Planning

Minutes HILLINGDON PLANNING COMMITTEE 2 October 2025 Meeting held at Committee Room 5 - Civic Centre Committee Members Present: Councillors Henry Higgins (Chair) Adam Bennett (Vice-Chair) Roy Chamdal Darran Davies Elizabeth Garelick Jagjit Singh LBH Officers Present: Chris Brady, Planning Team Leader Michael Briginshaw, Deputy Team Leader Katie Crosbie, Area Planning Service Manager Natalie Fairclough, Legal Advisor Michael Kemp, Deputy Team Leader Ed Laughton, Area Planning Service Manager Liz Penny, Democratic Services Officer Dr Alan Tilly, Transport Planning and Development Team Manager 87. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Raju Sansarpuri and from Councillor Keith Burrows with Councillor Darran Davies substituting for the latter. 88. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS COMING BEFORE THIS MEETING (Agenda Item 2) Councillor Roy Chamdal declared a non -pecuniary interest in item 6 (5 The Meads) as he had previously spoken with the applicant. He left the meeting prior to this matter being discussed and did not partake in the voting on this item. 89. TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3) RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 04 September 2025 be agreed as an accurate record. 90. MATTERS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OR URGENT (Agenda Item 4) None. 91. TO CONFIRM THAT THE ITEMS OF BUSINESS MARKED PART I WILL BE CONSIDERED IN PUBLIC AND THE ITEMS MARKED PART II WILL BE CONSIDERED IN PRIVATE (Agenda Item 5) It was confirmed that all items of business were marked Part I and would be considered in public. 92. 5 THE MEADS, COWLEY - 27254/APP/2025/1529 (Agenda Item 6) Erection of a single storey rear extension and double storey side extensions to both sides of property following the demolition of existing garage and removal of two chimney stacks (amended description) Councillor Roy Chamdal had expressed a non -pecuniary interest in the application therefore left the room and did not participate in the debate or voting for this item. Officers introduced the application noting that the site lay within conservation areas and an Article 4 zone, which restricted permitted development rights for small HMOs. Members heard that the design c omplied with Council policy, being subordinate and well-scaled, and similar extensions existed nearby. A daylight and sunlight report confirmed no significant impact on neighbouring habitable rooms, particularly at No. 7, whose windows faced the proposed d evelopment. Planning officers supported the application as it aligned with design and amenity policies, and it was recommended for approval. A petition had been received in objection to the application. The lead petitioner was present and addressed the Committee Members highlighting the following key points:  Residents at number 7 had expressed concerns that the initial plans resembled an HMO -style property, which would not be in keeping with the street’s character.  They noted that the applicant was a pr operty developer and believed the design was squeezed between neighbouring homes.  The planning report was criticised for focusing solely on number 2 The Meads, which was not a fair or representative comparison due to its unique location and spacious surroundings.  It was highlighted that only one of eight properties had double -storey extensions on both sides, making number 2 an outlier.  The proposed application site, was located at the bottom of the close with neighbours on both sides, including number 7, which faced it directly at a 90° angle.  Concerns were raised about the impact on light and shadowing, with reported losses of 10% in the office and 7% in the bedroom at number 7.  The proposal was said to disregard Council policy requiring detached house s to be set back at least one metre.  Number 4 was cited as a better example of considerate planning, being set three metres back and fitting the street’s character.  Doubts were expressed about the credibility of the daylight and sunlight report, citing inconsistent data and lack of professional accreditation.  A request was made for the Council to consider safeguards against future HMO or subletting developments and to review the proposal for partial approval due to its impact on number 7.  Visual represe ntations were used to argue that the proposed development would appear as an oversized block squeezed into a small space, disrupting the street scene. Members sought further clarification from the petitioners regarding shadowing and the impact of the prop osal on daylight and sunlight at their property. The petitioner acknowledged that shadowing already occurred due to the existing structure and argued that adding a double -storey extension would worsen it, potentially covering most of their house. While the y appreciated the neighbour’s intent to improve their property, they felt the proposed development was unfair and inconsistent with the typical single two -storey extensions seen on the street. The petitioners emphasised their unique situation, with their h ouse directly facing the neighbour’s wall, and feared the extension would significantly degrade their living experience. The applicant was also in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:  Petitioners at number 7 h ad misled others by claiming the planning application was for an HMO, when it was actually for a family home.  The house was intended for the use of the applicant’s own family, which included his four sons and a spouse, therefore five bedrooms were needed.  It wa s explained that the downstairs room had mistakenly been labelled as a bedroom by the architect, but it was actually an office, with a gym on the left side.  The applicant stated that the neighbour’s shadowing photo was misleading and argued that th e actual distance between the properties was nine metres, which would not significantly affect light or privacy.  He emphasised that the proposed extension was a single -storey addition and complied with planning regulations, including no windows facing the neighbour.  The applicant claimed that the neighbour had labelled him a property developer which was untrue.  He noted that officers had no objections to the proposal and that the application adhered to all planning rules and regulations.  The applicant felt it would have been better if the neighbour had approached him directly to discuss concerns. Ward Councillor Ahmad -Wallana was also present and addressed the Committee in support of petitioners. Councillor Ahmad -Wallana objected to the planning applica tion, citing its negative impact on the neighbouring property at number 7. He argued that the proposed two -storey side extension would significantly reduce natural light to side - facing windows and garden areas, causing substantial overshadowing and harming the living conditions of the occupants at number 7. It was claimed that the development would breach guidance on daylight and sunlight and would create an oppressive environment. The scale and positioning of the extension were described as overbearing, reducing the sense of openness and disrupting the visual character of the street. The proposal was also considered inconsistent with local planning policies, and Councillor Ahmad-Wallana requested that the Committee refuse the application. Officers acknowle dged the petitioner's photo submissions but noted that they lacked professional accuracy compared to the validated planning documents. It was emphasised that the daylight and sunlight assessment had been conducted by a qualified consultancy, adhering to BR E guidance, and had found no significant impact on neighbouring properties. The proposed extensions were deemed domestically scaled and compliant with design policy DM HD1, with limited visual intrusion. Although the proximity to property number 7 was note d, it was clarified that existing overshadowing and vegetation already affected light levels. The report was considered robust, and there were no grounds to refuse the application on the grounds of harm to residential amenity. Additionally, officers clarif ied that the site was within an Article 4 area, hence any conversion to an HMO would require planning consent and public consultation. In response to Members’ questions, it was explained that, since the property was located in an Article 4 area, the usual rule allowing up to six bedrooms without planning permission for an HMO did not apply. This meant that even if the property had fewer than six bedrooms, it still could not be converted into an HMO without submitting a planning application. Councillors raised concerns regarding the daylight and sunlight impact of the proposed development on neighbouring property number 7 and asked how many hours of direct sunlight the affected rooms received during winter and how the extension would alter that. Officers r esponded that the assessment followed BRE guidance using percentage-based metrics rather than direct sunlight hours and confirmed the development did not breach the 27% threshold for significant impact. Members sought clarification on amendments to the d aylight and sunlight report, questioning whether they were limited to typos or included changes to figures. It was explained that the amendments addressed drafting errors, such as references to unbuilt extensions, and confirmed the report was updated for t ransparency without affecting its conclusions. A further question was raised about the relevance of the petitioner’s photos, to which officers responded that while the photos illustrated existing overshadowing, the proposed extension would be slightly lo wer and only 3 metres closer, resulting in minimal additional harm. Officers also noted that the affected windows were part of an existing extension, which already experienced overshadowing. Finally, the Committee asked whether scaffolding restrictions should be considered due to the proximity of the neighbouring property. Officers clarified that construction must remain within the applicant’s boundary and that such restrictions were not typically imposed for household applications. Councillors acknowled ged the petitioner’s concerns about the potential use of the property as an HMO and appreciated that this issue had been clarified by officers, noting that any future conversion would require Planning approval. They noted that the proposal was consistent w ith the character of the area and unlikely to be successfully challenged on appeal. Members raised no further concerns or questions. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously approved. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to conditions as set out in the officer’s report. 93. HAYES BRIDGE RETAIL PARK AND HEATHROW INTERCHANGE, UXBRIDGE ROAD - 78343/APP/2025/719 (Agenda Item 7) This hybrid planning application seeks permission for a four -phased redevelopment to deliver a data centre campus comprising: Full planning permission for a data centre building and associated infrastructure/works (Phase 1); Outline planning permission for an Innovation Hub and infrastructure/works (Phase 2); Outline planning permission for a data centre building and associated infrastructure/works (Phase 3); and Outline planning permission for a data centre building and associated infrastructure/works (Phase 4). All matters are reserved for the Outline phases of development. Officers introduced the application for redevelopment of Hayes Bridge Retail Park and Heathrow Interchange and highlighted the additional information in the addendum. The application involved the demolition of existing buildings and con struction of three data centres and an innovation hub. It was noted that Phase 1 sought full planning permission for the LON 6 data centre, while Phases 2 –4 sought outline planning permission for the remaining elements of development. The innovation hub wa s designed as affordable workspace for SMEs and community use. Officers confirmed that the proposal was an appropriate use for the Strategic Industrial Location, would not overburden the power grid, offered economic benefits and complied with the emerging character of the area. The environmental impacts posed by the development would be mitigated by the planning conditions and obligations recommended. The application was recommended for approval, subject to conditions and legal agreements. Councillors supported the proposal to redevelop unused land and requested that each phase of the multi -phase application be brought back to Committee for approval. Officers confirmed that all reserved matters applications would return to Committee. The Committee raised questions about securing peppercorn rents for the innovation hub, and officers clarified that this would be enforced through the Section 106 agreement and lease terms. Councillors queried the relatively low financial contributions compared to a similar d ata centre in Abbotts Langley; in response, it was noted that the on -site innovation hub offered direct community benefits, making it a preferable alternative. Concerns about Wi -Fi impact were raised, with suggestions for conditions or informatives to en sure lo cal connectivity was not compromised. Officers noted that digital infrastructure was addressed in the London Plan policy and confirmed ducting for full fibre would be included. The Legal Advisor explained that a planning condition on Wi-Fi would not meet the six-part test but supported the addition of an informative. It was agreed that said informative would be drafted by officers in consultation with the Chair. The Committee urged timely progress to avoid delays seen in previous approvals. No further queries or concerns were raised. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: 1. That the application be approved subject to a section 106 legal agreement and the conditions set out if the officer’s report; and 2. That the drafting of an additional informative to ensure local Wi -Fi connectivity was not compromised be delegated to the Area Planning Service Manager, in consultation with the Chair. 94. MEAD HOUSE, HAYES - 12298/APP/2025/1001 (Agenda Item 8) Change of use from health care use to supported living accommodation (Use Class C2) with ancillary offices and facilities Officers introduced the application which proposed changing the use of Mead House from a healthcare fac ility to supported living accommodation (Class C2) for adults with learning disabilities. It was confirmed that the building had previously served as a hostel and had been decommissioned by the NHS in 2023. It was noted that the change of use would not con flict with Green Belt or heritage policies, as the site lay within the Green Belt and near Grade II listed buildings. Members were informed that minimal physical changes were proposed, including a reduction in parking spaces from 32 to 8, with low anticipa ted vehicle movements. All trees on site, protected by TPOs, were to be retained. Officers noted that the loss of the healthcare use was deemed to be acceptable, as services had been relocated elsewhere in the Borough. The proposal aligned with local and London Plan policies and a Section 106 agreement would secure management and safeguarding arrangements. Officers recommended approval subject to completion of the legal agreement. Councillors sought assurances that the property, currently classified as C2, could not be converted into a C4 HMO without planning permission. It was confirmed that any change of use would require formal approval and that the C2 classification would be secured through a legal agreement. Members queried whether the accommodation would be for all ages or specifically for young people, and officers clarified it would be for adults aged 18 and over. Concerns about parking were addressed by officers, who explained that a travel plan would be required and that the reduced parking pro vision was appropriate given the expected low demand. The presence of a turning circle for coaches was also noted. Councillors expressed support for the reuse of the building, noting its previous use as a residential institution and COVID testing site, a nd welc omed the minimal changes proposed, which satisfied Green Belt policy. Members raised no further concerns or queries. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved. 95. COMAG, YIEWSLEY - 24843/APP/2024/2316 (Agenda Item 9) Variation of Conditions 2 (Approved Plans) and 3 (Approved Documents) of planning permission reference 24843/APP/2022/2403, dated 11-06-2024 Officers introduced the ap plication for the COMAG site which proposed a Section 73 variation to conditions 2 and 3 of a previously approved planning permission, aiming to update the approved plans and documents. Members heard that the extension was minimal in scale and had no impac t on design quality or character. Officers acknowledged the loss of the community hub but felt it was reasonable given the site’s location and nearby existing community spaces. It was confirmed that the affordable housing contribution had been revised foll owing a financial viability review, resulting in an off -site payment of £800,000, deemed the maximum reasonable offer. The application was recommended for approval subject to a deed of variation and review mechanisms. Councillors welcomed the £800,000 off -site affordable housing contribution and enquired whether the funds were earmarked specifically for genuinely affordable housing. It was confirmed that the cash-in-lieu would be used for developments offering London Affordable Rent (LAR) and could not be diverted elsewhere. A further question was raised about the construction management plan, specifically regarding wheel washing and operating hours, due to complaints about construction traffic on Tavistock Road. Officers confirmed that a construction man agement plan condition was already in place and committed to reviewing its details, including wheel washing, in coordination with the Highways team. Members raised no further concerns or queries but expressed a design to see progress on the development. The o fficer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved. 96. ACORN YOUTH CLUB, COLOMBIA AVENUE, RUISLIP - 58215/APP/2025/1068 (Agenda Item 10) Erection of a single storey detached building for use by Acorn Youth Club Officers introduced the application for a single -storey building on the Acorn Youth Club site which had been referred to the Planning Committee because the London Borough of London owned t he freehold. It was confirmed that the proposed building, intended for use by the Acorn Youth Club —a long -standing facility supporting disabled young people since 1993 —was designed to sit on existing foundations from a previously approved but unbuilt struc ture. The building’s height ranged from 2.95 to 3.45 metres, and officers confirmed that it complied with the local plan. With no significant site constraints and minimal impact, the application was recommended for approval. Members welcomed the application and raised no concerns or queries. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved. 97. ADDENDUM (Agenda Item 11) The meeting, which commenced at 7.00 pm, closed at 8.35 pm. These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of t he resolutions please contact Liz Penny on . Circulation of these minutes is to Councillors, Officers, the Press and Members of the Public.

