, a condition will be added requiring a sustainable water management plan for the site to be submitted and approved. The plan will ensure that appropriate and sufficient drainage is provided for the new dwelling. Waste Management 7.47 Policy DMHB 11 part (d) of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020) states that development proposals should make sufficient provision for well-designed internal and external storage space for general, recycling and organic waste, with suitable access for collection. External bins s hould be located and screened to avoid nuisance and adverse visual impacts to occupiers and neighbours. Drawings, A103 Rev C and A117 Rev C show the provision of refuge storage for the retained and proposed dwellings. Should the application be approved, a condition will be secured to provide further details of these. 8 Other Matters Human Rights 8.1 The development has been assessed against the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and in particular Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the Act itself. This Act gives further effect to the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to the applicant's reasonable development rights and expectations which have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance. Equality 8.2 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the assessment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.3 The Council adopted its own Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on 1st August 2014. The Hillingdon CIL charge for residential developments is £95 per square metre of additional floor space. This is in addition to the Mayoral CIL charge of £60 per square me tre. CIL rates are index linked. The proposal involves the erection of a new dwelling and is therefore CIL liable if planning permission is granted. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The proposed development would have a satisfactory impact on the character and appearance of the area and would no t significantly harm the amenities of any neighbouring property. It is not considered to harm the highway network; additionally adequate living accommodation would be provided for future occupiers. 9.2 The proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents taken into account in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential information) are available on the Council's website here, by entering the planning application number at the top of this report and using the search facility. Planning applications are also available to inspect electronically at the Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW upon appointment, by contacting Planning Services at planning@hillingdon.gov.uk. APPENDICES Planning Application 9197/APP/2025/239 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 16 Appendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. RES3 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. RES4 Accordance with Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on submitted plans numbers: A101 Rev B A102 Rev C A103 Rev C A104 Rev B A105 Rev B A106 Rev B A107 Rev B A108 Rev B A109 Rev B A110 Rev B A111 Rev B A117 Rev C and shall thereafter be retained/maintained for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012), Part 2 (2020) and the London Plan (2021). 3. RES5 General compliance with supporting documentation The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the following has been completed in accordance with the specified supporting plans and/or documents: - Daylight and Sunlight Assessment Issue No. 2 dated January 2025 - Biodiversity Net Gain Calculation Document by green shoots ecology dated May 2025 - Preliminary Ecological Assessment Report by green shoots ecology dated May 2025 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 16 Thereafter the development shall be retained/maintained in accordance with these details for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012), Part 2 (2020) and the London Plan (2021). 4. HO4 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 at No.42 The Larches and shall thereafter be retained as such. REASON To safeguard the visual amenities of the area and to ensure that the proposed development does not have an adverse effect upon the appearance of the existing building in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) 5. COM9 Landscaping (car parking & refuse/cycle storage) No development shall take place until a landscape scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include: - 1. Details of Soft Landscaping 1.a Planting plans (at not less than a scale of 1:100), including a like for like replacement of trees in terms of quantum. 1.b Written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken, 1.c Schedule of plants giving species, plant sizes, and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate 2. Details of Hard Landscaping 2.a Refuse Storage 2.b Cycle Storage (secure and covered for 2 spaces) 2.c Means of enclosure/boundary treatments 2.d Car Parking Layouts (including demonstration that at least 1 space is to be served by 1 active 7Kw electrical charging points) 2.e Hard Surfacing Materials 2.f External Lighting 3. Details of Landscape Maintenance 3.a Landscape Maintenance Schedule for a minimum period of 5 years. 3.b Proposals for the replacement of any tree, shrub, or area of surfing/seeding within the landscaping scheme which dies or in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority becomes seriously damaged or diseased. Thereafter the development shall be carried out and maintained in full accordance with the Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 16 approved details. REASON To ensure that the proposed development will preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and provide adequate facilities in compliance with policies DMHB 11, DMHB 14, DMEI 1 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 6. OM19 Construction Management Plan Prior to development commencing, the applicant shall submit a demolition and construction management plan to the Local Planning Authority for its approval. The plan shall detail: (i) The phasing of development works (ii) The hours during which development works will occur (please refer to informative I15 for maximum permitted working hours). (iii) A programme to demonstrate that the most valuable or potentially contaminating materials and fittings can be removed safely and intact for later re-use or processing. (iv)Measures to prevent mud and dirt tracking onto footways and adjoining roads (including wheel washing facilities). (v) Traffic management and access arrangements (vehicular and pedestrian) and parking provisions for contractors during the development process (including measures to reduce the numbers of construction vehicles accessing the site during peak hours). (vi) Measures to reduce the impact of the development on local air quality and dust through minimising emissions throughout the demolition and construction process. (vii) The storage of demolition/construction materials on site. The approved details shall be implemented and maintained throughout the duration of the demolition and construction process. REASON To safeguard the amenity of surrounding areas in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 7. NONSC Step Free Access Prior to any works on site above damp proof course level, details of step free access via all points of entry and exit shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The measures implemented as approved shall be retained thereafter. REASON To ensure housing of an inclusive design is achieved and maintained in accordance with Policies D5 and D7 of the London Plan (2021). 8. NONSC SUDs Prior to commencement of the hereby approved development, (excluding demolition and site clearance) a scheme for the provision of sustainable water management shall be submitted Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 16 to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall clearly demonstrate how the approved development will incorporate sustainable urban drainage (SuDs) in accordance with the hierarchy set out in Policy 5.13 of the London Plan and will: i. provide information on all SuDs features including the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and: ii. provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development of arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. Including appropriate details of Inspection regimes, appropriate performance specification. The scheme shall also demonstrate the use of methods to minimise the use of potable water through water collection, reuse and recycling and will: iii. provide details of water collection facilities to capture excess rainwater; and how water usage will be reduced in the development. Thereafter the development shall be implemented and retained/maintained in accordance with these details for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON To ensure that surface water run off is controlled to ensure the development does not increase the risk of flooding and is to be handled as close to its source as possible and Conserve water supplies in compliance with: Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1- Strategic Policies Policy EM6 Flood Risk Management in (2012), Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies Policy DMEI 10 Water Management, Efficiency and Quality (2020), as well as relevant SuDs guidance contained within the London Plan (2021) and NPPF (2024). 9. NONSC Biodiversity Net Gain No development shall take place on any part of the site until a Biodiversity Gain Plan for the site, demonstrating compliance with the 10% biodiversity net gain requirement in accordance with the Environment Act 2021, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Biodiversity Gain Plan should include: i. Baseline Biodiversity Assessment: Using the latest Defra Biodiversity Metric, a report of the site's pre-development biodiversity value; and ii.On-Site Enhancement and 30-year Habitat Management Plan (HMP) detailing measures to achieve BNG on-site, including species protection, habitat creation, and ongoing management strategies to maintain gains for a minimum of 30 years. The HMP should, as a minimum, include: a) Description and evaluation of the features to be managed. b) Aims, objectives and targets for management. c) Description of the management operations necessary to achieving aims and objectives. d) Prescriptions for management actions. e) Preparation of a works schedule, including an annual works schedule. f) Details of the monitoring needed to measure the effectiveness of management. g) Details of the timetable for each element of the monitoring programme. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 16 h) Details of the persons responsible for the implementation and monitoring. i) Report to the Council routinely regarding the state of the Biodiversity Net Gain requirements for development in years 1 (post-completion), 3, 5, 10, 20, and 30, with biodiversity reconciliation calculations at each stage. Where a biodiversity net gain of 10% is not achievable on site, in addition to the Baseline Biodiversity Assessment (i), the following shall be included in the BGP: iii. Off-Site Biodiversity Credits or Statutory Credits: Where on-site measures do not achieve the 10% net gain, confirmation of the purchase of off-site biodiversity credits or statutory credits must be provided, including a receipt or proof of transaction as part of the Plan The approved Biodiversity Gain Plan shall be strictly adhered to, and development shall commence and operate in accordance with it. REASON To ensure the development delivers a Biodiversity Net Gain and secures the protection and effective management of the remaining habitat on site in accordance with Policy 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy G6 of The London Plan, and Policy DMEI 7 (Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement) of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies. 10. NONSC Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Plan No development (including demolition and site clearance) shall take place until the following details have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority: a) One bat emergence/re-entry survey for the main building and outbuilding to be carried out at dusk or dawn by 2 surveyors. The visit should be carried out between May and August inclusive with at least half of the visits needing to be between mid-May and end of August. Survey visits can only be carried out when temperature at sunset is 10 C or more and there are no strong winds or heavy rain (as identified within the Preliminary Ecological Assessment by green shoots ecology dated May 2025). b) Should bats be found to be roosting in the buildings, two further survey visits will be required and then a licence applied for from Natural England to allow demolition of the building. c) Details of ecological mitigation and habitat enhancements including low-impact lighting strategy and bird and bat boxes/bricks added to the buildings, with one bird brick or box and one bat brick or box added to a suitable part of the site. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented only in accordance with the recommendations detailed in the approved Preliminary Ecological Assessment by green shoots ecology dated May 2025, and the approved details. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 16 REASON In order to comply with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) and encourage a wide diversity of wildlife and to manage any impacts on biodiversity and protected species in accordance with Policy DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two -Development Management Policies (2020) and Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021). 11. RES12 No additional windows or doors Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no additional windows, doors or other openings shall be constructed in the walls or roof slopes of the development hereby approved facing numbers 42, 44, 46 or 48 The Larches. REASON To prevent overlooking to adjoining properties in accordance with policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 12. RES14 Extensions and roof alterations Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification); no extension or roof alteration to any dwellinghouse(s) subject of this permission shall be erected without the grant of further specific permission from the Local Planning Authority. REASON To protect the character and appearance of the area and amenity of residential occupiers in accordance with policies DMHB 11 and DMHD 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) 13. NONSC M4(2) Compliance The dwelling hereby approved shall accord with the requirements of Policy D7 of the London Plan and shall not be occupied until certification of compliance with the technical specifications for an M4(2) dwelling, as set out in Approved Document M to the Building Regulations (2010) 2015, has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. All such provisions must remain in place for the life of the building. REASON To not only allow the Building Control body to require the development to comply with the optional Building Regulations standards, but to also ensure the appropriate quantity and standard of accessible and adaptable housing is constructed and maintained in accordance with policy D7 of the London Plan. Informatives Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7 of 16 1. I23 Works affecting the Public Highway - Vehicle Crossover The development hereby approved includes the carrying out of alterations to a vehicular access. Prior to undertaking work on the adopted highway you will require a Section 184 licence from the Highway Authority. The works shall be to the specification and constructed to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority. Fees are payable for the approval of the highway details, and inspection of the works. Further information and an application form are available on the London Borough of Hillingdon website https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/dropped-kerb-form 2. The effect of paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is that planning permission granted for the development of land in England is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition "(the biodiversity gain condition") that development may not begin unless: (a) a Biodiversity Gain Plan has been submitted to the planning authority, and (b) the planning authority has approved the plan. The planning authority, for the purposes of determining whether to approve a Biodiversity Gain Plan if one is required in respect of this permission would be the London Borough of Hillingdon. There are statutory exemptions and transitional arrangements which mean that the biodiversity gain condition does not always apply. These are listed below. Based on the information available this permission is considered to be one which will require the approval of a biodiversity gain plan before development is begun because none of the statutory exemptions or transitional arrangements listed below are considered to apply. Statutory exemptions and transitional arrangements in respect of the biodiversity gain condition. 1. The application for planning permission was made before 12 February 2024. 2. The planning permission relates to development to which section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning permission for development already carried out) applies. 3. The planning permission was granted on an application made under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and (i) the original planning permission to which the section 73 planning permission relates* was granted before 12 February 2024; or  (ii) the application for the original planning permission* to which the section 73 planning permission relates was made before 12 February 2024. 4. The permission which has been granted is for development which is exempt being: 4.1 Development which is not 'major development' (within the meaning of article 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015) where: Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 8 of 16 i) the application for planning permission was made before 2 April 2024; ii) planning permission is granted which has effect before 2 April 2024; or iii) planning permission is granted on an application made under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 where the original permission to which the section 73 permission relates* was exempt by virtue of (i) or (ii). 4.2 Development below the de minimis threshold, meaning development which: i) does not impact an onsite priority habitat (a habitat specified in a list published under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006); and ii) impacts less than 25 square metres of onsite habitat that has biodiversity value greater than zero and less than 5 metres in length of onsite linear habitat (as defined in the statutory metric). 4.3 Development which is subject of a householder application within the meaning of article 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. A "householder application" means an application for planning permission for development for an existing dwellinghouse, or development within the curtilage of such a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse which is not an application for change of use or an application to change the number of dwellings in a building. 4.4 Development of a biodiversity gain site, meaning development which is undertaken solely or mainly for the purpose of fulfilling, in whole or in part, the Biodiversity Gain Planning condition which applies in relation to another development, (no account is to be taken of any facility for the public to access or to use the site for educational or recreational purposes, if that access or use is permitted without the payment of a fee). 4.5 Self and Custom Build Development, meaning development which: i) consists of no more than 9 dwellings; ii) is carried out on a site which has an area no larger than 0.5 hectares; and iii) consists exclusively of dwellings which are self-build or custom housebuilding (as defined in section 1(A1) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015). 4.5 Development forming part of, or ancillary to, the high speed railway transport network (High Speed 2) comprising connections between all or any of the places or parts of the transport network specified in section 1(2) of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013. * "original planning permission means the permission to which the section 73 planning permission relates" means a planning permission which is the first in a sequence of two or more planning permissions, where the second and any subsequent planning permissions are section 73 planning permissions. Irreplaceable habitat If the onsite habitat includes irreplaceable habitat (within the meaning of the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Irreplaceable Habitat) Regulations 2024) there are additional requirements for the content and approval of Biodiversity Gain Plans. The Biodiversity Gain Plan must include, in addition to information about steps taken or to be taken to minimise any adverse effect of the development on the habitat, information on arrangements for compensation for any impact the development has on the biodiversity of the irreplaceable habitat. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 9 of 16 The planning authority can only approve a Biodiversity Gain Plan if satisfied that the adverse effect of the development on the biodiversity of the irreplaceable habitat is minimised and appropriate arrangements have been made for the purpose of compensating for any impact which do not include the use of biodiversity credits. The effect of section 73D of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 If planning permission is granted on an application made under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (application to develop land without compliance with conditions previously attached) and a Biodiversity Gain Plan was approved in relation to the previous planning permission ("the earlier Biodiversity Gain Plan") there are circumstances when the earlier Biodiversity Gain Plan is regarded as approved for the purpose of discharging the biodiversity gain condition subject to which the section 73 planning permission is granted. Those circumstances are that the conditions subject to which the section 73 permission is granted: i) do not affect the post-development value of the onsite habitat as specified in the earlier Biodiversity Gain Plan, and ii) in the case of planning permission for a development where all or any part of the onsite habitat is irreplaceable habitat the conditions do not change the effect of the development on the biodiversity of that onsite habitat (including any arrangements made to compensate for any such effect) as specified in the earlier Biodiversity Gain Plan. 3. I52 Compulsory Informative (1) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act (1998) (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 4. I73 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) (Granting Consent) Under the terms of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended), this development is liable to pay the London Borough of Hillingdon Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the Mayor of London's Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This will be calculated in accordance with the London Borough of Hillingdon CIL Charging Schedule 2014 and the Mayor of London's CIL Charging Schedule 2012. Before commencement of works the development parties must notify the London Borough of Hillingdon of the commencement date for the construction works (by submitting a Commencement Notice) and assume liability to pay CIL (by submitting an Assumption of Liability Notice) to the Council at planning@hillingdon.gov.uk. The Council will then issue a Demand Notice setting out the date and the amount of CIL that is payable. Failure to submit a valid Assumption of Liability Notice and Commencement Notice prior to commencement of the development may result in surcharges being imposed. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 10 of 16 The above forms can be found on the planning portal at: www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/cil Pre-Commencement Conditions: These conditions are important from a CIL liability perspective as a scheme will not become CIL liable until all of the pre-commencement conditions have been discharged/complied with. 5. I2 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. 6. I15 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. 7. I47 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. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 11 of 16 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 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. I53 Compulsory Informative (2) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020) set out below, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and to all relevant material considerations, including The London Plan and national guidance. DMH 6 Garden and Backland Development DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMHB 16 Housing Standards DMHB 18 Private Outdoor Amenity Space DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP D1 (2021) London's form, character and capacity for growth LPP D3 (2021) Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach LPP D4 (2021) Delivering good design LPP D6 (2021) Housing quality and standards LPP D7 (2021) Accessible housing LPP GG2 (2021) Making

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Emilie Bateman 76760/APP/2024/2720 Date Application Valid: 10.12.2024 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 12.06.2025 Application Type: Full Ward: Colham & Cowley Applicant: Simply Develop (UK) Ltd. Site Address: 12-18 Pield Heath Road & 2 Pield Heath Avenue Proposal: Partially retrospective demolition of four dwellings (Nos. 12, 14, and 16 Pield Heath Road and 2 Pield Heath Avenue) and one Bed and Breakfast (No. 18 Pield Heath Road), and the subsequent erection of a part two storey, part three storey (plus basement) care home (Class C2), with car parking, landscaping, and associated works. Summary of Rec: 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 – 11th June 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. That delegated powers be given to t he Director of Planning, Regeneration and Environment to grant planning permission subject to the following: A) That the Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or any other legislation to secure the following: I. Secure use of the building as a care home, falling within the C2 use class. II. Air Quality Mitigation contribution of £52,754. III. A Carbon Offset contribution of £204,970; or a reduced figure if greater on-site carbon savings are shown to be implementable through an updated Energy Strategy. IV. London Healthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU) financial contribution of £215,217 to fund enhanced or new health facilities within the London Borough of Hillingdon. V. A full Travel Plan to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. VI. An Employment/ Constructi on Training Scheme secured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD. VII. A Section 278 agreement to implement the proposed off-site Highways Works. VIII. A Project Management and Monitori ng Fee, equalling 5% of the total financial contributions to be paid under this agreement. B) That in respect of the applicati on for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reas onable costs in preparat ion of the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed. C) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreement and conditions of approval. D) That, if the Legal Agreement has not been finalised within 6 months (or such other time frame as may be agr eed by the Director of Planning, Re generation and Environment ), dele gated authorit y be given to the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Director of Planning, Regeneration and Environment to refuse planning permission for the following reason: 'The applicant has failed to mitigate the impacts posed by the proposed development (in respect of Air Quality, Carbon Offsetting, Health Facilities, Travel Planning, Employment, Highwa ys Safety, and Project Monitoring). The scheme therefore conflicts with Policies DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020); the adopted Pla nning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2014); Policy DF 1 of the London Plan (2021); and paragraphs 56-58 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).' E) That if the applicati on is approved, that the pe rmission is subject to the Conditions as set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summar y 1.1 This application seeks permission for the proposed demolition of the existing buildings and structures across the si te and the subsequent erection of a part two, part three-store y (plus basement level), 81-bedroom care home. 1.2 The proposed development is considered acceptable in land use terms, and it is noted that part of the site benefits from a recent planning permission (ref. 76760/APP/2022/1889) for a 60-bed care home. 1.3 The development is considered to hav e an acceptable impact on the surrounding area and is consistent with the objectiv es of the Hilling don Local Plan and the London Plan. 1.4 Subject to the planning conditions and obligations recommended, the proposed development is considered acceptable with respect to design, heritage, residential amenity, environmental issues, transport, and sustainability. 1.5 For the reasons outlined above and within the main body of the report, this application is considered to comply with the Development Plan and is recommended for approval, subject to secu ring the planning conditions set out in Appendix 1 and a Section 106 legal agreement. 2 The Site and Localit y 2.1 The application site comprises five indi vidual curtilages (Nos.12, 14, 16 and 18 Pield Heath Road and No. 2 Pield Heath Avenue), four of which are residential uses (C3 use class), and one of which (No. 18) is a Bed and Breakfast (C1 use class ). 2.2 No. 2 Pield Heath Avenue and Nos. 12 and 18 Pield Heath Road were both built as single-storey bungalows, much like the vast majority of properties on Pield Heath Avenue, althou gh most have now been extended to accommodate Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press habitable accommodation within the lofts pace. Pield Heath Road, on the other hand, has a much more varied streetsene with much greater variation in both the scale and design of developments, incl uding examples of one, two and three- storey buildings. 2.3 The character of the immediate ar ea surrounding the application site is residential, notwithstanding that part of the application site is in use as a Bed and Breakfast. Moorcraft Park, a large area of public open space, sits opposite the site. 2.4 The site forms part of the declared Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area. The site also sits in between two declar ed Air Quality Focus Areas, including the Uxbridge Road Focus Area to the east and Hillingdon Hospital Focus Area to the west. Green Belt land is also designated a short distance to the south. The site has a moderate Public Transport Accessibilit y Level (PTAL) of 3. Fi gure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application Property 3 Proposal 3.1 This application seeks permission for the proposed demolition of the existing buildings and structures across the si te and the subsequent erection of a part two, part three-storey (plus basement level), 81-bedroom care home. 3.2 The building would be laid out with its main frontage facing Pield Heath Avenue and a secondary frontage facing Pield Heath Road, appearing as a three-storey building across most of its length, and stepping down in height to two-storeys adjacent to No. 4 Pield Heath Avenue to the north. 3.3 The development would creat e a partially enclosed courtyard to the centre of the building, which is intended to be us ed as a resident garden, alongside a wildflower garden to the rear of No. 2 Pield Heath Avenue. 3.4 Parking is proposed in the section of the site adjacent to Pield Heath Road, with provision for 19 spaces, including 3 disabled bays and 4 electric vehicle charging points, alongside an ambulance bay, delivery bay, 12 cycle spaces and 4 mobilit y scooter spaces. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan (please note – a larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Figure 4: Proposed Street Facing Elevations (Pield Heath Avenue above, Pield Heath Road below) (please note – a larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 5: Proposed Fl oor and Roof plans (please note – a larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 Application reference 76760/APP/2022/1889 (Demolition of three dwellings and one Bed and Breakfast, and the subsequent erection of a care home) was approved on 11-12-23. 4.2 A non-material amendment (76760/ APP/2024/1470) was later approved on 01- 07-24 to make internal and external reconfigurations. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 6: Previously Approved Site Plan (site not in cluding No.12 Pield Heath Road) Figure 7: Previously Appr oved Street Facing Elevations (site not including No.12 Pield Heath Road). Pield Heat h Avenue above, Pield Heath Road below). 5 Planning Policy A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 A total of 45 no. letters were sent to neighbouring properties, a site notice was displayed to the front of the site and an advert was posted in the local paper. All forms of consultation expired on 21 st May 2025. 6.2 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response Three individual letters of objection have been received I. Not in keeping. Discussed in paragraphs 7.9 to 7.17. II. Concerns about further expansion. The acceptability of the proposal is discussed throughout the committee report. III. Overconcentration of care homes within 1km. Discussed in paragraph 7.6 IV. Traffic, parking and road safety concerns. Discussed in paragraphs 7.79 to 7.93. V. No needs analysis for this specific area. Discussed in paragraph 7.7. VI. Noise and disturbance during construction. A condition has been included requiring the submission of a construction management plan. VII. Noise pollution. Discussed in paragraphs 7.44 to 7.47. VIII. Concerns regarding the length of consultation period following revisions. The consultation period is carried out in accordance with statutory requirements. One representation was received in support of the proposal a. Supportive of project b. Positive addition to neighbourhood Noted. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press c. Enhancing community and contributing in a meaningful way Councillor Etka Gohil (ward Councillor). 1. Parking and Highway Safety Impacts: The proposed 33% increase in care home capacity will significantly exacerbate on- street parking demand in the surrounding area, particularly on Pield Heath Avenue, where parking is already constrained due to its proximity to Hillingdon Hospital and local amenities. The increase in visitors, staff, and associated deliveries will likely lead to parking overspill, obstructing driveways and creating potential safety hazards. This contravenes policies aimed at mitigating parking stress and ensuring highway safety. 2. Traffic and Noise Pollution: The anticipated increase in deliveries and associated vehicular movements will lead to additional traffic Discussed in paragraphs 7.79 to 7.93. The trip generation represents a marginal increase from the previously approved scheme. Therefore, there is not anticipated to be an increase in traffic and associated noise pollution Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press and noise pollution on Pield Heath Avenue, a predominantly residential road. This conflicts with the requirement for developments to avoid undue harm to residential amenity as set out in local and national planning policies. 3. Unjustified Need in This Area: While the needs analysis indicates a borough-wide demand for care home spaces, it fails to demonstrate a specific need for increased provision in this locality. There are already multiple care homes within a 1km radius, suggesting that this location is not underserved. 4. Impact on Residential Amenity During Construction: The applicant has a poor track record of managing the construction process in a manner that respects residential amenity. Issues have included excessive noise and vibration, inadequate dust mitigation, failure to clean vehicle wheels (leading to hazardous road that would result in undue harm to neighbouring amenity to warrant a reason for refusal. A condition has also been submitted requiring the submission of a delivery and servicing plan. Discussed in paragraph 7.7. A condition has been included requiring the submission of a construction management plan. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press conditions), and poor vehicle management causing access obstructions. The proposed expansion will prolong these disruptive impacts, contravening policies requiring developments to protect the living conditions of nearby residents. 5. Cumulative Environmental and Amenity Harm: The scale and intensification of the care home will result in a cumulative impact on the surrounding area, including increased pollution, traffic congestion, and disruption to residents' quality of life. These impacts conflict with the council's duty to safeguard the environment and maintain the amenity of local communities. The environmental impacts of the scheme are discussed within the relevant sections of this report. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response External Consultation Heathrow Airport Safeguarding: Heathrow Airport Safeguarding has no safeguarding objections to the proposed development. However, if a crane is required durin g installation, the applicant must submit The Heathrow Airport Safeguarding comments are noted. Please refer to Informative 7. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press details including height, operating radius, and dates to the CAA Airspace Coordination and Obstacle Management Service (ACOMS). Cranes must not be operated on site until a crane permit has been issued by Heathrow following CAA notification. Further guidance is available in CAA CAP1096. London Fire Brigade: London Fire Brigade raised no objection at this stage but advises that the development must comply with Part B of the Building Regulations, particularly in relation to fire brigade access and water supplies. The applicant is encouraged to consult Building Control or an Approved Inspector, who may refer the application to the Fire Authority. If there are any deviations from Approved Document B (Volume 1 and 2, Section B5), particularly regarding hydrants or access, this information must be submitted to the relevant LFB teams for further review. Additional consultation may be required if material amendments are made to the proposal. The London Fire Brigade comments are noted. It is noted that the development should accord with the relevant Building Regulation requirements. Fire safety matters are also to be addressed through Condition 9. Met Police (Designing Out Crime): Metropolitan Police Designing Out Crime Officer (DOCO) advises that the site is subject to a Secured by Design (SBD) condition, which should be retained and applied to the entire site. The applicant has not yet engaged with the DOCO/SBD team. Secured by Design is secured by Condition 23. The applicant has been reminded of the need to engage with the DOCO at the earliest stage to address crime prevention through design and ensure the condition can be discharged. Ministry of Defence: Ministry of Defence (MOD) has reviewed the application and raises no objection, confirming that the proposed development will not impact the operation or capability of defence sites or assets. The MOD notes that their assessment is based on the current submitted documents, and any amendments to the development may alter their position. The Ministry of Defence comments are noted. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press National Air Traffic Services: National Air Traffic Services (NATS) has assessed the proposal and raises no safeguarding objection, confirming that the development does not conflict with their technical safeguarding criteria. This response applies specifically to the current submission . The NATS comments are noted. Thames Water: Thames Water raised no objection regarding the capacity of the foul or surface water sewerage network infrastructure based on the submitted information. They recommend that petrol/oil interceptors be installed in all parking, washing, and repair areas to prevent pollution of local watercourses. The site is located within 15 metres of Thames Water's underground assets, and the applicant should refer to Thames Water's guidance on working near their infrastructure to avoid potential damage. An informative is requested to this effect. In terms of water supply, the site falls within the area served by Affinity Water, and the applicant should contact them directly for related matters. The Thames Water comments are noted. Please see Informative 1. Transport For London (TfL): TfL have no strategic transport comments regarding this application but expect that any permission is in line with relevant London Plan Policies. The TfL comments are noted. Please refer to paragraphs 7.79 to 7.93. for consideration of transport matters. Internal Consultation Planning Policy Officer: Principle of C2 on site and demolition of existing residential units is set through recent permission ref. 76760/APP/2022/1889. The Planning Policy Officer comments are noted. Matters relating to the principle of development are addressed in paragraphs 7.1 to 7.8 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Urban Design Officer: 19-12-24 Initial Comments: The Urban Design Officer raised concerns regarding the quality and coherence of the proposed scheme. The south-east elevation appears disjointed due to a blank rendered brick flank wall. The north extension is generally acceptable. Concerns regarding loss of Category A tree. Recommends a one-for- one tree replacement and enhanced planting, particularly within the car park to soften its impact. The main entrance lacks prominence and architectural expression and could benefit from a more refined design. Materials are broadly acceptable, but render should be limited and use a roughcast finish. Dormer detailing and landscaping may be secured by condition. Revisions were received which addressed the blank flank wall. Entrance and dormer details were received. Materials would be secured by condition. The Tree Officer raised an objection to the loss of the Category A tree and revisions were sought to address this. 29-04-25 Response and Revised Proposals: In response to the feedback, the applicant has made several improvements and has simplified the roof form. The Category A tree has been retained within the scheme and updated Tree Survey has been provided. The changes sufficiently address the concerns, subject to conditions to ensure high-quality design. The Urban Design Officer comments are noted. Matters relating to design are addressed in paragraphs 7.9 to 7.17 of this report. Please also refer to paragraphs 7.54 to 7.56 for consideration