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Mitchell Heaven 74971/APP/2025/780 Date Application Valid: 19.03.2025 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 10.11.25 Application Type: Full Ward: Northwood Applicant: Mr Richard Conradi Site Address: Land to rear of 18 Moor Park Road, Northwood Proposal: Erection of 1no. detached bungalow, with associated parking (inclu ding installation of new vehicular crossover), landscaping, cycle parking and refuse storage. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 3 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Petition received) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summar y 1.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of 1no. det ached bungalow, with associated parking (including installa tion of a new vehicular crossover) landscapin g, cycle parking and refuse storage. 1.2 A petition with 33 signatur es in objection to the development has been received. The desired outcome of the petition is for the application to be refused. Six separate representations have also been received in objection to the proposal, as well as an objection fr om the Northwood Resident s Association. The main concerns raised include the loss of pr ivate garden, impact on the local character and street scene, neighbours’ amenity, parking, impact on neighbours’ trees and landscaping concerns. A full list of the matters raised in the consultation is included within Section 6 of this report. 1.3 Two previous applications to devel op the site with a pair of semi-detached dwellings (ref. 74971/APP/2019/3169) and a two-storey 5-bedroom house respectively (ref. 21577/APP/2020/1792) have been refused with the most recent two-storey dwelling being dismissed at appeal due to the impact on the character and appearance of the area. 1.4 The applicant has worked cooperatively with the Local Planni ng Authority (LPA) through the pre-application and application processes and has provided a revised scheme that planning officers consider addresses previous concerns raised. The key changes from the previously refu sed applications involve a significant reduction in the overall scale of the development which would now sit more comfortably within the street scene. Officers are sati sfied that the previous reasons for refusal have been satisfactoril y addressed. 1.5 In terms of the prin ciple of development, the revised proposal is considered consistent with the aims of policy DMH6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (which concerns garden and back land development ) and would make efficient use of a small-scale site, making a contribution to housing stock in the area in line with strategic housing policies. 1.6 The site is not located within a Cons ervation Area or an Area of Special Local Character. The proposed dwelling is of an appropriate scale and design and would appear visually sympathetic with the character and appearance of the street scene. Its overall modest size ensures that it would maintain an intimate scale to either nei ghbouring property whilst also responding positively to the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press street scene. Traditional materials would be used in the overall finishes with soft landscaping to the front, sides and rear of the proposed dwelling. 1.7 The dwelling’s position set away fr om the boundaries and single storey design ensures it would not cause a detrimental impact on neighbouring residential amenity. Conditions are also recommended removing the right to extend under permitted development. Both landscaping and biodiversity measures would provide a 10% uplift in Biodiversit y Net Gain as required. 1.8 The dwelling would also provide a satisf actory provision of internal and external amenity space for future occupiers. The Council's Highways Department is satisfied that the proposal would not present a risk to road safety, hinder the free flow of traffic or lead to parkin g stress. 1.9 The proposal is therefore consistent with relevant local plan policies, and it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions. This Committee Report seeks to provide a co mprehensive assessment of the full application and supporting docum entation. All material planning considerations have been considered. 2 The Site and Localit y 2.1 The application site is a rectangular bl ock of land located within the rear garden of the corner site of 18 Moor Park Road which sits on the north-eastern corner of Moor Park Road and Grove Road. The plot currently forms part of the rear garden of No.18 and consists of a variety of soft landscaping and shrub planting. The site is not subject to any specific planni ng constraints, including not being located within a Conservation Area or an Area of Special Local Character. 2.2 The street scene along Moor Park Road and Grove Road is generally characterised by large two storey det ached dwellings in a variety of ages, architectural styles and materials. The area is suburban in nature with the south- eastern end of Grove Road consisting of the rear gardens of 18 Moor Park Road and 2 Grove Road. On the opposite side of Grove Road, the site faces No. 1a Grove Road which comprises a large two storey detached dwelling house (shown in the background of Figure 5 and the foreground of Figure 7) with a similar sized plot that was granted planning permissi on in 2017 to replace a bungalow. Generally, there is a variety of large, detached dwellings located on the opposite side of Grove Road. Directl y along the northern boundar y lies an outbuilding at the rear end of the garden at No. 2 Grove Road. 2.3 The site has a Public Transport Acce ssibility Level (PTAL) of 2 (less than moderate). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figure 2: Aerial View of the application site in the context of the existing dwelling and the properties along Grove Road. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Rear garden of 18 Moor Park Road. Figure 4 Rear Elevation of 18 Moor Park Road. Figure 5: Within the Application Site facing towards Nos. 1A and 1 Grove Road. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 6: Existing street scene with high fencing at the Application Site facing the highway. Figure 7: Google street view showing Application Site on the right and 1A and 1 Grove Road on the left. 3 Proposal 3.1 The application proposes the erection of 1no. detached bungalow, with associated parking, landscaping, cycle store and refuse storage. 3.2 The proposal is the third application for residential development. The principal difference from the previous schemes involves the incremental reduction in overall size and scale of the proposal. The cu rrent application has been reduced to a Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press bungalow from the most recently proposed two-storey dwelling house which was considered excessive in overall scale given its comparatively smaller plot. 3.3 The proposed dwelling would have access from Grove Road directly opposite No. 1A Grove Road. The proposed dwelling would be set back a minimum 6m from the front boundary with a buffer of landscaping proposed along the frontage. The dwelling would measure 11.7m wide, 12.15m deep and would be finished with a single storey hipped roof with a maximum height of 5.4m. The materials would be finished with a multi-red facing brick with a clay tile roof. A driveway would be finished in permeable resin bonded gravel catering for cars. A rear garden would be provided with approximately 170 sqm of private amenity space. Figure 8: Proposed Block Plan Please note – larger version of plans and elevations can be found in the Committee Plan Pack. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 9: Proposed Street Scene Elevation Please note – larger version of plans and elevations can be found in the Committee Plan Pack. Figure 10: Proposed Floor Plans Please note – larger version of plans and elevations can be found in the Committee Plan Pack. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 11: Proposed Elevations Please note – larger version of plans and elevations can be found in the Committee Plan Pack. Figure 12: Proposed Landscaping Plan Please note – larger version of plans and elevations can be found in the Committee Plan Pack. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4 Relevant Plannin g History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 Application reference 74971/APP/2019/3169 was refused in 2020 for the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings on the site. The scheme was refused on the basis that the intensity of the development in t he rear garden would have a detrimental impact on the street sc ene, character, and appearance of the surrounding area. It was also refused bas ed on poor design failing to harmonise with the surrounding area; failure to provide sufficient off-street parking; failure to provide arboriculture information; and fa ilure to provide adequate onsite amenity for future occupiers. 4.3 A subsequent and more directly rele vant application (ref. 21577/APP/2020/1792) was refused in 2020 and dismissed at appeal (ref. APP/R5510/W/20/3264256) in 2021 for the erection of a 5-bedroom, two- storey detached dwel ling on the site. The appeal considered the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. The appeal was dismissed on t he basis that ‘whilst the scale of the proposed development would be in-keeping with other homes in the area, the plot would be substantially smaller than other properties, with a relatively shallow frontage and limited rear garden area’. The In spector considered that given the limited size of the proposed plot, the pr oposal would lead to a cramped form of development that would not reflect the existing development pattern. The Inspector further considered that the introduction of a lone dwelling would interrupt and be at odds with the existing street pattern, noting that whilst similar, No. 1A Grove Road is located at the end of a row of existing dw ellings. The proposed front and rear elevations and site plan for this dismissed appeal are shown in Fi gures 13 and 14. 4.4 The applicant has engaged in pre-applicat ion discussions with the LPA, and it is considered that the revis ed proposal is on-balance acceptable. This revised submission significantly reduces the sca le of the proposal from a 5/6-bedroom dwelling over three levels (including roof space) to a single-level, two-bedroomed bungalow. The plot size is like No. 1A Gr ove Road, being of a smaller curtilage, albeit with the reduction in scal e, the proposed bungalow would now proportionately sit more comfortably within the smaller plot size. The site frontage is increased, with the proposed dwelling set-back from the road, more in-keeping with the existing street pattern, whilst proposing a rear gar den of approximately 170sqm. Whilst this private r ear garden is smaller in si ze to others within Grove Road, 1A Grove Road is also a smaller plot size, albeit not as proportionate to the size of the dwelling as that proposed. T herefore, the LPA c onsiders that this reason alone (that the garden is not as big as others within the area) is not sufficient to justify a reason for refusal. 4.5 Given the significant reduction in scale of the proposed dwelling, it is considered that the Inspectors conclusion that the proposal would result in a cramped form of Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press development has been overcome. In respect to the Inspector’s concerns with the introduction of a lone dwelling on this side of the road, the significant reduction in scale and height, set-back from the road frontage as well as soft front landscaping would ensure that the dwelling would appear discreet and unobtrusive within the street scene, responding better to the uni que street pattern and avoiding any harmful disruption of the street scene. The proposed scale within the street scene compared to the dismissed proposal is sh own in Figure 15. Finally, while not specifically raised in the appeal decision, whilst the bungalow would be a smaller dwelling than typically within Grove Road, it is noted that No. 1A was previously a bungalow so this housing typology would not be alien to the area. 4.6 This full application is considered to have suitably addressed the reasons for refusal and appeal dismissed under ref. 21577/APP/2020/1792. Figure 13: Proposed Front and Rear Elevations of previous application ref. 21577/APP/2020/1792, refused and dismissed on appeal. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 14: Proposed Site Plan of previous application ref. 21577/APP/2020/1792, refused and dismissed on appeal. 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 Seven neighbouring properties and Nort hwood Residents Association were consulted on the application by letter dated 07.04.25. The consultation period expired 30.04.25. Internal consultations were also sent out and a summary of the comments received are noted below in Table 2 of this Committee Report. Revised drawings to reduce the height of the proposed dwelling were received in October 2025. Given that this involved a reduction in proposed scale, it was not considered necessar y to re-consult. 6.2 Representations received in response to public consultati on are summarised in Table 1 (below). Internal consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response A valid residents’ petition with 33 signatories has been received against the application requesting refusal of the application. I. Adverse visual impact on the street scene. The potential impact on the street scene is addressed in the sections covering the principle of development and character and appearance of the area which is discussed at paragraphs 7.1 - 7.22 of this report. II. Only property on this particular side of Grove Road. The is discussed at paragraphs 4.5, 7.9 and 7.17 of this report. Six individual letters of objection and an objection from the Northwood Residents Association have been received. I. Impacts the character of the streetscape through location and bungalow design which is out of keeping with the surrounding area; No existing houses on this side of Grove Road; it is not proportionate to the site; Previous permissions along Grove/Moor Park Road involved the removal of two bungalows to be replaced with large houses – this is opposite of the existing situation. The potential impact on the character and appearance of the area is discussed at paragraphs 7.13 – 7.22 of this report. II. Harm due to loss of rear garden and the development contrary This is discussed at paragraphs 7.1 – 7.12 of this report Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press to Garden and Backland Development Policies; the development would set an undesirable precedent in the area. III. Potential harm to neighbouring mature trees. An Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been submitted in support of the proposal confirming no harm would befall adjacent neighbouring trees. The Council’s Tree Officer has reviewed the application and provided no objection. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.54-7.60 of this report. IV. Neighbouring trees will cause debris on proposed external living space and may cause subsidence issues. This is discussed at paragraph 7.58 of this report. V. Potential harm to residential amenities of neighbouring properties through changes to outlook, loss of natural light and increased overlooking. The potential harm to neighbouring residential amenities is discussed at paragraphs 7.23 – 7.30 of this report. VI. Construction noise and disturbance would harm the residential amenities of neighbouring sites. The development would be subject to standard construction noise and disturbance laws. A construction management plan would also be secured b y condition. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press VII. Loss of greenery would harm visual amenity. No mature trees are proposed to be lost as part of the application and none of the vegetation on the site is protected. Nevertheless, it is noted the applicant has submitted a high-quality landscaping plan to support the application. VIII. Concern over further works. The Council can only make an assessment on the works as proposed under the application. Nevertheless, it is recommended a condition removing permitted development rights for extensions to the property is added to the decision notice should permission be granted. IX. May increase runoff of stormwater to nearby properties. There are no mapped flooding issues on the site. Nevertheless, a condition is recommended requiring the submission of a sustainable urban drainage strategy for approval. Northwood Residents Association The following concerns were raised: x References the appeal decision and the introduction of a lone dwelling in this location would interrupt and be at odds with the existing street pattern – highlights the Inspectorate The concern regarding a lone dwelling is discussed at paragraphs 4.5, 7.9 and 7.17 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press comments on the street pattern and the introduction of a new dwelling. x Adverse impact on the street scene. x There is a presumption against the loss of gardens due to the need to maintain local character, amenity space and biodiversity, except in exceptional cases - Local Plan Policy DMH6: Garden and Backland Development. In the NRA view there is nothing in the proposed scheme that suggests an exceptional case. The potential impact on the street scene is addressed in the sections covering the principle of development and character and appearance of the area which is discussed at paragraphs 7.13 – 7.22 of this report. The is discussed at paragraphs 7.1-7.12 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 recommended accessibility conditions. The comments from the Access Officer are noted, and the relevant conditions are recommended to Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press be added to the decision notice in the event of an approval. Highways Officer: No objection. The application has been reviewed by the Highway Authority who are satisfied that the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress, and would not raise any measurable highway safety concerns, in accordance with Local Plan: Part 2 Development Plan (2020) policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 and London Plan (2021) policies T4, T5 and T6. The Highways Officer recommends inclusion of a condition and informatives relating to the provision of a Construction Management Plan and establishment of a new vehicle crossin g. The comments from the Highways Officer are noted and the relevant condition and informatives are recommended to be added to the decision notice in the event of an approval. Highways matters are discussed at paragraphs 7.35 - 7.46 of this report. Trees Officer: No objection. Noted. Trees and landscaping is discussed at paragraphs 7.54 - 7.60 of this report. Waste Officer: No objection. Noted. 7 Plannin g Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The London Plan (2021) provides guidanc e on how applications for development of new dwellings and small sites s hould be treated within the London Region. Paragraph 1.4.5 states that ‘To meet the growing need, London must seek to deliver new homes through a wide range of development options. Reusing large brownfield sites will remain crucial, although vacant plots are now scarce, and the scale and complexity of large former i ndustrial sites makes delivery slow. Small sites in a range of locations can be dev eloped more quickly and enable smaller builders to enter the market.’ Policy H2 states that ‘B oroughs should pro-actively support well-designed new homes on small sites (below 0.25 hectares in size) through both planning decisions and plan-making’ and ‘Boroughs should recognise in their Development Plans that local character evolves over time and will need to change in appropriate locations to accommodate additional housing on small sites’. The proposal provides the opportunit y for the efficient use of a Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press small-scale site by provision of proporti onately sized housing that would make a minor contribution to the housing stock in the area. 7.2 Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic policies states that a high-quality design should be achieved in all new bu ildings, alterations and extensions, and states that schemes s hould not result in the inappropriate development of gardens and green spaces that erode the character and biodiversit y of suburban areas. This is supported by policy DMH6. 7.3 Policy DMH6: Garden and Backland De velopment of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2: Development Management Polic ies (January 2020) advises there is a presumption against the loss of gardens due to the need to maintain local character, amenity space and biodiversity. In exceptional cases a limited scale of back land development may be acceptable, subject to the following criteria: i) Neighbouring residential amenity and privacy of existing homes and gardens must be maintained; ii) Vehicular access or car parking should not have an adverse impact on neighbours in terms of noise or light; iii) Development on backland sites must be more intimate in mass and scale; and iv) Features such as trees, shrubs and wildlife habitat must be retained or re- provided. 7.4 The proposal involves development of a rear garden site in a residential area characterised by family housing with large undeveloped rear gardens being a prevailing characteristic. The existing gar den serving No. 18 Moor Park Road is relatively unique due to its positioning and size. Situated along a corner plot with the garden running approximately 39m in length with a generous overall plot area, the site differs from the general surrounding area in that the rear garden also forms a 'side' garden with a street-facing boundary on Grove Road. The development would front Grove Road and, subject to design, has the potential to avoid or mitigate the issues relating to traditional backland development such as cramped appearance, intrusive vehicle access and loss of residential amenity. This is evidenced by the historical development of similar corner ‘backland’ sites and garden development in the surrounding area such as Nos. 43 and 44 Moor Park Road. 7.5 This approach has also been allowed by the Planning Inspectorate within a more recent allowed appeal which involved a similar plot type as the current application site (appeal ref. APP/R5510/W/24/3348490, decision dated 20 th December 2024 – 2 Hilliards Road, Uxbridge). Within this appeal decision, the Inspectorate referenced the site’s limited contribution to biodiversity and the site’s overall location with full frontage to the highway, stating: “The appeal site is laid to grass currently making as can be the case with suburban gardens, relatively li ttle contribution to biodiversity. Although the appeal site is garden l and, it does not have the usual characteristics of “backland” which generall y refers to brownfield or Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press garden land having limited street frontage, whereas the plot proposed for development has a full width frontage to the highway and would appear as an acceptable introduction to the existing street scene”. 7.6 Given the above, the proposal whilst considered a garden development would not necessarily be considered a back land development. In this respect, whilst there is a presumption against the loss of gardens, as stated within Policy DMH6, this is due to the stated need to maintain local character, amenity space and biodiversity. As discussed within the relevant sections of this report, the proposal is considered to maintain local character, would provide acceptable amenity space for prospective (and existing) residents, and would result in a biodiversity net gain. Therefore, although the proposal would result in some loss of garden area for 18 Moor Park Road, it would still be consistent with and achieve the aims of policy DMH6. Accordingly, the principle of garden development in this instance is acceptable. Nevertheless, for completeness the proposal has also been assessed against the backland development criteria as follows. 7.7 As discussed in the section ‘Residentia l Amenity’ below, due to the size, scale and siting of the proposed dwelling, neighbouring residential amenity and privacy would be maintained by the proposed development. The proposed single-storey form avoids overlooking and maintains generous separation from neighbouring dwellings. Furthermore, boundary planting would ensure further privacy. The proposed vehicle access would not unduly impact or disturb neighbouring properties due to the site being able to front the road. Only one crossover is proposed. Parking (for two spaces) and turning are accommodated within the site, using permeable surfaces, and ensuring no adverse impact on neighbours in terms of noise or disturbance. Extensive private outdoor amenity spaces well exceeding the provision required by Policy DMHB 16 would be secured for both the host dwelling of 18 Moor Park Road and the proposed dwelling. 7.8 Importantly, the proposed development has been reduced in scale significantly from the previously refused scheme and would be far more intimate in mass and scale, and lower, than surrounding properties in the area. The current submission has been reduced to a single-storey bungalo w with a modest footprint (100m²) and a generous private garden ( 170m), supported by a full biodiversity plan and landscape-led frontage treatment. The set back from the site frontage together with building-to-plot ratio would ensure that the proposed dwelling would sit comfortably amongst the adjoining neighbouring dwellings and the proposal would not read as overdevelopment. 7.9 Whilst the LPA acknowledges that the dwelling would sit alone on this side of Grove Road, it would face onto active frontage along the opposite side of the street. The reduction in its scale allows it to appear intimate and discreet within the street scene. Furthermore, the use of a continuous native hedgerow and soft landscaping along its frontage would ensure it would blend into the street pattern characterised b y low boundar y walls and soft landscaped front Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press gardens/boundaries. This would allow Grov e Road to retain its established character of planted boundaries, with the dwelling unobtrusively glimpsed behind vegetation rather than asse rting a disruptive new fron tage. The single, modest crossover further reduces the visual and functional impact of the proposal. 7.10 The reduction to a single-storey fo rm would ensure that the dwelling is subordinate in mass and scale to surrounding properties. The modest roof profile and careful use of materials drawn from No.18 would provide visual continuity with the host property and wider area. The dwelling would read as a discreet, context-sensitive addition rather than an obtrusive insertion within the street scene. 7.11 Whilst the proposal would re sult in the loss of some mature shrubs on the site, the development would still achieve Biodiver sity Net Gain (BNG) improvements on the site thereby evidencing that the green coverage and ecological value of the site would be improved by the applic ation. A landscapi ng scheme has been submitted in support of the application that includes new specimen tree, shrub and hedgerow planting and an acco mpanying BNG matrix has confirmed over 10% Biodiversity Net Gain would be achieved by the proposal. This would secure native hedgerow planting, new canopy trees, and rain garden features in line with policies DMH6(iv) and DMHB14. The result is a demonstrable net gain in landscape quality and ecological value. As such, the landscape values and biodiversity of the site would be improved by the proposal. 7.12 Overall, it is therefor e considered that the principle of the proposed development regarding the relevant housing policies, including Policy DMH 6 is acceptable. These policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix. Desi gn and Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.13 Policies D1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) require development proposals to be of high quality and to enhance the local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness. Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 – Strategic Policie s (2012), and policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 – Development Management Policies (2020) in summary seek to secure a high quality of design that enhances and contributes to the area in terms of form, scale and materials, is appropriate to the identity and context of the townscape and would improve the quality of the public realm and respect local character. These aims are also supported by Chapter 12 of the NPPF (2024). 7.14 The houses within the immediate ar ea are defined by their painted rendered exterior and spacious plots with ample frontages. The properties are comfortably positioned within their respective plots with ample gaps between the built forms, maintaining a sense of rhythm along the road as well as providing a sense of openness to the street scene. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.15 The previous two-storey 5-bedroom dwelling was refused and dismissed at appeal on the basis that it would not reflect the existing development pattern and would cause unacceptable harm to the character of the area. The revised application is markedly smaller in scale, being only single-storey and two- bedroomed, constituting a significant reduction in bulk and scale in comparison to the previous scheme. The current proposal represents a significant reduction in both scale and massing when compared to the previously refused and dismissed two-storey (plus roof space accommodation) scheme. By adopting a single-storey bungalow form with a modest footprint, the proposed dwelling now sits comfortably within its plot and avoids the cramped appearance that formed the basis of the earlier refusal. 7.16 The amended smaller sized bungalow wo uld be proportionately more in keeping with the size of the proposed plot and has been setback from both side boundaries to retain a reasonable (2m+) spacious ness between plots. The revised dwelling has been setback further from the front age (approximately 6m), providing an improved sense of spaciousness along the street frontage. The rear garden would have an approximate area of 170sqm which, while smaller than the surrounding gardens, is still considered to be extremely spacious a nd very generous for the proposed 2-bedroom dwelling. The reducti on in height and footprint to single storey bungalow would significantly reduce the visual mass of the dwelling and the impact on the character of the area. Overall, it is considered that the significantly reduced scale of the propos al would not lead to a cramped form of development. The dwelling would sit comfortably within the site and street scene, maintaining a good relationship with the boundaries of both 18 Moor Park Road and 2 Grove Road. Figure 15: Comparison of scale within the proposed street scene between the previously refused application which was dismissed on appeal (ref. 21577/APP/2020/1792 ), and the current application. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.17 The previous dismiss ed appeal found that the introducti on of the lone two-storey 5-bedroom dwelling would c ause unacceptable harm to t he street scene. In comparison, the proposed bungalow woul d be approximately 40% smaller in footprint (116sqm gross external fl oor area vs 195sqm), approximately 29% narrower (11.7m vs 16.4m wide) and less than half the height (approximately 4m vs 8.65m high). The revised proposal is th erefore significantly different in scale and appearance and would have a markedly reduced impact on the character and appearance of the area. The smaller bungalow would be far more subordinate on the streetscape and have a significantly reduced visibility in combination with the proposed landscaping treatment. This is highlighted in the image 11 above where the dotted pink line shows the extent of the previous refused scheme which extended significantly both higher and wider than the current scheme. 7.18 Given this significant reduction in over all scale together with the subservient form of the dwelling, it is Officers view that a dwelling along this side of the Grove Road would not impact immediate character. The bungalow form in this context offers a gentle transition in scale, avoiding undue dominance and delivering a discreet and sympathetic addition to the street. The desi gn demonstrates that variety in form which has been carefully amended would enri ch rather than erode the character of an area. The green landscape fr ontage would also add to Grove Road’s established character with glimpses of the built form behind. The smaller bungalow would also relate to the adjac ent outbuilding for No.2, which already projects a limited sense of built form to the Grove Road frontage. Furthermore, it is noted that similar garden development has occurred on other si tes in the area without including 43 and 44 Moor Park Road. 7.19 The proposed bungalow design would differ fr om other dwellings in the immediate area on Moor Park Road and Grove Road, in so far as it would be single storey, however as the area is not a conserva tion area or an area of special local character, the introduction of the bungalow typology/design alone into the streetscape would not unduly harm the character of the area. It is also noted that 1A Grove Road was formally a bungalow, so this housing typology is not alien within this area. Local character is derived not only from building height but also from spaciousness, landscaping, and rhythm of development. The proposal maintains generous separation from neighbouring properties, provides a substantial private garden area, and reinforces Grov e Road’s planted boundary character through a continuous native hedgerow. These measures ensure that the proposal integrates positively with its context. 7.20 The low profile of the dwelling, set behind a row of planting, ensures that it would remain recessive within the street scene and does not compete visually with the larger two-storey dwellings on Moor Park Road. The bungalow design would be subordinate and smaller than other dwellings in the area and therefore would not be seen as obtrusive or dominant within the streetscape. The somewhat ‘standard’ bungalow design is considered conventiona lly attractive and would be visually pleasing and not harmful to the streetscape. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.21 Overall, the revised design of the proposed development would integrate acceptably within the streetscape. While the introduction of a dwelling would be atypical along this side of the street, its reduced scale allows the development to sit more sympathetically with the existi ng built form. A level of openness would remain along the frontage due to the singl e-storey height t hereby ensuring the leafy character. Furthermore, the propos ed landscaping plan would improve the biodiversity value and landscaping quality of the site, which goes some way in mitigating the loss of the garden land scaping. It is recommended a condition removing permitted development rights for the dwelling be added to the decision notice in the event of an approval to ens ure future extensions and outbuildings can be assessed for their acceptability to prevent any undue harm to the character of the streetscape in the future in accordance with Policy DMHB 11. 7.22 It is considered that the proposed dev elopment would comply with the overarching aims of Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (2012), Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) , Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) and the NPPF (2024). Residential Amenit y 7.23 Policy DHMB 11 of the Hil lingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) states that development proposals should not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. An a ssessment of the pot ential impact on nei ghbouring residential amenity is discussed as follows. 7.24 It is considered that there would be no undue harm to the residential amenities of No.2 Grove Road to the north of the si te. The new dwelling would be setback a minimum of 2m from the shared side boundary, over 38m from the rear façade of the dwelling at No.2 and be single stor ey in height. It would further be separated and partially screened from the rear garden and rear façade of No.2 by the existing outbuilding in the rear garden of this neighbouring property. As such, the proposed dwelling would not be visually dominant or overbearing and would not unduly harm the outlook from or daylight and sunlight access to No.2 Grove Road. 7.25 While two new habitable windows are proposed to face No.2 Grove Road, these would be at ground-floor level and face onto the existing 1.8m high visually impermeable fence between the two pro perties which would readily screen overlooking. Regardless, it is further noted that the two proposed side windows would face towards a blank windowless façade of the rear outbuilding at No.2, ensuring that there would be no adverse harm to the privacy of these residents. 7.26 It is considered there would be no undue harm to the residential amenities of No.16 Moor Park Road to the east of the site. The new dwelling would be setback 7.7m to 10.6m away from the shared boundary and woul d be single storey in Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press height. As such, the dwelling would not be visually dominant or and would not unduly harm the outlook from or daylight and sunlight to No.16. Two new habitable windows are proposed to face the very rear garden of No.16. However, as above, the ground floor height of the windo ws and proposed 1. 8m high boundary treatment would readily scr een any potential overlookin g, ensuring that there would be no adverse harm to the privacy of No. 16 Moor Park Road. 7.27 To the south, the new dwelling would abut a buffer of hedging along the shared boundary with No. 18 Moor Park Road. A separation distance of approximately 25m would be maintained between the flan k wall of the bunga low and the main rear wall of this neighbouring site. This separation distance would ensure that the development would not appear overly dominant or lead to loss of daylight, sunlight or privacy concerns to this neighbouring property. 7.28 It is considered there would be no undue harm to the residential amenities of opposing properties across Grove Road to the west. The proposed dwelling would be well separated from these properties on the other side of Grove Road. Due to this extensive separation and intervening highway, there would be no undue harm to outlook, daylight & sunli ght access, privacy and other residential amenities of these properties. 7.29 While there would be some additiona l noise, and comings and goings generated by the proposed new dwelling, these di sturbances would be in keeping with the existing residential environment and t herefore would not unduly harm any residential amenities of nei ghbouring properties. 7.30 ` Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. It would therefore comply with Po licy DMHB 11 of the Hilling don Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Mana gement Policies (2020). Qualit y of Residential Accommodation (Internal and External) 7.31 Regarding internal accommodation, Poli cy D6 of the London Plan (2021) sets out the requirements for the gross internal fl oor area of new dwellings at a defined level of occupancy. Table 3.1 of the London Plan (2021) sets out the same gross internal area space standards set out in the technical housing standards - nationally described space standard (2015). Policy DMHB 16 of the Local Plan (2020) aligns with this policy. 7.32 The proposed development comprise s a 2-bedroom dwelling with an open plan living / kitchen / dining area. The dwelling would meet all internal space standards of the London Plan (2021) and all habitable rooms would have an adequate source of light and outlook. As such the pr oposed development complies with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMHB 16 of the Local Plan (2020). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.33 With regard to external amenity s pace, Policy DMHB 18 of Local Plan (2020) states that all new resi dential development and conver sions will be required to provide good quality and usable private out door amenity space. Amenity space should be provided in acco rdance with the standards set out in Table 5.3, which requires a 2-bedroom house to provide a minimum of 60 square metres of private genuinely usable amenity space. 7.34 The proposed dwelling would have a priv ate rear amenity sp ace of 170sqm and the existing dwelling would retain a private rear garden in excess of 500sqm. These gardens would be of a sufficient size, usability and functionality, in accordance with Polic y DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020). Hi ghways and Parking 7.35 The Highways Officer has reviewed the proposal, including the proposed access and parking arrangements, and has no objection to the application subject to the inclusion of conditions. Parking 7.36 Hillingdon Local Pl an: Part 2 Policy - DMT 6 requi res that new development will only be permitted where it accords wit h the council's adopt ed parking standards unless it can be demonstrated that a deviation from the standard would not result in a deleterious impact on the su rrounding road network. London Plan (2021): Policy T6.1 (Residential Parking) r equires that new residential development should not exceed the maximum parking standards as set out in table 10.3. 7.37 The maximum requirement as per t he overriding regional standard demands in the region of up to 1 space. The plot would potentially accommodate in the region of 2-3 informally laid out spaces and although such provision technically exceeds the parking standard, it is considered accept able in this specific case as, in the main, the internal hardstanding area allows for vehicles to enter and leave the envelope in a forward gear which is considered beneficia l on operational and safety grounds. This also reduces the potential for untoward on-street parking displacement onto the local roadways re sulting from the higher dependency on the private motor car due to the relatively poor PTAL rating. C ycle Parking 7.38 In terms of cycle parking there should be a provision of two secure and accessible spaces to conform to the adopted borough cycle parking standard. This quantum is to be provided within a store located at the rear of the proposed dwelling which is considered as an acceptable arrangement. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCP) 7.39 In line with the London Plan (2021), withi n the final parking quantum there is a requirement for a minimum of 20% 'act ive' EVCP provision with all remaining spaces being designated as 'passive' provisions. In this particular case, 1 ‘active’ space should be provided in order to future proof for anticipated demand which is confirmed b y the applicant. This would be secured by condition. Vehicular Access Provision 7.40 The proposed vehicle crossover is cons idered acceptable in principle and should conform to the council's maximum allowa ble width for crossing provisions as stipulated within the council's 'Domesti c Vehicle Footway Crossover' Policy (2022). Final designs would be arranged post-permission, and it should be noted that the crossing would need to be constructed to an appropriate council standard executed under S184 of the Highwa ys Act 1980 (or suitable alternative arrangement) all at the applicant's/developer's expense. This would also apply to all works linked to the adjustment of the on-street resident’s parking bay fronting the proposed crossover which would also be incorporated within this process at full cost to the developer. Appropriate conditions and informative have been included in this recommendation. 7.41 In safety terms effort should be made to maintain a low frontage wall treatment onto Grove Road in order to help ensure conf ormity to the relevant mutual inter- visibility sight-line requirements. In order to assist with improving sight-lines at the site entrance for vehicles and pedestrians , it is therefore recommended that the front boundary wall height should not exceed 0.6m to achieve the aim of improved visibility. The proposed boundary wall is marginally below this height requirement which indicates conformity. A condition has been included to ensure the provision and maintenance of visibilit y splays. Vehicular Trip Generation 7.42 Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) requires the council to consider whether the traf fic generated by proposed developments is acceptable in terms of the local highway and junction c apacity, traffic flows and conditions of general highway or pedestrian safety. 7.43 The proposal would clearly increase tra ffic generation from what is a dormant site. However, statistically, peak period traffic movement into and out of the site would not be expected to rise beyond 1-2 two- way vehicle movements during the peak morning and evening hours. This potential uplift is considered marginal in generation terms and therefore can be ab sorbed within the local road network without notable detriment to traffic con gestion and road safety. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Operational Refuse Requirements 7.44 Refuse collection would take place vi a Grove Road. In order to conform to the council's 'waste collection' maximum dist ance collection param eter of 10m i.e. distance from a refuse vehicle to the point of collection, arrangements should ensure that waste is positio ned at a collection point within this set distance. A storage area is depicted to the side of the build which therefore marginally exceeds this parameter. However, it is assum ed that an informal on-plot management regime by new occupiers would be estab lished to ensure that any refuse is positioned towards the frontage on co llection days. There are no further observations. Construction Management Plan 7.45 A full and detailed cons truction management plan would be a requirement given the constraints and sensitivities of the local road network in order to avoid/minimise potential detriment to the public realm. This would be secured via plannin g condition. Conclusion 7.46 The application has been reviewed by the Highway Authority who are satisfied that the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress, and would not raise any measurable highway safety concerns, in accordance with Local Plan: Part 2 Development Plan ( 2020) Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 and Policies T4, T5 and T6 of the London Plan (2021). Noise 7.47 Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021) r equires that proposals minimise noise pollution and Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (2012) promotes the maximum possible reduction in noise levels and seeks to ensure that noise impacts can be adequatel y controlled and mitigated. 7.48 The site would be used in an exclusivel y residential capacity. Therefore, in terms of the operational phase of the proposed development (occupation of the dwellin g), no significant issues are raised by the proposal in respect to noise. 7.49 Given the built-up resi dential nature of the area, a Construction Management Plan would be necessary to minimise noise and other emissions caused during the construction phase as far as practicable. This would be secured by Condition. Floodin g Risk/Critical Drainage Area 7.50 Policy DMEI 9 requires all new dev elopment to adequately manage flood risk. Polic y DMEI 10 requires all new development proposals to include water Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press efficiency measures, including the collection and reuse of rainwater and grey water. 7.51 The application site is not located within a Flood Zone 2 or 3 or at risk of surface flooding. A SuDS Drainage Strategy has not been submitted in support of the application however a new soakaway in the rear yard has been shown on the proposed drawings. It is therefore reco mmended that a condition is included requiring provision of a dr ainage strategy for review and approval to ensure the development is in accordance with Polic y DMEI 9. Accessibilit y 7.52 Policy D5 of the London Plan (2021) seeks to ensure development proposals achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design. Policy D7 of the London Plan (2021) requires at l east ten percent of dwel lings to meet Building Regulation requirement M4(3) 'wheelchair user dwellings', with all other dwellings meetin g Category M4(2) 'accessible and adaptable dwellings'. 7.53 The Councils Access Officer has been consulted on the application and has no objection to the proposed development in terms of accessibility subject to securing conditions pertaining to ensuring step fr ee access to the dwelling and requiring certification of compliance with M4(2) accessibility regulations prior to occupation of the dwelling. These conditions have been included in the recommendation, and provided compliance, the development is in accordance with Policies D5 and D7. Trees and Landscapin g 7.54 Policy DMHB 14: Trees and Landscaping of the Hillingdon Loc al Plan Part Two (2020) states that all developments will be expected to retain or enhance existing landscaping, trees, biodiversity or other natural features of merit, and will be required to provide tree surveys and protection plans where proposals might affect existing trees. It also states that development proposals will be required to provide a landscape scheme that includes hard and soft landscaping appropriate to the character of the area, which supports and enhances biodiversity and amenity. 7.55 The site is not subject to specific tr ee protections or located within a Conservation Area. There are several mature trees located on neighbouring sites in proximity to the site boundaries. However no matures trees located on the rear of the site itself. 7.56 An Arboricultural Impact Assessment , prepared by GHA trees Arboricultural Consultancy, has been submitted in support of the application. Of the six individual trees and groups of trees surveyed ( within and on neighbouring properties adjacent to the site), 2 have been identif ied as Category B, 3 as Category C and one tree as Category U. The report conf irms that no tr ees are proposed for removal, and “the proposed site layout and a ll of its associated structures allows for the healthy retention of all of the trees on the site it self, and within nearby ad jacent sites”. The proposal requires the removal of a small number of relatively Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press insignificant (C Category) shrubs and domestic hedges, which taking into account the proposed biodiversity net gain, would not have an adverse impact on the local and wider landscape. 7.57 The Council’s Tree Officer has revi ewed the application and confirmed no objection with the proposal or concern over the health of neighbouring trees. A condition has been included requiring co mpliance with the tree protection measures specified in the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment, including that protective fencin g is in place prior to commencement of the development. 7.58 Whilst concerns have been raised through the representation received that the location of adjoining trees could lead to debris and subsidence issues to the future residents of the property. The dwelling would be set away sufficient distance from these neighbouring trees and w ould not cause harm to their long-term stability given the positioning. As the dwelling wo uld remain outside the root protection area, it is not envisaged t hat the neighbouring properties’ trees would affect the structural stability of the dwelling. There is also a re sponsibility on owners where the trees are located for general maintenance and safety of the tree and ensure it does not pose a hazard if it is diseased, unstable, dan gerous. 7.59 The applicant has submi tted a high-quality landscaping plan in support of the proposal, which is welcomed by Officers. The plan includes planting of mixed new native hedging, new ground cover shrubs and new specimen trees which would contribute to the visual quality and biodiversity of landscaping on the site. Overall, the landscaping plan is of a suitable quality that would improve the site frontage relationship along the street as well as its relationship with adjoining nei ghbours. 7.60 It is recommended a condition is added to the decision notice requiring the landscaping scheme to be implemented by the end of the first planting season following occupation of the dwelling to ens ure the development is in accordance with Polic y DMHB 14. Biodiversit y Net Gain 7.61 In England, Biodiversity Net Gain (B NG) is mandatory under Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (a s inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021). It became mandator y for small sites on 2 April 2024. Developers must deliver a BNG of at least 10%. This means a development will result in more or better-quality natural habitat than there was before development. The landowner is legally responsible for creating or enhancing the habitat and mana ging that habitat for at least 30 years to achieve the target condition. 7.62 Policy 15 of the National Planning Po licy Framework (2024) states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimisin g impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.63 Paragraph 6.28 of Policy DMEI 7 (Bi odiversity Protection and Enhancement) of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part Two Development Management Policies (2020) states it is important that planning decisions are appropriately informed by the right level of survey and information on ecology features. 7.64 Biodiversity net gain assessments have been submitted in support of the application confirming both habitat and hedgerow units would be improved by over 10% in line with BNG requirements b y the proposed landscaping. 7.65 The findings indicate that the ex isting baseline calculation for habitat and hedgerow units amount to 0.0858 and 0.300 uni ts respectively. No existing watercourse units are present on the site. Post development, the number of habitat and hedgerow units on the site would increase to 0.1014 and 0.0860 units respectively. This would represent a post development increase of 18.15% for habitat units and 186.63% for hed gerow units. 7.66 On the basis of the BNG report, the figures demonstrate that the habitat/hedgerow units being put back into the site would be increased to the front, along the sides and to the rear garden. The landscapi ng works would be a better-quality arrangement than the existing site circumstances and given their locations within the perimeter of the boundary, the LPA are satisfied that the management of these areas can be maintained over a 30-year cycle as required. The improvement on the existing BNG value is therefore accepted and a condition has also been attached to ensure that the BNG w ould be managed and monitored as required b y the statutory regulations. 7.67 As such, the application would be able to provide a 10% increase in biodiversity. Accordingly a condition and info rmative have been included in the recommendation requiring a written 30-year Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the site to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Waste Mana gement 7.68 Policy DMHB 11 Part (d ) of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020) states that development proposals should make sufficient provision for well-designed internal and external storage space for general, recycling and organic waste, with suitable access for collection. External bins should be located and screened to avoid nuisance and adverse visual impacts to occupiers and neighbours. To conform with the Council's 'waste-collection' di stance parameter of 10 metres, refuse, rec ycling and food waste would need to be deposited kerbside on collection day. 7.69 The proposed plans show provision for refuse and recycling storage within the rear garden that would of an adequate size, accessible for collection, and be discreetly screened from the street and neighbours. The prospective residents of the proposed dwellin g would deposit the refuse kerbside on collection day.

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Haydon Richardson 17942/APP/2024/2874 Date Application Valid: 29/10/2024 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 05/12/25 Application Type: Full Ward: Hayes Town Applicant: Mrs Davinder Kaur Dhand Site Address: Club House, Middlesex Stadium, Breakspear Road Proposal: Construction of natural grass football pitches using imported soils approved for use by the Environment Agency. Proposals include rainwater harvesting scheme, extensive planting and habitat creation. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 1 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Major application recommended for approval) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Planning permission is sought for the construction of natural grass football pitches using imported soils . The proposal also includes a rainwater harvesting scheme and additional planting, which will in turn create additional ecological habitats. 1.2 The proposed use for outdoor sports is considered appropriate development in the Green Belt. The provision of new pitches would benefit the local community by repurposing underutilised grassland to enhance local sports provision. Simultaneously, use of the pitc hes supports healthy and active lifestyles, particularly for youth, thereby promoting overall community well- being. 1.3 The engineering works to alter the site levels to create the pitches would have a minimal impact on the openness of the Green Belt. However, these changes are designed to be subtle; with the most significant height increases placed away from public viewpoints thus reducing their vi sual impact. Conditions have been recommend ed to ensure that the enti rety of the site remains screened by existing and proposed soft landscaping, consequently, the site's appearance from the road will remain largely unchanged and the areas character will be preserved . Therefore, the public benefits resulting from the provision of additional outdoor recreation facilities are considered in this case to constitute very special circumstances that outweigh the minimal impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The proposed d evelopment is therefore considered to be acceptable in this location. 1.4 The proposal has been carefully designed to ensure there are no undue impacts on neighbouring residents or infrastructure. Increases in traffic generation are considered minor and fall outside peak hours, and the site's ample existing parking is sufficient to accommodate the new demand. Measures such as restricting pitch usage hour s will prevent nuisance from noise, and careful management of construction activities will control dust and vibration. Due to the position and nature of the new pitches, there wil l be no harmful loss of light, outlook, or privacy for nearby properties. 1.5 The Environment Agency (EA) initially obj ected to the application due to concerns regarding the quality of imported soils. This objection has been lifted following the submission of additional information clarifying that all imported soils will be contamination -free. To ensure compliance, specific conditions have been attached to this recommendation, requiring verification that the soils are clean and free from contamination before they are transported to the site. Likewise, conditions have been added to ensure that the imported soils Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press are delivered and used to construct the pitches in a manner which causes no harm to the local highways network or neighbouring amenities. 1.6 Taking into consideration that planning permission has previously been approved for football pitches in the same location (17942/APP/2003/646), that both The EA and Sports England have raised no objection to the proposed development and that the scheme includes demonstrable benefits and mitigation of all potential adverse impacts, it is recommended that planning permission be granted for the proposed development subject to conditions. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The development site is located on th e northern side of Breakspear Road and comprises a n unused field within the grounds of The Middlesex Stadium. The northern portion of the wider site comprises established football pitches. The centre and eastern parts of the wider site comprise a single storey building known as the Club House. To the front and side of the mentioned building is hardstanding which accommodates walkways and parking. An additional area of hardstanding exists to the west of the building accommodating additional parking. 2.2 The surrounding area is predominantly residential, and it should be noted that site levels gradually rise from the west to the east of the site. 2.3 In terms of constraints, the site falls within a critical drainage area and is prone to surface water flooding. The western part of the site falls within a Flood Bank Protection zone, Functional Flood P lain and Flood Zones 2/3. The development site is also located within the Green Belt. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figure 2: View from centre of development site toward Club House Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: View from within the development site toward Breakspear Road Figure 4: View of the site from Breakspear Road Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 5: View of the site from Fine Bush Lane 3 Proposal Planning permission is sought for the construction of natural grass football pitches using imported soils that have been approved for use by the Environment Agency. Proposals include a rainwater harvesting scheme, extensive planting and habitat creation. Approximately 60,163m3 of soil is to be imported to facilitate the creation of the proposed pitches. The current site levels, which range from 45m AOD to 50m AOD will be regraded to levels varying between 46m AOD and 52m AOD. The most significant increase in elevation, approximately 5m, will occur at the western portion of the site. Along Breakspear Road, height increases will be more modest, ranging from 2m to 3m. It should be noted that the proposal includes two proposed layouts for the site. One indicating smaller pitches, the other indicating a large adult sized pitch. Both markings would be provided upon the land and each layout would be used as and when required. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 6: Existing Site Layout (please note – larger versions of following plan(s) can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Figure 7: Proposed Site Layout (Multi Pitch) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 8: Alternating Proposed Layout (Senior Pitch) Figure 9: Proposed Landscaping Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 10: Proposed Sections 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. It should be noted that permission was granted for football pitches in the same location under planning application no.17942/APP/2003/646, however the pitches were not constructed. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to t he consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 A site notice was placed at the site on 02/01/25. 46 neighbouring properties were consulted on the application by letter dated 07-03-25. During the 21 -day consultation periods 1 letter of support was received stating that the proposal would be of benefit to all the community. The comment is noted, and the benefits of the scheme have been discussed in detail within paragraphs 7.1 to 7.6 of this report. 6.2 Direct internal and external consultati ons were also issued. Representations received in response to those consultations are summarised in Tables 1 and 2 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of External Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response Environmental Agency No objection subject to the submission of a materials report relating to earthworks and topographical alterations. Discussed at paragraphs 7.36 – 7.37 of this report. The suggested condition has been added to the list of recommen ded conditions. Historic England Having considered the proposals with reference to information held in the Greater London Historic Environment Record and/or made available in connection with this application, I conclude that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on heritage assets of archaeological interest. The planning application is not in an Archaeological Priority Area. Records suggest the site has low archaeological potential considering the local topography, historical mapping and results of previous investigations in the vicinity. No further assessment or conditions are therefore necessary. Discussed at paragraph 7.51 of this report. Sports England The proposal would reinstate/create playing field/pitches that would not be interfered with by the proposed planting. Since a need for more playing pitches was highlighted in its comments dated 6th Discussed at paragraphs 7.1 to 7.6 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press January 2025, Sport England now considers that the proposal would be beneficial to sport thus broadly aligning with Exception 5 of its Playing Fields Policy (see Annex below for details) and the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 104. As a result, Sport England does not wish to object to the application. of this report. Cadent Gas After receiving the details of your planning application at Club House Middlesex Stadium Breakspear Road Ruislip HA4 as we have completed our assessment. We have no objection to your proposal from a planning perspective . Noted. Ruislip Residents Association No response received. Noted. Ruislip Village Conservation Area Panel No response received. Noted. Table 2: Summary of Internal Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Air Quality Officer: I have evaluated the Transport Assessment and there is no requirement for an air quality contribution, the application site is outside the Air Quality Management Area and not within a Focus Area. Discussed at paragraphs 7.38 – 7.40 of this report. Contaminated Land Officer: No objection subject to condition s requiring that imported soils are kept free of contamination and appropriate measures are in place if contamination is found on site. Discussed at paragraphs 7.36 – 7.37 of this report. Access Officer: The detail of this planning application has been considered and no accessibility issues have been raised by the proposal. However, the following informative should be attached to any grant of planning permission: The Equality Act 2010 aims to safeguard individuals accessing goods, facilities, and Discussed at paragraph 7.43 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press services from discrimination based on a 'protected characteristic', including disability. In accordance with the Act, service providers must enhance access to and within their premises, especially when reasonable adjustments are feasible and straightforward to implement. The Act mandates that service providers proactively identify and eliminate barriers hindering disabled people. Highways Officer: The site is positioned off Breakspear Road and already incorporates two full size football pitches and an events venue available for hire. There are some 100 available on -plot parking spaces and it is proposed to provide enhanced sports provisions facilitating three '5-a-side' and two '7-a-side' football pitches. Weekday usage is anticipated to occur between the hours of 5pm & 10pm whilst during the weekend, up to four matches would occur between 10am & 4pm with a maximum of two matches occurring at any one time. Cumulative parking demand related to the proposal equating to a maximum 40 cars per match is anticipated. An established vehicular/pedestrian access serving the site envelope is to remain unaltered. The locality is comprehensively covered extensively by parking restrictions incorporating an all-day 'weekend only' controlled parking zone (CPZ) active - May to the end of August. The address exhibits a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) rating of 1b which is considered as very poor and therefore encourages private car travel to and from the address. There are no prescriptive local or regional parking standards that can be applied to this proposal and therefore it is assessed on its own merits. It is clear that this application would attract additional patronage to the establishment and the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the added attendance linked to the new pitches can be satisfactorily contained within the site during weekday & weekend activities. The Highway Authority (HA) therefore considers that the established parking provision of 100 spaces is sufficient to cater for this proposal (and existing Discussed at paragraphs 7.28 – 7.35 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press uses) as it would not in itself impose undue stress in terms of parking accumulation/stress on the available on - plot parking provision. Nor would it be expected to create measurable traffic generation to and from the address during the most sensitive and therefore crucial peak morning and late afternoon/evening traffic hours. Additionally, any general off -peak uplift would be considered marginal in generation terms and therefore can be absorbed within the local road network without notable detriment to tra ffic congestion and road safety. The only requirement recommended by the HA is for the provision and placement of 1 secure and accessible space for staff with 1 space per 20 new patrons. This aspect can secured by way of planning condition. Construction Management Plan (CMP) The applicant has submitted the above inclusive of anticipated daily vehicle related frequency during the 4- 6 construction month which has satisfactorily demonstrated that the level of activity to and from site with less than 15 hourly HGV movements during morning and late afternoon/evening peak traffic periods - Monday to Friday is containable within the existing level of base-line traffic activity in the area thereby minimising potential detriment to the public realm. The CMP is therefore considered broadly fit for purpose thereby negating the necessity for securement via planning condition. Conclusion The application has been reviewed by the Highway Authority who are satisfied that the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress, and would not raise any measurable highway safety concerns, in accordance with Local Plan: Part 2 Development Management Plan (2020) - Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 & DMT 6 and Policies T4 and T6 of the London Plan (2021). Planning Policy Officer: No objection subject to confirmation of existing and proposed site levels. Final site levels are proposed to be secured by condition. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Noise Officer: Given the nature and context of the proposed development apparent from the information provided I do not consider noise and vibration to be a material planning issue. Discussed at paragraphs 7.25 – 7.26 of this report. Waste Management Officer: No comment/no objection. Noted. Design Officer: The levelling of the pitch, warm up area, mini soccer will raise the ground level by approximately 5m along the western side of the site and between approximately 2m and 3m along the southern boundary. This will make the earthworks prominent in the winter months when boundary planting is visually permeable. Accordingly, the surrounding shrub and wildflower mix is welcomed and supported. It is recommended that the proposed shrubs mix includes native trees to further bio -diversify the site and reduce the visual prominence of the earthworks from surrounding roads in the winter months. A landscape Condition is sought to ensure tree are included. Trees could be planted as whips similar to the shrubs. A maintenance and management plan should also be Conditioned to ensure the shrub and tree mix is thinned appropriately over the coming years. No objection. Discussed at paragraphs 7.16 – 7.22 of this report. Metis (on behalf of London Borough of Hillingdon as Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA )): No objection subject to a condition requiring the submission of details relating to sustainable drainage and long-term management and maintenance of the drainage system. Noted, matters relating to flood risk and drainage are addressed in paragraph s 7.42 - 7.48 of the report. The suggested conditions are included in the list of conditions attached to this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development Provision of New Football Pitches 7.1 Paragraph 96 (C) of the NPPF (2024) advises that planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which: enable and support healthy lives, through both promoting good health and preventing ill-health, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs and reduce health inequalities between the most and least deprived communities – for example through the provision of sports facilities. 7.2 Paragraph 104 of the NPPF (2024) states that existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields and formal play spaces, should not be built on unless an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use. 7.3 Policy S5 of the London Plan supports the provision and retention of sports and recreation facilities. Part B of the policy states: Development proposals for sports and recreation facilities should: 1) increase or enhance the provision of facilities in accessible locations, well- connected to public transport and link to networks for walking and cycling; 2) maximise the multiple use of facilities, and encourage the co-location of services between sports providers, schools, colleges, universities and other community facilities; 3) support the provision of sports lighting within reasonable hours, where there is an identified need for sports facilities, and lighting is required to increase their potential usage, unless the lighting gives rise to demonstrable harm to the local community or biodiversity. 7.4 Part D of Local Plan: Part 2 Policy DMCI 3 states ‘development of private open space is not permitted where there would be a significant individual or cumulative loss of open space/open aspect and/or where there would be a significant impact on amenity, character and appearance, biodiversity, ecological connectivity, cooling effect and/or flood alleviation effect. 7.5 Having regard for the above policies it is clear that there is significant support at national, regional and local level for the provision of new sports facilities, especially where they would support communities. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.6 The development includes no loss or removal of open space. Conversely existing grassland would be appropriately filled, levelled, and restored with topsoil returned to create football pitches. Taking into consideration these points as well as the fact that Sport England were consulted on the proposal and confirmed that they have no objection to the scheme as the provision of the new pitches would fall under Exception 5 of their guidance , the provision of new football pitches is acceptable. Provision of Football Pitches within the Green Belt 7.7 The proposed development site is located entirely within the Green Belt. 7.8 Policy DMEI 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 and Policy G2 (A) of the London Plan (2021) advise that the Green Belt should be protected from inappropriate development and proposals that would harm the Green Belt should be refused except where very special circumstances exist. Developments which conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt are also not supported. 7.9 Paragraph 154 of The NPPF (2024) outlines appropriate and exceptional forms of development within the Green Belt. 7.10 Paragraphs 154 (h)(ii) and (h)(v) advise that engineering operations and the change of use of land to outdoor sports will be considered as appropriate development within the Green Belt, so long as the proposed works preserve its openness and do not conflict with its purposes. 7.11 The proposed development involves the importation of soil to create football pitches. This element of the proposal is considered to be an engineering operation which will alter current site levels from 45m - 50m AOD to 46m - 52m AOD. The most significant increase in land elevation, approximately 5m, will occur at the western portion of the site, away from public viewpoints and nearby properties. Along Breakspear Road, height increases will be more modest, ranging from 2m to 3m. All height increases will be screened by the site's heavily landscaped borders, and the proposed pitches would be located upon the regraded land. 7.12 As stated above the proposed use for outdoor sports is considered appropriate development in the Green Belt. The engine ering works to alter the site levels in order to create the pitches would have a minimal impact on the openness of the Green Belt. However, the new pitches will be surrounded by extensive planting and greenery and therefore the site's appearance from the road and other vantage points is expected to remain largely unchanged. The impact on the openness of the Green Belt is considered to likely only be noticeable to a significant degree to those within the site itself. Therefore, the public benefits resulting from the provision of additional outdoor recreation fa cilities are considered in this case to constitute very special circumstances t hat outweigh the minimal impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The proposed development is therefore considered to be acceptable in this location. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.13 Paragraph 143 of The NPPF (2024) states that the purposes of the Green Belt are to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. 7.14 The proposed development involves utilising unused land to create additional pitches within a wider site (Middlesex Stadium) which is already used for outdoor sport s. The development is therefore considered not to conflict with any of the purposes of the Green Belt. 7.15 Taking into consideration the above, the proposed development is considered to be appropriate development within the Green Belt and ultimately acceptable in principle. Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.16 The development site is located on th e northern side of Breakspear Road and comprises an unused field within the grounds of The Middlesex Stadium. The northern portion of the wider site comprises established football pitches. The centre and eastern parts of the wider site comprise the Club House, parking and walkways. The surrounding area is predominantly residential. 7.17 At present, the field subject to this application comprises grassland and is bound by trees, shrubbery and other soft landscaping. The resulting site would have additional grass pitches, shrubbery planting and wildflower planting which would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing field and wider site (described above). 7.18 The proposed development will alter the current site levels, which range from 45m AOD to 50m AOD. The new pitches will be situated on a re-graded site with levels varying between 46m AOD and 52m AOD. The most significant increase in elevation, approximately 5m, will occur at the western portion of the site, away from public viewpoints and adjacent properties. Along Breakspear Road, height increases will be more modest, ranging from 2m to 3m, and will be screened by the site's landscaped borders. 7.19 Given that the new pitches will be surrounded by extensive planting and greenery that integrates with the existing boundary treatments, the site's appearance from the road is expected to remain largely unchanged. Consequently, the proposed changes to the site levels are not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the visual amenity of the site or the surrounding area. 7.20 A walkway exists through the middle of the site, which would be further formalised by the proposed development . Subject to the use of appropriate materials the walkway would have no adverse visual impact. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.21 A condition has been added requiring the submission of a detailed landscaping plan to ensure that the proposed landscaping and walkway visually integrate with the wider site. Furthermore, conditions have been added to ensure the retention and protection of the sites existing tree lined boundaries. 7.22 Overall, the proposed development is considered to cause no harm to character and appearance of the area subject to conditions. Residential Amenity 7.23 At present site levels vary from 45m AOD (lowest) to 50m AOD (highest). To facilitate the creation of the new pitches, the proposed development would result in site levels of 46m AOD (lowest) to 52m AOD (highest), with the largest increase being approximately 5m at the western portion of the site (away from neighbouring properties). Adjacent to Breakspear Road, height increases would be 2m-3m and hidden behind the sites landscaped borders. 7.24 Due to the careful position of the height increases, nature of the proposed development (construction of football pitches through soil importation and other landscaping alterations) and its separation distance from the residential properties on Breakspear Road, the proposed development is not considered to cause any harmful loss of light, outlook or privacy to nearby residents. 7.25 When considering the sites existing use and capacity, the additional trips generated by the development are not considered to be significant enough to cause disturbance or nuisance to the detriment of neighbouring amenities. The site is already used for sports purposes throughout the week and weekend as such it generates noise, this would continue to be the case post development. Should the application be recommended for approval a condition has been recommended restricting usage hours for the pitches to align with existing usage hours, this is to ensure that that their usage causes no adverse noise impact on neighbouring amenities. It is also worth noting that use of the pitches would in part be controlled by the seasons and nightfall (further limiting noise impacts associated with their use). 7.26 Noise, vibration, dust and odour would be carefully managed during the construction phase by restricted working hours, designated transport routes and other measures as set out within the submitted transport statement with final details to be set out within a Construction Environmental Management and Logistics Plan which is recommended to be secured by condition. 7.27 Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. It would therefore comply wi th Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Manageme nt Policies (2020) and paragraph 135 of the NPPF (2024). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Highways and Parking 7.28 As mentioned by the Highways Officer, there are no specific parking requirements for the proposed development set out with in the London or Local Plan, as such the developments highways impacts must be assessed on their individual merits. A Transport Assessment (T001, Rev 2, dated 13/08/24) has been submitted in support of the proposal to assist this assessment. 7.29 The existing access to the site from Breakspear Road will be retained and used for the proposed development. The access serves circa 100 parking spaces and this would continue to be the case post development, as the proposal includes no additional parking spaces. Use of the existing access is therefore considered to be acceptable. Parking 7.30 At present the wider site provides circa 100 parking spaces, which serve existing patrons. The proposed development would result in the provision of 4 extra pitches of varied size and a warmup area, all for the purposes of youth football. 7.31 Sports pitches on the wider site are al ready operating and therefore, already generate a level of traffic. With the proposed facilities in place, peak usage times will be anticipated to be Saturday and Sunday where youth football matches will be played. The busiest scenario is considered to be where there will be 2 matches at a time with 4 matches in total occurring between 10:00 -16:00. A maximum of 40 parked cars per match is anticipated. There is no record of a lack of parking being an issue at the site, therefore, it is anticipated that the parking provision would be sufficient to accommodate the likely demand. 