of tree and landscaping matters. The final design details of the materials and landscape scheme are proposed to be secured by Conditions 16 and 14. Access Officer: The Accessibility Officer raised no fundamental objections to the proposed 81- bedroom care home, noting that some pre- application advice had been incorporated. The building provides step-free access from both Pield Heath Avenue and Pield Heath Road, and includes 19 car parkin g spaces, three of The Access Officer comments are noted. Matters relating to car parking are addressed in paragraphs 7.79 to 7.93 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press which appear to be fully accessible. Concerns were raised regarding the number of car parking spaces and the lack of provision for door-to-door transport vehicles. To ensure compliance with relevant accessibility standards, conditions are recommended requiring the inclusion of a fire evacuation lift in line with London Plan policies D5 and D12, and the provision of at least one accessible ensuite guestroom in accordance with the Care Inspectorate Design Guide (2022). Please refer to Condition 18 and Condition 21. Highways Officer: A Transport Statement supports the application for an 81-bed care home at 12–18 Pield Heath Road and 2 Pield Heath Avenue, Uxbridge. The site, mostly cleared except for No. 12, was previously a B&B and four houses. Two existing access points (from Pield Heath Road and Pield Heath Avenue) will be retained and upgraded into a one-way system, reducing vehicle conflict and improving safety. The scheme provides 19 parking spaces (including disabled and EV bays), an ambulance bay, and delivery space, in line with local and London Plan standards. A parking ratio of 1:4.3 matches a previous 60- bed approval. Cycle and mobility scooter parking are also included. With a PTAL of 3 and good access to public transport, the development supports sustainable travel. Trip generation is expected to remain low, with a minor increase over the previous scheme, posing no network impact. No safety concerns were identified in the five- year collision data review. A Travel Plan will encourage sustainable transport for staff and visitors. The access, parking and servicing arrangements are considered safe and policy compliant. The Highway Authority raises no objections sub ject to conditions regarding Parking The Highways Officer comments are noted. Matters relating to transport are addressed in paragraphs 7.79 to 7.93 of this report. Please see ‘Summary of Recommendation’ section for confirmation that a travel plan would be secured by a Section 106 legal agreement. Refer to Head of Term V. Please refer to Conditions 4, 14, 18, 20 and 24. Please refer to Informative 2. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Design and Management Plan, car and cycle parking, EV charging, construction management, and informatives. A travel plan to encourage sustainable modes of transport, to be secured by S106 Legal Agreement. Air Quality Officer: The proposed development is located within the LBH Air Quality Management Area and within close proximity to the Hillingdon Hospital and Uxbridge Road Focus Areas. While the development meets air quality neutral standards, it does not meet the air quality positive standard required in or near Focus Areas under the London Plan and LBH’s Air Quality Local Action Plan (2019– 2024). A total damage cost of £70,338 has been calculated, with standard mitigation measures applied (Travel Plan and Green Measures), resulting in a final Section 106 contribution of £52,754 to offset the impact. No objection, subject to conditions and contribution. The Air Quality Officer comments are noted. Please see ‘Summary of Recommendation’ section for confirmation that a travel plan would be secured by a Section 106 legal agreement. Refer to Head of Term II. Please also refer to Conditions 26 and 27. Flooding and Drainage Specialist: Following the receipt of additional information, the Flooding and Drainage Specialist raises no objection, subject to conditions. The Flooding and Drainage Specialist comments are noted. Matters relating to flood and water management are addressed in paragraphs 7.68 to 7.75 of this report. See conditions 6 and 7. Noise Specialist: The Noise Specialist raises no objection, subject to the re-imposition of the conditions applied to the previous planning permission. The Noise Specialist comments are noted. Matters relating to noise are addressed in paragraphs 7.44 to 7.47 of this report. Please also refer to Conditions 8 and 10 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Contaminated Land Officer: The Contaminated Land Officer has no objection but recommends a condition requiring a contamination remediation scheme (including asbestos) to be approved by the LPA before development commences, excluding demolition and initial ground works. Any new contamination discovered must be addressed with an updated scheme. A verification report confirming remediation completion must be submitted prior to discharging the condition. Imported soils must be tested for contamination. The Contaminated Land comments are noted. Matters relating to land contamination are addressed in paragraphs 7.76 to 7.78 of this report. Please also refer to Condition 19. Waste Strategy Officer: The developer should provide 9 bulk bins (split between refuse and recycling) and ensure communal food waste bins are included to serve all residents. The bin store must be located no more than 10m from the collection point to allow safe and efficient access for collection crews. The access path must be smooth, at least 2m wide, and have a gradient of less than 1:12. Noted. Details secured by Condition 15. Tree and Landscape Officer: 15-01-25 Initial Comments: The Trees and Landscape Officer raises objection, clarification and amendments. All drawings must consistently show which trees are to be retained or removed and include Root Protection Zones (RPZs). The A- category tree must be retained and treated as a constraint of the development. Southern boundary tree planting should extend the full length of the hedgerow, with trench extents and construction details confirming soil volume. The northern planting bed must be to a minimum of 500mm. Trees on the eastern boundary should be retained. Proposed garden trees appear too closely spaced, mature canopy sizes must be shown. Car park layout should be amended to introduce more tree and planting. The planting strip along the southern buildin g edge should be widened, in Noted. The concerns raised throughout this process have been addressed by the applicant. Please also refer to Conditions 14 and 25. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press line with the previously approved condition discharge plan. Following the comments, the applicant team clarified tree planting and landscaping details. The Cat A tree is proposed to be retained. 15-05-25 Response and Revised Proposals: The Trees and Landscape Officer raises no objection, subject to the following clarifications and amendments. The removal of Leylandii trees (T03, T04, T05, T08, T09) is acceptable, provided they are replaced with native species, must be confirmed in the planting plan. Removal of the U category apple tree (T15) is also accepted, subject to the planting of a large replacement street tree. The proposed tanking will impact 40% of T14’s RPZ, which is likely to result in the tree’s loss, only acceptable if new trees are planted in a trench outside the tank zone with sufficient soil volume. T13 must be retained, and tanking adjusted accordingly. Level changes around T01 should be avoided; an updated landscape plan is required to address this. Revisions and updated landscaping plans were received. 21-05-25 Response and Revised Proposals: The applicant provided revised landscaping plans which address the concerns raised, subject to compliance and conditions. Biodiversity Net Gain (Head of Environmental Specialists): The loss of the pond is regrettable and could only be accepted if adequately justified. Noted. Please refer to paragraphs 7.57 to 7.64 regarding BNG and Condition 12. 7 Planning Assessment Land Use Principles Use Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.1 The application proposes the demolition of existing buildings on site and the erection of a purpose-built 81-bed care home (Use Class C2). A previous permission (Ref: 76760/APP/2022/1889) was granted in 2023 for a 60-bed care home on the site, and this extant permission is a material consideration in the assessment of the current application. 7.2 The National Planning Policy Fr amework (NPPF 2024) at paragraph 124 encourages planning decisions to promote the effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, wh ile safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring healthy living c onditions. Paragraph 125c further states that substantial we ight should be given to t he value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs. The application site is previ ously developed land in an es tablished residential area, and as such, is considered suitable in principle for redevelopment to meet housing and care needs. 7.3 London Plan Policy GG2 (Making the Be st Use of Land) and Policy GG4 (Delivering the Homes Londoners Need) require that development proposals optimise the use of land, particularly in locations with good access to services and infrastructure and promote higher density development where appropriate. The site lies within an accessible loca tion, close to Hillingdon Hospital, which further supports the principle of delivering health-related residential accommodation in this location. 7.4 Policy H13 of the London Plan (Specialis t Older Persons Housing) recognises the important role that care homes pl ay in meeting housing needs for older people and confirms that schemes fallin g within Use Class C2 can contribute towards borough housing targets on a 1:1 basis, with each bedroom counted as a home. The proposed develop ment would result in a gain of 21 additional bedrooms over the extant sc heme, equating to a net gain of 20 new dwellings and thereb y contributing to the borough’s housing supply. 7.5 While the current proposal involves t he loss of four dwellings (Use Class C3) and one B&B (Use Class C1), it is noted this is one additional family sized unit than previously approved. London Plan Policy H8 and Policy DMH 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies (2020) allows for the loss of residential units where they ar e replaced with equivalent or greater residential floorspace and where redevel opment contributes positively to housing delivery. The proposed scheme would deliver 3, 829 sqm of C2 floorspace, a significant uplift over t he combined 1035.9 sqm of the existing buildings (C3 and C1), representing a net increase of 2,793.1 sqm. In this context, alongside the overall net gain of 76 units, the loss of four dwellings and one B&B is considered justified and acceptable. 