7.32 Taking into consideration the parking provision as well as the fact that only two of the new pitches will be active at any one time it is considered that sufficient parking space would be provided for the proposed development alongside the sites existing use. Traffic Generation 7.33 The applicant has advised that a maximum of 4 matches would be played between 10:00-16:00 on the weekend with a max of 40 cars parked per match. In terms of trip generation, the development would th erefore result in a maximum of 320 additional trips (4 x 40 x 2 - accounting for arrival and departure). The trips would be outside of peak hours and on the weekend and are therefore considered to be acceptable . Due to the aforementioned restrictions on pitch usage, the development is not considered to cause any harmful increase in traffic generation. Construction 7.34 In terms of construction, the submitted Construction Management Plan suggests that during the 4-6 month construction period vehicle movements would be limited to less than 15 hourly HGV movements during morning and late afternoon/evening Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press peak traffic periods (Monday to Friday). The Highways Officer has considered that the level of movement would be comfortably absorbed by the road network. Furthermore a condition has been recommended requiring a further more detailed Construction Management Plan, with the aim of protecting the road, neighbouring amenities and the local highways network. Conclusion 7.35 Subject to conditions, the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress, and would not raise any measurable highway safety concerns, in accordance with Local Plan: Part 2 Development Management Plan (2020) - Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 & DMT 6 and Policies T4 and T6 of the London Plan (2021). Contamination 7.36 The proposed development involves importing soils to create football pitches. Some concerns have been by the Environment Agency (EA) during the course of the application regarding the where the impor ted soil will come from . In order to resolve this concern and t o ensure that the imported soils are clean from contamination, appropriate for their intended use and have no adverse related impacts, pre-commencement conditions recommended by the EA and council’s Contaminated Land Officer have been recommended to be attached to the decision notice, should the Committee be minded to approve the development. 7.37 An additional condition is also recommended that should any contamination be found on site then appropriate measures, including their verification of completion be submitted and approved by the LPA. It is therefore considered that subject to the compliance with the conditions the development would pose no adverse contamination related impacts , in accordance with Hilling don Local Plan: Part 2 (January 2020) Policies - DMEI 11: Protection of Ground Water Resources and DMEI 12: Development of Land Affected by Contamination and Paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Air Quality 7.38 The proposed development would utilise existing car parking spaces and therefore the minor increase in trip generation is considered to comparable to trip generation if the site were used at its full capacity. Taking into consideration these points, as well as the fact that no additi onal parking space is to be provided the council’s Air Quality Officer has conf irmed that no contribution to mitigate any detrimental impact on air quality is required. 7.39 A condition has been added to ensure that trees within the site are protected. The retention of such trees assists with carbon capture. 7.40 For the reasons outlined above, the devel opment is considered to have no adverse air quality related impacts and the Borough’s Air Quality Officer who was consulted on the application concurs. The development is therefore considered to Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press comply with Policy S1 of the London Plan and Policy DMEI 14 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part 2. Accessibility 7.41 The proposed pitches would be accessible via the path running through the middle of the site, as well as from the site’s car parking areas and Club House. The council’s Access Officer has reviewed th e submitted details and confirmed that the development poses no accessibility related concerns. An informative is however recommended to be attached providing details of the Equalities Act 2010. Flooding and Drainage 7.42 The proposed pitches and site are located within Flood Zone 1, however it is worth noting that the western border of the site abuts Flood Zone 3. 7.43 A Flood Risk Assessment with preliminary drainage strategy have been submitted in support of the application. 7.44 Annexe 3 of the NPPF (2024) advises that outdoor sports and recreation uses are classified as water compatible development and are appropriate within Flood Zones 1, 2 or 3. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in this location. 7.45 Taking into consideration that the new pitches do not include the provision of impermeable surfaces, or works that would impede flood waters or put additional people at risk from flooding the proposal is considered to have no adverse flooding related impacts. A rainwater harvesting scheme is proposed which is welcomed and condition has been recommended to ensure that it is installed and appropriate SuDS are provided. Subject to the implementation of these conditions the development would comply with Policy DMHB 14 of the Local Plan Part 2 and Policy G7 of the London Plan. Ecology 7.46 A preliminary ecological impact assessment has been submitted in support of the proposed development. The report concludes that ‘A desk-based study and a field study were conducted in order to identify habitats and determine the suitability for any ‘protected and notable’ species to occur on site. The habitats present on site are common and widespread and are not of significant ecological value. Notwithstanding this, they are suitable to support a number of protected species. Further surveys maybe required for species including birds, bats and badgers. 7.47 Taking into consideration the findings of the report and to ensure that protected species are not harmed during the construction of the proposed development a condition has been recommended requiring a full ecological impact assessment prior to the commencement of works, which includes bird, bat and badger surveys. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.48 Subject to compliance with the condition the development would have an acceptable ecological impact. Biodiversity Net Gain 7.49 A BNG assessment has been submitted in support of the application. The report concludes that 'Provided that the recommendations for creation and management of habitats can be adhered to, it is predicted that the proposed development will achieve a net gain of 16.81% (2.07 Units) with a 118.34% (0.12 Units) hedgerow net gain. 7.50 This being the case the scheme would prov ide a net gain in excess of 10%. To ensure that the net gains are implemented and appropriately managed throughout the lifetime of the development a condition has been added requiring a habitat management plan. officers consider that the stated net gain in biodiversity is achievable, and the development would co mply with the requirements set out within Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Archaeology 7.51 Historic England have advised that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on heritage assets of archaeological interest as the site is not in an Archaeological Priority Area. Their r ecords suggest the site has low archaeological potential considering the local topography, historical mapping and results of previous investigations in the vicinity. 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 8.3 The Council adopted its own Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on 1st August 2014. The proposal is not CIL liable. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The proposed development seeks to infill and repurpose underutilised grassland to create football pitches . T he proposed use for outdoor sports is considered appropriate development in the Green Belt. The engineering works to alter the site levels in order to create the pitches would have a minimal impact on the openness of the Green Belt. 9.2 However, the new pitches will be surrounded by extensive planting and greenery and therefore the site's appearance from the road and other vantage points is expected to remain largely unchanged. The impact on the openness of the Green Belt is considered to likely only be noticeable to a significant degree to those within the site itself. Therefore, the public benefits resulting from the provision of additional outdoor recreation facilities are considered in this case to constitute very special circumstances that outweigh the minimal impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The proposed development is therefore considered to be acceptable in this location , without causing harm to neighbouring amenities, the local highways network or character of the area. Conditions have been added to ensure that the imported soils are free from contamination. 9.3 Taking into consideration the above, 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 appl ications are also available to inspect electronically at the Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW upon appointment, by contacting Planning Services at planning@hillingdon.gov.uk. AAPPENDICES Planning Application 17942/APP/2024/2874 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 16 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. RES3 T Time Limit The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. RES4 A Accordance with Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on submitted plan numbers: 820.02 Rev A - Application Boundary Plan 820.03 Rev B - Proposed Layout and Grading Plan 820.06 Rev B - Tree Protection Plan 820.07 Rev A - Contractors Work Plan 820.05 Rev B - Proposed Cross Sections 820.04 Rev B - Landscape Plan 820.01 Rev B - Existing Site Details 820.08 Rev B - Proposed Layout of Youth Pitches 820.09 Rev A - Proposed Layout Of Senior Pitch 820.04S - Landscape Plan With Senior Pitch Illustrated 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. COM5 G General compliance with supporting documentation The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the following has been completed in accordance with the specified supporting plans and/or documents: Transport Statement Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Report Preliminary Ecological Appraisal New Practice Pitches at Middlessex Stadium - CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATION & DETAIL Westbury Environmental - LT01 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 16 Phase 1 Preliminary Risk Assessment - 10110-DTS-001 Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Colin Payne Consultancy - 12 Month Construction and Maintenance Plan 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 4. NONSC S Sustainable Drainage and Water Management Prior to commencement (except for demolition, ground and enabling work) any relevant phase of this development (excluding demolition and site clearance), a scheme for the provision of sustainable water management shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the relevant stakeholders. The scheme shall clearly demonstrate how it manages water and demonstrate ways of controlling the surface water on site by providing information on: a) Sustainable Drainage features: i. Surface water discharge - the submitted drainage strategy must identify the proposed method and location of discharging collected surface water from the site in accordance with the hierarchy set out in Policy SI 13 of the London Plan (2021). Where the proposal does not utilise the most sustainable solution, justification must be provided. ii. SuDS - the submitted drainage strategy should incorporate Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) elements that are embedded, where practicable, within the landscaping plan for the development. Preference should be given to above-ground SuDS elements that control water at source and provide wider biodiversity, water quality and amenity benefits. iii. Runoff rates - provide the greenfield and proposed runoff rates for a variety of return periods including 1 in 1 year, 1 in 30, 1 in 100, and 1 in 100 plus 40% climate change. Developments should aim to meet greenfield runoff rates unless a suitable justification can be provided. iv. Exceedance routes - provide a plan showing the route surface water will take through the development for rainfall events exceeding the 1 in 100 year event. Where it is intended to store water on the ground surface, the maximum extent of overland flooding should be mapped and the depth of the flooding confirmed. Safe access and egress for the site must be demonstrated. b) Long-term management and maintenance of the drainage system. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 16 i. Provide a Management and Maintenance Plan for the drainage system that includes clear plans showing all of the drainage network above and below ground, and identifies the responsibility of different parties for each component of the drainage network. ii. Include details of the necessary inspection regimes and maintenance frequencies. 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 and to ensure the development does not increase flood risk, in compliance with Policy EM6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), Policy DMEI 9 and DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020), Policies SI 12 and SI 13 of the London Plan (2021), the National Planning Policy Framework (2021); and Planning Practice Guidance (Flood Risk and Coastal Change March 2014). 5 5. OM19 C Construction Management Plan No development (hereby approved) shall take place until a full Construction Environmental Management and Logistics Plan for the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This plan shall detail: (i) The phasing of the works; (ii) The hours of work; (iii) On-site plant and equipment; (iv) Measures to mitigate noise and vibration; (v) Measures to mitigate impact on air quality; (vi) Waste management; (vii) Site transportation and traffic management, including: - Routing; - Signage; - Vehicle types and sizes; - Hours of arrivals and departures of staff and deliveries (avoiding peaks times of day); - Frequency of visits; - Parking of site operative vehicles; - On-site loading/unloading arrangements; and - Use of an onsite banksman (if applicable). - Wheel washing (viii) The arrangement for monitoring and responding to complaints relating to demolition and construction; (ix) Measures to avoid and mitigate impacts to the water course at the western end of the site (x) full details of the expected number of construction related staff to be working on the site, as well as where they would park; (xi) Soil Delivery times details; and Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 16 (xii) the maximum number of HGV vehicle movements This plan should accord with Transport for London's Construction Logistic Planning Guidance and the GLA's 'The Control of Dust and Emissions during Construction and Demolition' Supplementary Planning Guidance (July 2014) (or any successor document). It shall cover the entirety of the application site and any adjoining land which will be used during the construction period. It shall include the details of cranes and any other tall construction related equipment (including the details of obstacle lighting). The construction works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved plan. REASON To ensure the development causes no harm to the local highways network or pedestrian and road user safety and to safeguard the amenity of surrounding areas in accordance with Policies DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020), as well as Policies D3, T6 and T7 of the London Plan (2021). 6 6. RES9 L 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), which include the provision of pollution absorbing planting 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 Means of enclosure/boundary treatments 2.b Hard Surfacing Materials 2.c Car parking layout (showing all existing car parking spaces as well as the provision of 1 accessible parking space for staff and 1 accessible parking space per 20 new patrons) 3. Details of Landscape Maintenance 3.a Landscape Maintenance Schedule for a minimum period of 5 years (including swale management details) 4. Schedule for Implementation 5. Finished ground levels Thereafter the development shall be carried out and maintained in full accordance with the approved details. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 16 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 12, DMHB 14, DMEI 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020), as well as policies D3 and T6 of the London Plan (2021). 7 7. NONSC O Operating hours Prior to first use of the hereby approved football pitches, the operating/usage hours for the pitches shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include details of when the hereby approved pitches are proposed to be used alongside existing facilities. Thereafter the pitches shall be used during the approved times for the lifetime of the development unless otherwise specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To protect the amenities of neighbours from unacceptable levels of noise and activity during anti-social hours and to protect the local highways network from excessive traffic generation and overspill parking, in accordance with Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (January 2020) Policies - DMHB 11, DMT 2, DMT 6, paragraph D3, T4 and T6 of the London Plan (2021) and paragraphs 116 and 135 (f) of the NPPF (2024). 8. NONSC E EA Clean Soil Requirements Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Environment Agency and Local Planning Authority, no development approved by this planning permission shall be commenced until a materials report is submitted to, and approved in writing, by the local planning authority. All imported soils shall be tested for chemical contamination. The report shall include: 1. The source (donor site) for all earthworks, topographical enhancements and other soil forming material to be imported. 2. The precise volume to the nearest cubic metre for each of the sources in (1) 3. The background for these materials to confirm previous use and current status (e.g. has it been excavated). 4. The results of testing for chemical contamination. No part of the development which is comprised of earthworks, topographical enhancements or other soil forming material shall be carried out except using materials which are set out in the approved materials report. REASON To ensure that the occupants or users of the development are not subject to any risks from soil contamination in accordance with Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (January 2020) Policies - DMEI 11: Protection of Ground Water Resources and DMEI 12: Development of Land Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 16 Affected by Contamination and Paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 99. NONSC C Contamination In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. A) An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. B) Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. REASON To ensure that the occupants or users of the development are not subject to any risks from soil contamination in accordance with Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (January 2020) Policies - DMEI 11: Protection of Ground Water Resources and DMEI 12: Development of Land Affected by Contamination. 10. NONSC E External Lighting Restriction No floodlighting or any other form of external lighting shall be installed around, near to, or on the approved pitches, unless first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To protect the amenities of neighbours from unacceptable levels of light and associated noise and activity that would come with the usage of illuminated pitches during anti-social hours, in accordance with Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (January 2020) Policies - DMHB 11, paragraph D3 of the London Plan (2021) and paragraph 135 (f) of the NPPF (2024). 