7.6 Policy DMH 8 of the Hil lingdon Local Plan supports the provision of care homes where they do not lead to an overconc entration of similar uses and where the development integrates appropriately into its residential setting. Although there are other care facilities in the wider area, given the previous permission on site Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the proposal is not considered to result in overconcentration, and the residential character of the surrounding area would remain intact. 7.7 The applicant has submitted an updat ed Needs Assessment which outlines continued demand for care home beds locally and refers to engagement with Hillingdon Hospital. The assessment refe rences the Council’s most recent Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), which underlines the borough- specific demographic data dem onstrating the projected growth in the over-65 and over-85 age groups. It is also cons idered that there is an established London-wide need for care home accommodation (as set out in the London Plan). The proposal would help to address this recognised need in a suitable and sustainable location. Conclusion 7.8 In light of the above a nd having regard to the fallba ck position afforded by the extant 60-bed care home permission, the pr oposed intensification of the site to provide an 81-bed care facility is cons idered acceptable in principle. The proposal aligns with national, regional and local planning policy objectives to optimise land, deliver specialist housin g, and support sustainable patterns of development. Accordingly, there is no in-principle objection to the redevelopment of the site for a larger care home, subj ect to consideration of other material plannin g issues. Design Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.9 Policies D3 of the London Plan (2021), BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillin gdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) are all directly relevant to the proposal. T hese policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix, and in summary, seek to secure a high quality of design that enhances and contributes to the area in terms of form, scale and materials, is appropriate to t he identity and context of the townscape and would improve the quality of the public realm and respect local character. These aims are also supported b y the NPPF (2024) at chapter 12. 7.10 The application seeks permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and structures on site, including Nos. 2 Pield Heath Avenue and Nos. 12, 14, 16 and 18 Pield Heath Road, to facilitate the construction of a part two, part three-storey (plus basement level), 81-bedroom care home. 7.11 The existing buildings comprise a mix of single and two-storey dwellings, broadly representative of the prevailing built form in the surrounding area. No. 2 Pield Heath Avenue and Nos. 12 and 18 Pield Heath Road are single-storey bungalows, consistent in scale and appearance with neighbouring properties on Pield Heath Avenue. Nos. 14 and 16 Pield Heath Road are two-storey semi- detached dwellings, more reflective of the broader character of Pield Heath Road, which includes a greater variety of building heights and typologies. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.12 While the existing buildi ngs make a modest but posit ive contribution to local character through their consistency and verdant setting, they are not of particular architectural or historic merit. Given the strategic policy direction to optimise land use in sustainable locations, and subjec t to a high-quality replacement scheme that respects the local context, the loss of these buildings is not considered harmful in principle. 7.13 The consented scheme (ref. 76760/APP/ 2022/1889) comprises a building with its principal frontage facing Pield Heat h Avenue and a secondary frontage to Pield Heath Road. The current proposal seeks to extend the south-eastern wing of the building. Similar to the cons ented scheme, the pr oposal would be a predominantly three-storey el evation, which transitions to two storeys towards the neighbouring residential properties on Pield Heath Avennue and Pield Heath Road. A comparison between the street scene elevations of the approved and proposed schemes can be seen in Figur es 4 and 7 above. Amendments were sought during the course of this application and subsequently made to ensure a more sensitive relationship with the surro unding built form, providing a clearer and more gradual step down in scale that better reflects the established residential character of the area. 7.14 Whilst the proposed scale does exceed that of the neighbouring bungalows along Pield Heath Avenue, the site's corner location where two distinct character areas meet, offers a degree of flexibility in accommodating the scale. Pield Heath Road provides a suitable context for a more substantial built form, as previously approved in the consented scheme. The proposed development responds to this setting by aligning with and stepping down to mediate the transition to the lower- scale residential properties. 7.15 The additional rear elem ent (adjacent to 2 Pield Heath Avenue) is single-storey in scale and positioned along the northern boundary of the site. Revisions were sought to refine the footprint of this part of the building in order to facilitate the retention of a high-quality Category A tr ee, which forms an integral part of the revised scheme. 7.16 Materials will be import ant to ensure the scheme is of a high quality and integrates appropriately within its context, secured by condition. 7.17 Therefore, in conclusi on, the information submitted is considered to sufficiently demonstrate that the development would not be harmful to the street scene and would instead harmonise with the visual amenities of the area. Subject to the recommended condition, the development is considered to accord with the requirements of Policy BE1 of the Hilli ngdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020), Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), and paragraph 131 of the NPPF (2023). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Accessibility 7.18 Policy D5 of the London Plan (2021) stat es that development proposals should achieve the hi ghest standards of accessible and inclusive design. 7.19 The Council’s Access Officer has review ed the proposal and confirmed that no si gnificant accessibility issues have been raised, subject to conditions. Security 7.20 Policy DMHB 15 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) states that the Council will require all new development to ensure safe and attractive public and private spaces by referring to the Council's latest guidance on Secured by Desi gn principles. This is supported by Policy D11 of the London Plan (2021). 7.21 A secured by design condition has been recommended to achieve appropriate accreditation and would be consistent wit h the previous planning permission. Subject to condition, the proposal would accord wit h Policy DMHB 15 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) and Policy D11 of the London Plan (2021). Fire Safety 7.22 Policy D12 of the London Plan (2021) states that all major development proposals should be submitted with a Fire Statement, which is an independent fire strategy, produced by a third party, suitably qualified assessor. The statement should detail how the development proposal will function in fire safety terms. 7.23 Buildings should be designed to incor porate appropriate features which reduce the risk to life and the risk of serious inju ry in the event of a fire by being constructed in an appropriate way to minimise the risk of fire spread. This should include appropriate fire alarm systems, passive and active fire safety measures, suitable and convenient means of escape and an associated robust evacuation strategy which can be periodically updated and published, and which all occupants can have confidence in. These measures should be set out in a Fire Strate gy, prepared by a suitably qualified fire engineer. 7.24 In support of the application, a Fire Statement has been submitted which shows that a Fire Tender can gain access to the site and manoeuvre around it adequately. In addition, the plan shows a ll the main escape routes from the building. Further details of fire safety will be needed at the detailed design stage of the development process, and these details would be secured by way of condition. The London Fire Brigade have not raised any specific objections but have advised that the development s hould accord with Building Regulation requirements. The final comprehens ive Fire Statement and details (accompanied by the Building Control Notice) shall be secured by condition. Subject to this condition, the proposed w ould accord with the requirements of Polic y D12 of the London Plan (2021). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Heritage 7.25 The proposed development would not have an impact on any designated or non- designated heritage assets. Green Belt 7.26 The northern edge of part of the Green Belt around Colham Green is defined by Pield Heath Road, and consequently the proposal would sit opposite the Green Belt. The proposal would fall fully outside the extent of the Green Belt and would be visually separated by a row of existi ng established trees which line the southern side of Piled Heath Road. As such, the proposal would have no impact on the permanent openness of the Green Belt and is acceptable in this regard. Residential Amenity Sunlight & Da ylight Impacts 7.27 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) states that development proposals should not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. 7.28 Furthermore, the Mayor's Housing SPG sets out that proposals should limit the harm to neighbouring properties, whilst reco gnising that to comply with policies seeking the optimal use of land, so me development proposals may be allowed even where harm has been identified. When assessing impacts related to the loss of natural light, the Mayor's Hous ing SPG advises that avoiding harm to habitable rooms is the priority, which ar e usually defined as any room used or intended to be used for sleeping, cooking, living or eating purposes. Enclosed spaces such as bathrooms or toilet facilities, service rooms, corridors, laundries, hallways, utility rooms or si milar spaces are excluded from this definition of habitable rooms. 7.29 A standardised method of assessment fo r calculating the le vel of impact to neighbouring buildings is prescribed wit hin the BRE's guide to good practice, titled 'Site Layout Planning fo r Daylight and Sunlight'. This guidance document discusses various methods of assessing a proposals impact on access to natural light, and sets out a number of threshol ds which, if exceeded, would probably have a noticeable impact on natural li ght to neighbouring properties. 7.30 It is noted that Sunlight and Day light assessment is based on earlier plans submitted during this planning applicati on. However, the revisions secured reduce the scale of the proposal closest to No. 10 Pield Heath Road. 7.31 In addition, when comparing the proposed single storey element adjacent to the boundary with No. 4 Pield Heath Avenue, the ex isting site situation consists of multiple single storey outbuildings built up to the shared boundary. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.32 Fifty-three windows have been assessed within Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 13 Pield Heath Avenue and No. 10 Pield Heath Road for impacts on levels of daylight (VSC) and sunlight (APSH), whilst seven gardens (Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 4 Pield Heath Avenue and No. 10 Pield Heath Road) have been assessed for overshadowing impacts. The results of this assessment are set out in the submitted Da ylight and Sunlight Report (October 2024). 7.33 The results of the submitted assessm ent demonstrate that the proposal would have a negligible impa ct on any tested window in terms of impacts to daylight, with all windows expected to retain upwards of 90% of their current daylight. 7.34 In terms of sunlight, the report demonstrates that none of the south facing neighbouring residential wi ndows will see a noticeab le loss in sunlight. Additionally, no gardens would exper ience a significant increase in overshadowing because of the developm ent, with all seven gardens tested meetin g BRE guidance standards. Privacy and Outlook 7.35 There is likely to be some loss of privacy naturally associated with an increase in density and height, and some level of mutual overlooking is common in residential areas from windows at first floor level. This is experienced to a lesser extent on Pield Heath Avenu e as a result of the si ngle-storey scale of the dwellings, however most properties have been extended into the roof space and therefore some level of mutual overlooking already exists. Notwithstanding this, it is recognised that efforts have been made to limit overlooking into neighbouring properties through the placement and ori entation of windows and separation distances between facing windows servi ng habitable rooms would exceed 21 metres. The proposed terrace at second floor level has the potential to result in overlooking, so a condition requiring det ails of privacy screening to be used along its northern and eastern perimeters is recommended. 7.36 It is further considered, by reason of its relatively modest and varied height across the plot, together with sufficient s eparation distances, that the proposal would not result in a significant loss of outlook or lead to a sense of enclosure for neighbouring residents, notwithstanding that the proposed building would clearly be more visible than the exis ting buildings from the surrounding properties. Summary 7.37 Taking into considerati on the BRE Report, the siting and extent of development proposed, it is considered that the proposal would not have a significant impact on the amenit y of neighbouring residential properties. Living Conditions fo r Future Occupiers 7.38 Policy D3 of the London Plan states that proposals should deliver appropriate outlook, privac y and amenit y, provide convenientl y located green and open Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press spaces for social interaction, play, relaxation and physical activity, help prevent or mitigate the impacts of noise and poor air quality, and achieve indoor and outdoor environments that are comfortable and inviting for people to use. 7.39 As the proposal is for a care home, ther e are no relevant in ternal or external amenity space standards. However, as a form of residential accommodation, it is nonetheless important to ensure that the resultant development would provide a high quality of life. 7.40 The proposed layout of r ooms is considered sensible, and appears to be fit-for- purpose, with the communal areas located broadly in the middle of the building and the bedrooms either side, which mi nimises corridor lengths and reduces walking times within the building. Additionally, all bedrooms are provided with an en-suite bathroom. The bedroom sizes are like the previously approved application. Whilst not shown on these pr oposed floor plans, the floor plans for the earlier scheme showed indicative space for a bed, desk and chair to demonstrate that there would be sufficient internal space for future occupants. It is reasonable to anticipate the same level and quality of accommodation. 7.41 The proposed basement level would further provide space for activities, shown on Drawing No. 300 (Rev. A) as a cinema, pr ivate family room, sensory room, arts and crafts room, hair and nail salon. In addition, the basement level would provide essential space for mechanical plant, laundry, kitchen and ancillary supportin g offices. 7.42 External amenity space would be provi ded in the form of a communal garden at ground floor level, creating a partially enclosed courtyard to the east of the proposed building, in addition to a small te rrace at second floor level. This is considered to represent an appropriate le vel of provision, which would provide valuable and usable external amenity space for future occupiers. 7.43 Overall, it is considered that the living conditions fo r future occupiers would be acceptable. Environmental Issues Noise Impacts 7.44 Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021) states that developm ent should reduce, manage and mitigate noise to improve health and quality of life. This can be done by separating noise generating uses from noise sensitive uses. Mitigation can also be secured through screening, layout, orientation, uses and materials. This is supported b y Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012). 7.45 In support of the applic ation, a Noise Impact Assessment (September 2024) has been submitted, which assesses the existing noise conditions at the application site and the potential suitabi lity of the noise environm ent for the proposed care home use. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.46 This report, whilst relatively generic in its approach, identifies that there are some noise constraints associated with the si te. However, the assessment further demonstrates that noise levels around the site should be manageable to allow an appropriate acoustic environment within the development without significantly increasing the noise profile of the ar ea. To comply with national policy and industry good practice, the Council’s No ise Officer has recommended that the same conditions secured in the earlier planning permission be reapplied to this application. These conditions include further discussion on good acoustic design as an update to the Noise Impact Assessment, a sound insulation scheme and details of any building services mechani cal plant associated with the operation of the care home with potential to emit sound external to the buildin g. 7.47 Therefore, subject to conditions, t he development would accord with Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) and Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021). Odour 7.48 Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Loc al Plan: Part 1 (2012) states that the Council will seek to safe guard and improve all land, water, air and noise quality. 7.49 It is noted that paragraph 201 of the NPPF (2024) st ates that the focus of planning decisions should be on whet her proposed development is an acceptable use of land, rather than the control of processes or emissions (where these are subject to separate polluti on control regimes). Planning decisions should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. Air Quality 7.50 Policies SI 1 of the London Plan (2021), EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) and DMEI 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) are all directly relevant to the proposal. These policie s can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix, and in summary, seek to safeguard and improve air quality in order to protect existing and new sensitive receptors. These aims are also supported b y the NPPF (2024) at chapter 15. 7.51 According to the London Plan, developm ents must be air quality neutral at minimum, with LBH requiring air quality positive contributions in Focus Areas as per the LBH Air Quality Local Action Plan 2019-2024. Policy DMEI 14 of the emerging Hillingdon Local Plan (Part 2) fu rther supports this, emphasizing the need for contributions to local air quality improvement. 7.52 The proposed development is loca ted within the London Borough of Hillingdon AQMA and within the catchment area of two AQFAs (Hillingdon Hospital FA, 345 metres away) and (Uxbridge Road, 452 metres away), bringing additional traffic emissions which will add to current poor air quality. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.53 In accordance with the LBH Local Acti on Plan, the total emissions associated with the development must be mitigated. The level of required mitigation for the operational phase, calculated using De fra's Damage Cost Approach, amounts to ££52,754. This will be secured vi a a S106 agreement to ensure the development meets the necessary air quality standards (please refer to S106 Head of Term II), alongside condition 26 and 27 for the reduction of emissions during construction and specifications for the use of non-road mobile machinery during construction, the development would accord with Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), Policy DMEI 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020), Policy SI 1 of the London Plan (2021) and the NPPF (2025). Trees and Landscaping 7.54 Policies G1 and G5 of the London Plan (2021), DMEI 1, DM HB 11 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) are all directly relevant to the proposed development. These policies ca n be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix, and in su mmary, seek to safeguard existing trees and deliver high quality landsc aping in order to enhance amenity, biodiversity and green infrastructure. Th ese aims are also supported by the NPPF (2025) at chapter 12. 7.55 There are several trees within the ca r park, courtyard and around the edges, none of which are protected by TPOs or Conservation Area designations. An Arboricultural Report has identified and a ssessed the loss of trees required to redevelop the site. Revisions were sought to retain a Category A tree, however, it is recognised that where trees are still to be lost, it is necessary to facilitate redevelopment, and overall, subject to suitable replacement landscaping, none of the other existing tr ees to be lost could be co nsidered a constraint to development due to their relativel y limited landscape value. 7.56 The final details of hard and soft landscaping are proposed to be secured by condition to ensure that the landscape scheme to be delivered is high quality and retained in the long term. S ubject to this condition, the proposal would accord with Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Biodiversity Net Gain 7.57 The Environment Act 2021 has establishe d that all planning permissions granted in England have to deliver at least 10% BNG from January 2024. Paragraph 187 of the NPPF (2025) also states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and loca l environment by: d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to cu rrent and future pressures. This is supported by Policy G6 of the London Pl an (2021) and Policy DMEI 7 of the Hillin gdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 7.58 The submitted Biodiversity Metric calc ulations indicate a post-development net gain of +0.53 habitat uni ts and +0.06 hedgerow unit s, equating to a 94.96% increase in habitat biodiversity and a 66.49% increase in hedgerow biodiversity Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press compared to the baseline. These gains are primarily delivered through the creation of new grassland habitats, t he planting of scattered trees, and the integration of introduced shrub areas across the site. 7.59 Despite the overall net gain in units, t here was initial concern that the proposal did not meet the trading rules of the Biodiversity Metric due to the loss of a pond habitat. However, the updated metric confirms that off-site BNG units would be purchased to address this shortfall, thereby ensuring compliance with the trading rules. 7.60 The applicant team have provided a detailed justificat ion for the exclusion of a pond within the on-site scheme. The applicant has stated that as an experienced operator of care homes nati onally, they highlight si gnificant health and safety risks associated with incorporating a pond in a care home environment. This includes the potential risk of drowni ng, infection control concerns, and accessibility limitations for residents with complex needs, including severe dementia and limited mobilit y. 7.61 The operator notes that the Equality Act, which encompasses the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), requires equal access and service provision for all residents. The inclusion of a pond would necessitate restricted access to parts of the garden area, which would be incom patible with a barrier-free, fully accessible landscape that supports residents’ well-being and therapeutic use of outdoor space. The resulting desi gn without the pond allows for a comprehensive and inclusive landscapi ng scheme, which better serves the needs of all future residents. 7.62 On balance, whilst the loss of the on-si te pond is noted, officers consider the justification provided, including the safeguarding of vulnerable residents and the operator’s duty of care, to be accept able. The associated BNG outcomes, supported by off-site compensation, ensure that biodiversity objectives are met without compromising resident welfare. 7.63 A 30-year Habitat M anagement and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) would be secured via condition to ensure the long-term delivery of biodiversity enhancements, both on- and off-site. 7.64 Taking into account the off-site unit purchase, the scheme is considered to comply with national and local policy, including the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2024), the London Borough of Hillingdon Local Plan, and the statutory requirement for a minimum 10% Biodiversity Net Gain under the Environment Act 2021. Urban Greening Factor 7.65 Policy G5 of the London Pl an (2021) states that ma jor development proposals should contribute to the greening of London and that the ta rget score for commercial development is 0.3. Resident ial developments have a target score of 0.4. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th June 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.66 In line with Policy G5 of the London Plan (2021), ma jor development proposals are expected to contribute to the gr eening of London. The applicant should maximise greening opportunities on the site. 7.67 The proposed development is predict ed to achieve a UGF score of 0.36 as shown on Drawing No 9155 P02 which is likely to manifest as a range of benefits such as improved health for future o ccupiers, climate change adaption and biodiversity conservation. Whilst this is marginally below the policy target of 0.4 for a purely residential development as set out in Policy G5 of the London Plan, the proposal would incor porate a range of vegetatio n and planting as well as green roofs to optimise t he amount of greening propos ed on the site. While separate, it is also noted that the proposal would m eet Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirements, albeit with some o ff-site provision. On-balance, it is considered that the proposed greening for the site is acceptable. A condition has been included to secure compliance with the UGF details. The proposal would therefore generally accord with Policy G5 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Flood risk Drainage 7.68 Policy SI 13 of the London Plan (2021) al so requires that development proposals utilise sustainable urban drainage system s (SuDS) unless there are practical reasons for not doing so and should aim to achieve greenfield run-off rates and ensure that surface water run-off is managed as close to its source as possible. This is supported by Policy EM6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) and Polic y DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 7.69 The application site falls within flood z one 1, which is at the lowest risk of flooding, and is also not located in an area identified as being at risk of surface water flooding. Moreover, the application site is already extensively developed with limited attenuation of run off. 7.70 The proposed drainage strategy is considered to be proportionate to the scheme's size and maximises the opportuni ties available for sustainable water mana gement on-site. 7.71 A drainage assessment has been provi ded detailing the drainage measures which include a below-ground attenuatio n tank. The Council's Flooding and Drainage Specialist has confirmed no objection to the proposed drainage strategy, subject to the necessary

Meeting: Hillingdon Planning Committee Date: 11th June 2025 Time: 7:00pm Venue: Committee Room 5, Civic Centre ADDENDUM SHEET Item: 7 Location: The Orchard Inn Amendments/Additional Information: Officer Comments: 1. The committee report noted a petition in objection to the proposal with 1,398 individual signatures. Since the publication of the committee report, the number of signatures has since increased to 1,751 – an additional 353 signatories. Noted. 2. The Council’s flood risk and drainage consultant has reviewed additional information submitted by the Applicant. The flood risk and drainage consultant no longer object to the proposal, subject to two planning conditions, to which the applicant has agreed. The applicant has submitted sufficient information to address refusal reason 7 (Flood Risk/Drainage). In the event of an approval the specified conditions would be included in the recommendation. Therefore, this refusal reason is removed from the recommendation. 3. The Applicant submitted a Marketing Report (reference TR/24-00556) on 10 June 2025. Given the lateness of this submission of additional information (received one day prior to the Planning Committee meeting), Officers do not accept the report as forming part of the Planning Application submission, as there is insufficient time to assess the information. It is noted that the Applicant was previously advised that amendments / substantial new information would not be accepted at a late stage in the planning application process. Members are advised to note that if the committee resolves to refuse the application and the Applicant subsequently appeals the decision, it will be up to the Planning Inspector to decide whether they consider this additional document or not. The Local Planning Authority and third parties would have the opportunity to comment on the document at the appeal stage if the document is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate as part of the appeal process. Notwithstanding, it is noted the Applicant’s accompanying email states that ‘...based on a full 12 months of data [my emphasis], clearly shows that there is no interest in the site from public house operators.’ In contrast, Paragraph 7.7.7 of the London Plan (2021) states ‘To demonstrate authoritative marketing evidence that there is no realistic prospect of a building being used as a pub in the foreseeable future, boroughs should require proof that all reasonable measures have been taken to market the pub to other potentia l operators. The pub should have been marketed as a pub for at least 24 months [my emphasis] at an agreed price following an independent valuation, and in a condition that allows the property to continue functioning as a pub. The business should have been offered for sale locally and London -wide in appropriate publications and through relevant specialised agents.’ Accordingly, whilst the Applicant’s report has not been assessed in detail (as explained), it would appear that the report does not address the London Plan requirement quoted above in any event. For the avoidance of doubt, refusal reasons 3 (loss of public house) is retained as part of Officers’ recommendation. Item: 8 Location: 42 The Larches Amendments/Additional Information: Officer Comments: N/A N/A Item: 9 Location: 14-18 Pield Heath Road & 2 Pield Heath Avenue Amendments/Additional Information: Officer Comments: 1. Amend Condition 2 (Approved Plans) references SDU-104 201 J to SDU-104 201 K. Updated Landscape Strategy, incorporating the agreed final changes to trees (including the retention of the Cat A tree). 2. Amend Condition 2 (Approved Plans) to remove Demolition Plan SDU-104 EX-PL 002. Revisions were sought and agreed to retain the Cat A tree, which is not reflected on the demolition plan. It is considered acceptable to remove the demolition plan from the approved documents, which has been included for information only. 3. Amend Condition 3 (General Compliance) to remove reference to Drainage Strategy P15969-GOO-XX- XX-RP-C-500. Document was replaced by Drainage P15969-GOO-XX-XX-RP-C-0502 P03 which is also listed. 4. Amend Condition 11 (UFG) figure from at least 0.36, as shown on Drawing No 9155 P02. to: at least 0.35, as shown on Drawing No 9155 P02. Corrected figure to accord with submitted documents. 5. Add Informative: Please note that the pre-commencement conditions attached to this permission must be discharged before commencing any works associated with the 81-room care home development. This is to ensure compliance with the approved plans and conditions. For clarity.