11. COM10 T Tree to be retained Trees, hedges and shrubs shown to be retained on the approved plan(s) shall not be damaged, uprooted, felled, lopped or topped without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. If any retained tree, hedge or shrub is removed or severely damaged during construction, or is found to be seriously diseased or dying another tree, hedge or shrub shall be planted at the same place or, if planting in the same place would leave the new tree, hedge or shrub susceptible to disease, then the planting should be in a position to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and shall be of a size and species to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be planted in the first planting season following the completion of the development or the occupation of the buildings, whichever is the earlier. Where damage is less severe, a schedule of remedial works necessary to ameliorate the effect of damage by tree surgery, feeding or groundwork shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. New planting should comply with Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7 of 16 BS 3936 (1992) 'Nursery Stock, Part 1, Specification for Trees and Shrubs' . Remedial work should be carried out to BS BS 3998:2010 'Tree work - Recommendations' and BS 4428 (1989) 'Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations (Excluding Hard Surfaces)'. The agreed work shall be completed in the first planting season following the completion of the development or the occupation of the buildings, whichever is the earlier. REASON To ensure that the trees and other vegetation continue to make a valuable contribution to the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) and to comply with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 1 12. COM8 T Tree Protection No site clearance or construction work shall take place until the details have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority with respect to: 1. A method statement outlining the sequence of development on the site including demolition, building works and tree protection measures. 2. Detailed drawings showing the position and type of fencing to protect the entire root areas/crown spread of trees, hedges and other vegetation to be retained shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. No site clearance works or development shall be commenced until these drawings have been approved and the fencing has been erected in accordance with the details approved. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority such fencing should be a minimum height of 1.5 metres. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. The fencing shall be retained in position until development is completed. The area within the approved protective fencing shall remain undisturbed during the course of the works and in particular in these areas: 2.a There shall be no changes in ground levels; 2.b No materials or plant shall be stored; 2.c No buildings or temporary buildings shall be erected or stationed. 2.d No materials or waste shall be burnt; and. 2.e No drain runs or other trenches shall be dug or otherwise created, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. 3. Where the arboricultural method statement recommends that the tree protection measures for a site will be monitored and supervised by an arboricultural consultant at key stages of the development, records of the site inspections / meetings shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. REASON To ensure that trees and other vegetation can and will be retained on site and not damaged during construction work and to ensure that the development conforms with policy DMHB 14 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 8 of 16

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Alan Corcoran 43510/APP/2024/3336 Date Application Valid: 03.04.2025 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 12.11.2025 Application Type: Full Ward: South Ruislip Applicant: NEXT PLC Site Address: Unit 2, Ruislip Retail Park, Victoria Road, Ruislip Proposal: Installation of an internal mezzanine floor that can be used for Use Class E(a) retail purposes and use of floorspace for an ancillary cafe and back -of- house storage space. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to section 106 legal agreement and conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 1 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Major application recommended for approval) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory section 106 legal agreement to secure the heads of terms set out below, and subject to the conditions as set out in Appendix 1. S106 Legal Agreement Heads of Terms It is recommended that delegated powers be given to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth 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. Air Quality Mitigation contribution of £40,396. ii. A Construction Employment Training Scheme secured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD. iii. An End -User Employment Scheme secured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD. iv. A Project Management and Monitoring Fee, equalling 5% of the total financial contributions to be paid under this agreement. B) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in preparing the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed. C) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreement and conditions of approval. D) That, if the Legal Agreement has not been finalised within 6 months (or such other time frame as may be agreed by the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth), delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth to refuse planning permission for the following reason: ‘The applicant has failed to mitigate the impacts posed by the proposed development (in respect of Air Quality , Employment and Planning Obligations Monitoring). The scheme therefore conflicts with Policies DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020); the adopted Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2014); Policy DF1 of the London Plan (2021); and paragraphs 56-58 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).' Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press E) That if the application is approved, that the permission is subject to the Conditions as set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 The Application Site (Unit 2) is located within Ruislip Retail Park to the southwest of the junction of Victoria Road and Field End Road in South Ruislip. It is a vacant 1,442 sq. m. retail unit (formerly 'Carpetright') in a purpose -built parade of four large format retail units consisting of Furniture Village (Unit 1), TK Maxx (Unit 3), and Halfords (Unit 4). The Site is within Potentially Contaminated Land and a Critical Drainage Area. It is not Listed or located within a Conservation Area or Area of Special Local Character. 1.2 The Applicant proposes to construct a 1,332 sq. m. mezzanine floor within the existing building’s envelope, in the void space above the existing 1,442 sq. m. of commercial ground floor space. The resulting structure would have a total floor area of 2,774 s q. m. The net sales area of the store would be 1,417 sq. m. and there would be a further 139 sq. m. for an ancillary cafe. Of the net sales area, 1,285 sq. m. would be for the sale of clothing, footwear, and accessories. The remaining 132 sq. m. would be used for the sale of furniture and furnishings. The established, lawful use class of the Site (Use Class E(a)) would not change, but, if granted, the new permission would supersede a planning condition which currently limits the sale of specific goods withi n Unit 2, including clothing and footwear (unless the clothing is connected with building and construction, DIY, motorcycling, cycling, or vehicle repair and maintenance activities). 1.3 This application is submitted in association with application reference 43510/APP/2024/3337, which seeks permission to refurbish Unit 2 for its use within Use Class E(a) to include the sale of clothing, footwear, furniture and homewares, and ancillary items, back-of-house storage space, a new shop front, and a new fire exit door. This associated application is to be determined under delegated authority concurrent with this committee application. This application for a mezzanine floor being considered by the Planning Committee , therefore includes a co ndition requiring the additional floorspace to be used only in association with Unit 2 and its lawful use , which should planning permission be granted, would be for t he sale of the specified items with an ancillary café and storage space. These are the terms o f the submitted application that have been assessed. 1.4 Given the Site’s planning history (planning consent to operate as a large format retail store), and on review of the submitted Sequential Test and Retail Impact Assessment, the principle of constructing a mezzanine floor for retail use in an out-of-centre location is acceptable in this circumstance. There would be no Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press external extensions or alterations of the building’s exterior, and thus, no design or character impacts. Given the nature of the internal works to an established retail unit and its separation from residential land uses, the proposal would not harm residential amenity. There are no objections from the Council’s Urban Design Officer, Landscape Officer, or Highways Officers. Though located on Potentially Contaminated Land and within a Critical Drainage Area, no ground works or increase in building footprint i s proposed, with the proposed mezzanine to be installed above the established ground floor retail space within an existing building. Therefore, there would be no increased risk of contamination or flooding. 1.5 The Council has not received any representations from the public during the public consultation period. 1.6 The proposal is acceptable and would be consistent with the relevant development plan policies. 1.7 The planning application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions contained in Appendix 1 and Section 106 Heads of Terms detailed in the ‘Summary of Recommendation’ section of this report. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 Unit 2 – the Application Site – is a vacant retail unit in a purpose -built terrace of four large format retail units located to the southwest of the junction of Victoria Road and Field End Road in South Ruislip. Unit 2 has been vacant for one year since ‘Carpetright’ closed in the Summer of 2024. It has an existing gross internal floor area of 1,442 sq. m. at ground floor level. 2.2 The Site is within Potentially Contaminated Land and a Critical Drainage Area. It is not Listed or located within a Conservation Area or Area of Special Local Character. 2.3 Vehicular access to the Site is via Victoria Road, with egress onto Field End Road. Car parking is to the north of the Site, with 304 spaces within the wider retail park. There are 36 cycle parking spaces adjacent the eastern boundary of the Site for retail park visitors. Site access, cycle parking, and car parking are shared between the retail park units. A separate shared service access is from Stonefield Way to the west. The Site has a Public Transport Access Lev el (PTAL) of 1b, where a score of 0 indicates very poor access to public transport and 6b indicates excellent access. Bus stops for the 114 and 282 adjoin the retail park. 2.4 The three neighbouring retail units within the parade are occupied by Furniture Village (Unit 1), TK Maxx (Unit 3), and Halfords (Unit 4). Separate Wickes and Lidl Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press stores are to the west of the shopping parade and retail park. Further west, along Victoria Road, is the Victoria Retail Park that has retail park units within three separate blocks. These are occupied by Curry’s, Homebase, DFS, Tapi Carpets, and PureGym. Large industrial units within The Stonefield Way Preferred Industrial Location (PIL) adjoin the Site to the south. To the north of the Site, beyond the retail park’s car park and on the opposite side of Victoria Road are residential homes (approximately 95 metres from the Site). East of the retail park, on the opposite side of Field End Road, are more residential homes (approximately 115 metres from the Site). The Site and surrounding retail parks form part of a well-established local retail hub that predominantly serves car-borne shoppers drawn from a wide catchment. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Aerial View of the Application Site Figure 3: Aerial View of Wider Retail Park Setting Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4: Site Image Figure 5: Site Image 3 Proposal 3.1 The Applicant proposes to construct a 1,332 sq. m. mezzanine floor within the existing building envelope, in the void above the existing 1,442 sq. m. of Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press commercial ground floor space. The resulting building would have two storeys (ground floor and mezzanine level), with a total floor area of 2,774 sq. m. The net sales area of the store would be 1,417 sq. m. and there would be a further 139 sq. m. for an ancillary cafe. Of the net sales area, 1,285 sq. m. would be for the sale of clothing, footwear, and accessories. The remaining 132 sq. m. would be used for the sale of furniture and furnishings. The lawful use class of the Site (Use Class E(a)) would not ch ange, however, if approved, the planning permission would supersede the previous approval ( permission reference 43510/APP/2012/3176) that restricted – through Condition 12 – the sale of certain goods within Unit 2, including clothing and footwear. 3.2 The Applicant has submitted this application alongside planning application reference 43510/APP/2024/3337, which seeks permission for ‘Refurbishment of the existing retail unit (Unit 2) for its use within Use Class E(a) to include the sale of clothing, footwear, furniture and homewares, and ancillary items, back-of-house storage space, a new shopfront and new fire exit door.’ This associated application is to be determined under delegated authority concurrent with this committee application. This application for a mezzanine floor being considered by the Planning Committee, therefore includes a condition requiring the additional floorspace to be used only in association with Unit 2 and its lawful use, which should planning permission be granted, would be for the sale of the specified items with an ancillary café and storage space. These are the terms of the submitted application that have been assessed. 3.3 Vehicle and pedestrian access would remain unaltered, as would the landscaping, cycle parking, and car parking that are outside of the application red lined (location plan) boundary within the wider retail park. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 6: Proposed Mezzanine Floor Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 The Local Planning Authority (LPA) sent consultation letters to 49 neighbouring properties on 29.04.25. The Council also advertised the application with a site notice and press notice on 21.05.25. The consultation period expired on 04.06.25. 6.2 The LPA has not received any comments or representations in response to the public consultation . Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response N/A N/A N/A Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response External Consultation London Borough of Harrow: No objection. Noted. London Fire Brigade: No objection. Noted. Internal Consultation Retail Consultant (MAPlanning): No objection. Noted. Urban Design Officer: No objection. Noted. Landscape Officer: No objection. Noted. Economic Development: No objection subject to a Construction Employment Training Scheme and an End -User Employment Scheme being secured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD via a Section 106 Agreement. This request is a recommended Heads of Terms to be secured in the Section 106 Agreement. Accessibility Officer: No objection. Informative recommended. An informative has been recommended in line with the Accessibility Officer’s recommendation. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Refuse and Recycling Officer: No objection. Noted. Planning Policy Officer: No objection. Noted. Highways Officer: No objection subject to conditions regarding a Travel Plan and Construction Management Plan. Conditions have been recommended in line with the Highways Officer’s recommendations. Air Quality Officer: No objection, subject to a Construction Management Plan condition, and £40,396 air quality mitigation contribution secured through a Section 106 Agreement. A legal Heads of Terms and a condition have been recommended in line with the Air Quality Officer’s recommendations. Noise Pollution Officer: No objection. Noted. Environmental Specialist (Energy and Biodiversity): No comments. Noted. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 Unit 2 of the retail park has been vacant for one year, following the closure of 'Carpetright'. The proposed development would bring the vacant retail unit back into use, enabling an international retailer to operate in Unit 2. It would improve retail choice for residents and provide an additional 50 to 60 local jobs within the store, including administration, management, and a range of full and part -time positions, as well as construction jobs associated with the store's fit -out and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press mezzanine floor construction. Notwithstanding, there is a restrictive planning condition attached to Unit 2, which currently restricts the range of goods that can be sold on the Site. Furthermore, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defines retai l uses – the proposed use – as a ‘main town centre use’. The application Site is outside of a defined ‘town centre’, and as such, is an out -of- centre location. Accordingly, the Applicant must justify why the retail floor space in this location is appropriate in this instance. Out-of-Centre Retail 7.2 Paragraph 91 of the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities (LPA) to apply a Sequential Test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre or not in accordance with an up -to-date development plan. It confirms that s uch uses should be in town centres, then in edge -of-centre locations, and only if suitable sites are not available (or expected to become available within a reasonable period) should out -of-centre sites be considered appropriate. Paragraph 92 of the NPPF p rovides further clarification, confirming that preference should be given to accessible sites well connected to town centres, and that Applicants and LPAs should demonstrate flexibility on format and scale when applying the Sequential Test. Paragraph 95 ex plains that applications should be refused if they fail the Sequential Test. 7.3 Policy SD6 of The London Plan seeks to ensure town centres are the primary locations for commercial activity. Policy SD7 of The London Plan expects development to adopt a sequential approach to town centre uses. It explains that such uses should be focused on town centres, discouraging out -of-centre development of main town centre uses. Out -of-centre sites should only be considered if it is demonstrated that no suitable sites are (or are expected to become) available within town centre or edge of centre locations. 7.4 As per Policy DMTC 1 of Hillingdon’s Local Plan Part 2, since the Site is in an out- of-centre location, the Applicant must demonstrate that there are no available or suitable sites in a town centre using a sequential approach. 7.5 Accordingly, the Applicant has submitted a Sequential Test and Retail Impact Assessment (Planning and Retail Statement, prepared by Q+A Planning, dated December 2024). During the application’s assessment, the Applicant submitted a further Addendum to the Planning and Retail Statement (prepared by Q+A Planning, dated July 2025) to bolster the initial Sequential Test and Retail Impact Assessment and ensure robustness. 7.6 The Applicant’s Sequential Test assessment confirms that a drivetime -based catchment area has been used to guide the scope of the appraisal. Specifically, the Applicant has adopted a 15 -minute peak hour drivetime catchment as an appropriate basis for ident ifying potential alternative sites within sequentially preferable locations. The assessment confirms that flexibility has been applied by considering sites of between 1,500 sq. m. and 3,000 sq. m. This amounts to a flexibility of between approximately ten per cent and 40 per cent either side of the proposed 2,774 sq. m. floor area. This catchment area is greater than the typical Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press approach and, therefore, is a robust, proportionate, and appropriate approach to identifying potential sequentially preferable sites for a large-format retail unit. The Council’s Retail Consultant is satisfied with the flexibility applied in relation to floor area and alternative site searches. The submission details that the search for available sites was based on a combination of desk-based research and a review of current property listings, using appropriate and up-to-date data sources. This is acceptable. 7.7 The Council’s Retail Consultant concluded that the Sequential Test demonstrates that there are no sequentially preferable, available, or suitable sites within the defined catchment that could accommodate the proposal in a format that would meet the retailer’s operational requirements. The proposal, therefore, passes the Sequential Test. 7.8 Paragraph 94 of the NPPF states that ‘When assessing applications for retail and leisure development outside town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment.’ Paragraph 95 explains that applications should be refused if it is likely to have a significant adverse impact. Some diversion of trade from a centre does not automatically result in a policy conflict. The impact must be ‘significantly adverse’ and likely to occur to warrant a refusal. The NPPG explains that ‘a judgement as to whether the likely adverse impacts are significant can only be reached in light of local circumstances.’ 7.9 Policy DMTC 1 of the Local Plan Part 2 states that the Council will ‘consider the effect of the proposal, either individually or cumulatively, on the vitality and viability of existing town centres. Development proposals in out -of-centre and edge -of- centre locations, which exceed 200 sq. m. of gross retail floorspace, or 1,000 sq. m. of combined main town centres uses, will require an impact assessment.’ 7.10 Accordingly, the Applicant’s submission includes a Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) detailing the proposal’s potential impacts on: (1) on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and (2) on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and the broader retail catchment (as applicable to the scale and nature of the scheme). 7.11 The Council’s Retail Consultant has reviewed the submitted assessment and concluded that the RIA demonstrates that the proposal would result in low levels of trade diversion limited to centres that are well placed to absorb these modest impacts without notable harm. The consultant further st ated that ‘There is no credible risk of significant adverse impacts on either vitality and viability or planned investment.’ As such, the retail impact is acceptable in this instance, and the principle of an out-of-centre retail development is acceptable. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Restrictive Planning Condition 7.12 The goods that can be sold within Unit 2 are currently restricted by condition 12 attached to planning permission reference 43510/APP/2012/3176, granted on 07.05.2014. Condition 12 contains an exhaustive list of goods that cannot be sold from Units 1, 2, and 4, including ‘clothing and footwear’. This restriction does not apply to Unit 3. An identical restriction is contained w ithin the Section 106 Agreement associated with planning permission reference 43510/APP/2012/3176. 7.13 Condition 12 of planning permission 43510/APP/2012/3176 states: ‘Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) or any order revoking and re -enacting that Order with or without modification or the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) or any order revoking and re -enacting that Order with or without modification units 1, 2 and 4 shall not be used for the retail sale of food (other than refreshments restricted for consumption on the premises by customers), clothing and footwear (other than clothing, footwear and accessories intended for use in connection with building and construction, DIY, motor cycling, cycling or vehicle repair and maintenance activities), cosmetics, toiletries, pharmaceutical product s, photographic equipment, newspapers, magazines and books (other than those related to DIY goods, vehicle repair and maintenance), stationery, jewellery, toys, luggage and sports goods. Unit 3 may be used for any purpose within Use Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended).’ 7.14 The Council attached Condition 12 at the time ‘To accord with existing restrictions on the sale of goods from the premises, to protect the vitality and viability of town and local centres and to encourage retail activity on sites which are more readily accessible by private motor vehicles in accordance with Policy E5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part One: Strategic Policies (November 2012), Policy LE2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Saved UDP Policies (November 2012), and Policies 2.15 and 4.7 of the London Plan (July 2011) and the National Plann ing Policy Framework.’ 7.15 If granted, this planning permission would supersede th is condition on the 2014 consent. Since the mezzanine floor would be used in association with the remainder of Unit 2, the mezzanine floor (subject to this application) would be able to be used within the lawful use of Unit 2. As referenced elsewhere in this report, this application is submitted in association with application reference 43510/APP/2024/3337, which seeks permission to refurbish Unit 2 for its use within Use Class E(a) to include the sale of clothing, footwear, furniture and homewares, and ancillary items, back-of-house storage space, a new shop front, and a new fire exit door. This associated application is to be determined under delegated authority concurrent with this committee applicati on. This application for a mezzanine floor being considered by the Planning Committee, therefore includes a condition requiring the additional floorspace to be used only in Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press association with Unit 2 and its lawful use, which should planning permission be granted, would be for the sale of clothing, footwear, furniture and homewares, and ancillary items within Use Class E(a) with an ancillary cafe and ancillary storage. 7.16 As discussed, the Applicant has submitted a robust justification in the submitted Sequential Test to demonstrate that there are no available or suitable sites within or on the edge of defined town centres. Therefore, the application passes the Sequential Test. The submitted Retail Impact Assessment demonstrates that the proposal would not unduly impact the vitality and viability of existing town centres. The proposal would create jobs and bring a large vacant commercial property back into productive use wit hin its existing, previously approved use class . As such, officers raise no concerns with this permission superseding Condition 12 of planning permission reference 43510/APP/2012/3176. 7.17 The application is acceptable in principle and complies with the aims of Chapter 7 of the NPPF, Policies SD6 and SD7 of The London Plan, and Policy DMTC 1 of the Local Plan Part 2. Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.18 The proposed development regards the construction of a 1,332 sq. m. mezzanine floor within the existing building’s envelope. The Applicant does not propose any external building extensions or exterior alterations as part of this application. Therefore, there are no design or character, and appearance impacts to consider. Residential Amenity 7.19 The adjoining properties are similar, large -format retail units within the purpose - built retail park. The nearest residential homes are approximately 95 metres north of the Site, beyond the retail park’s car park and on the opposite side of Victoria Road. There would be no undue impacts upon residential amenity (outlook, privacy, daylight, sunlight, noise, odour) given the notable separation distance between residential land uses and the Site, the nature of the proposal, and noting that the building would not be extended and the commercial Use Class (Use Class E) would remain unchanged. 7.20 The proposed scheme is supported and complies with Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021) and Policy DMHB 11 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Highways and Parking 7.21 The Applicant has submitted a Transport Statement (Revision 01, project number 415.064851.00001, prepared by SLR Consulting Limited, dated 20.12.2024). 7.22 The Site is accessed via Victoria Road (entry -only for vehicles) to the north and Field End Road (exit -only) to the east, with pedestrians being able to use both entrances. Six publicly available Sheffield cycle parking stands for storing 12 bicycles are p rovided towards the entrance to Unit 1. A further 12 stands for 24 bicycles are available towards Unit 5. The existing car park has 304 parking bays, Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press including 15 designated disabled person bays. The cycle and car parking spaces are shared amongst the retail park businesses and their visitors. The Site has a Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) of 1b, where a score of 0 indicates very poor access to pub lic transport and 6b indicates excellent access. Bus stops for the 114 and 282 adjoin the retail park. 7.23 No changes to the access, servicing, cycle parking, or car parking arrangements are proposed. These are not within the application red line boundary and therefore do not form part of the application. The building would remain within Use Class E(a), allowing for the display or retail sale of goods, other than hot food, principally to visiting members of the public, albeit with an enlarged floor area resulting from the addition of the proposed mezzanine floor. 7.24 The Transport Statement states that the proposed mezzanine floor at Unit 2 would only generate 12 extra two -way vehicular trips during the PM peak hour and an additional 23 trips during the Saturday peak hour. 7.25 The Council’s Highways Team has reviewed the submission. They are satisfied that the existing level of car and cycle parking would readily accommodate the modest number of anticipated additional trips. They further stated that there would be no notable det rimental impacts on traffic congestion or road safety. The Council’s Highways Team raise no objection to the proposed development, subject to conditions regarding a Construction Management Plan and Staff Travel Plan. Appropriate highways conditions are recommended in this recommendation. 7.26 Subject to the recommended conditions, the proposal complies with Paragraph 116 of the NPPF, Policies T2, T4, T5, T6, and T7 of The London Plan, and Policies DMT 1, DMT 2, DMT 5, and DMT 6 of the Local Plan Part 2. Air Quality 7.27 The proposed development is located outside the London Borough of Hillingdon (LBH) Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and within the catchment area of two LBH Focus areas, namely A40/ South Ruislip Focus Area (1220m) and Ruislip Town Centre Focus Area (1990m), inevitably bringing additional traffic emissions into these sensitive locations which w ould contribute to the detriment of local air quality. 7.28 As per the London Plan, developments need to be air quality neutral as minimum and LBH requires development proposals located in Focus Areas (or that are likely to affect such sensitive areas) to apply a more stringent air quality neutral approach and be air quality positive (LBH Air Quality Local Action Plan 2019 - 2024), contributing to the reduction of emissions in these sensitive areas. 7.29 According to LBH Local Action Plan, proposed development with pollutant emissions within Focus Areas (development does not necessarily need to be within the physical boundary of the Focus Areas, what matters is the emissions released by the development in FAs) require more stringent air quality neutral Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press procedures and needs to be Air Quality positive, with a total emission mitigation approach. 7.30 LBH requires developments to incorporate air quality positive design measures from the outset and suitable mitigation measures to reduce pollution, especially with impacts in areas where the air quality is already poor (LBH Air Quality Local Action Plan 2019-2024), namely Focus Areas. Furthermore, policy DMEI 14 of the London Borough of Hillingdon Local Plan (part 2), requires active contribution towards the continued improvement of air quality, especially if there are any impacts foreseen within the Air Qu ality Management Area. Whereas the application site is outside the LBH Air Quality Management Area, traffic associated with the operation of the proposed development will inevitably affect the road network of the AQMA. 7.31 The proposed development is not considered Air Quality Neutral (or positive as required by policy DMEI 14) for transport emissions. The proposed development, which involves a retail NEXT store, has a total gross area of 2,774 m² and is not considered a superstore given its relatively smaller area than the examples provided in the TRICS database for superstores (which are used as a reference to support the respective Transpor t Assessment studies). Therefore, the total emissions associated with these activities need to be mitigated. 7.32 Mitigation measures to reduce emissions can be applied on-site or off-site. Where this is not practical or desirable, pollutant off -setting will be applied. The level of mitigation required associated with the operation phase of the proposed development is calculated using GLA’s Air Quality Air Quality Neutral Approach. The mitigation measures proposed were evaluated in terms of likely emission reductions onto local air quality. Wherever quantifiable, these are calculated and subtracted from the overall val ue due. When no quantification is possible, a flat rate discount is applied. 7.33 To mitigate the air quality impacts of the proposal, the Council’s Air Quality Officer has recommended an air quality mitigation contribution of £40,396. This has been discounted to account for the Travel Plan , Area Adjustment, and Green Sustainable Measures. An air quality mitigation contribution of £40,396 is included in the recommended Heads of Terms. Further, air quality measures are included in the recommended Construction Management Plan condition to limit emissions during construction works. The Council’s Air Quality Officer has been consulted and raised no objection subject to a condition and Section 106 Legal Agreement. 7.34 Subject to compliance with the legal agreement and the recommended condition, the proposal complies with Policies SI 1 and GG3 of The London Plan, Policy EM8 of the Local Plan Part 1, and Policy DMEI 14 of the Local Plan Part 2. Noise 7.35 The Applicant has submitted a Noise Assessment ( prepared by SLR, dated 18.03.2025). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.36 The proposal has the potential to alter noise levels near the affected highways network. The submitted report details that there is no anticipated increase in noise levels on all roads, except for Victoria Road. At Victoria Road, the predicted noise level increase is 0.1 dB(A) – ‘negligible impact’. The report concludes that ‘the increased traffic levels associated with the Proposed Development will have no significant noise impacts.’ 7.37 The Council's Noise Officer has reviewed the submission and raised no objection or concerns about noise and vibration given the nature and context of the proposed development. 7.38 A Construction Management Plan condition is recommended to mitigate and manage potential noise disturbances with respect to construction hours. 7.39 The proposal therefore complies with Policies D13 and D14 of The London Plan. Accessibility 7.40 The submitted Accessibility Statement (prepared by Q+A Planning Ltd) and plans demonstrate inclusive access. Internally, the retail unit provides level access from the car park, and there are existing disabled person car parking spaces directly outside the retail unit’s door. The submitted plans include a 21-person mid-rise lift to access the proposed mezzanine floor. 7.41 The Council’s Accessibility Officer has reviewed the proposal and raised no concerns or objections regarding the proposal. The officer has recommended the inclusion of an accessibility informative, which officers have included as a part of the planning recommendation. 7.42 The proposed development complies with Policy D5 of The London Plan. Urban Greening, Landscaping, and Public Realm 7.43 The existing Site suffers from an evident lack of greening. It consists of a large- format retail unit and hardstanding. 7.44 Whilst Policy G5 of The London Plan requires major development proposals to contribute to urban greening; the existing retail store is a middle unit within a parade of large -format retail units at Ruislip Retail Park. Given the application's red line d (location plan) boundary, there are no opportunities to provide urban greening within the scope of this application to install a mezzanine floor. 7.45 Policy DMEI 1 of the Local Plan Part 2 requires all major development to incorporate living roofs and/or walls. The Applicant has stated that it is not viable to retrofit a green roof on the existing retail unit. This is accepted in this instance. 7.46 The Council’s Landscape Officer has reviewed the proposal and raised no objection to the proposed development. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.47 The proposal would generally be consistent with the aims of Policy G5 of The London Plan and Policy DMHB 14 of the Local Plan Part 2. Biodiversity 7.48 The Applicant has submitted a Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Exemption Statement (prepared by Q+A Planning Ltd). 7.49 The Planning Practice Guidance details certain types of development where the BNG condition does not apply. Developments that do not impact a priority habitat and impacts less than 25 square metres of onsite habitat, and five metres of linear habitats, such as hedgerows, are deemed to be de minimis and exempt from BNG requirements. The existing retail store is a middle unit of a terrace of four retail units at Ruislip Reta il Park. There are no priority habitats within the application Site, and the proposed construction of a mezzanine floor would occur within the existing building's envelope. Therefore, the de minimis exemption applies. 7.50 The proposed development complies with the aims of Policy 15 of the NPPF, Policy G6 and Paragraph 8.6.6 of The London Plan, and Policy DMEI 7 and Paragraph 6.28 of the Local Plan Part 2. Flooding and Drainage 7.51 The Site is in Flood Zone 1 (lowest flood risk) and is not impacted by Surface Water Flooding. It is, however, within a Critical Drainage Area. The existing Site comprises a large -format retail unit and hardstanding. As such, there are no natural forms of attenuation within the Site boundary. It is fully impermeable. Furthermore, the application pertains to the addition of a mezzanine floor to an existing building within the same use class as the permitted use. Although the proposal would be a ‘major’ devel opment, increasing the floor area by 1,332 sq. m., it would not increase the risk of flooding, given the nature of the internal mezzanine floor development. As such, the proposal would be consistent with the aims of Policies SI12 and SI13 of The London Plan, Policy EM6 of the Local Plan Part 1, and Policies DMEI 9 and DMEI 10 of the Local Plan Part 2. Water Efficiency 7.52 To ensure the development would minimise the use of mains water, a compliance planning condition is recommended for it to achieve at least the BREEAM excellent standard for the ‘Wat 01’ water category or equivalent (commercial development), and incorporate measures such as smart metering, water saving, and recycling measures, including retrofitting. 7.53 Subject to the recommended condition, the proposal complies with Policy SI 5 of The London Plan. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Energy and Sustainability 7.54 The Applicant has submitted an Energy Statement (prepared by Quality Engineering Design Consultants Ltd, dated 20.12.2024). 7.55 The application Site contains an existing large-format retail unit in the middle of a parade of four shops. The proposal would introduce a mezzanine floor within the existing building’s envelope. The proposal would utilise energy -efficient LED lighting. He ating and cooling would be provided by an energy -efficient R32 reverse cycle heat pump, which is a Low Zero Carbon Technology design solution. Unit 2 shall receive mechanical supply and extract ventilation provision from an energy efficient Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery Unit. It would benefit from a thermal wheel heat recuperator device (efficiency in excess of 80 per cent) and internal inverter driven variable speed fans with low Specific Fan Power (to meet the Non-Domestic Compliance Guide) regulated to optimum performance via CO2 sensors with ductwork being extended within the unit to serve the internal spaces in accordance with Approved Document Part F (Ventilation) of the Building Regulations. Fresh air supplies to permanently occupied spaces would either be delivered directly to the space intended or terminated at the rear of the proposed ducted fan coil unit. Hot water supplies would be generated via local instantaneous electric water heaters, located close to the source, with thermally insulated pipework to minimise heat loss fro m the pipework. These energy and sustainability measures are appropriate and proportionate to the scale and nature of the proposal to install a mezzanine floor to an existing commercial building. 7.56 Policy DMEI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan requires all major developments to be designed to connect to a District Energy Network and to connect to ones within 500 metres of the development. As the building exists and the proposal is to install a mezzanine floor in the void space above its ground floor , it would be overly onerous to require the proposed development to connect to or future proof a connection to a District Energy Network in this instance. 7.57 The proposal would broadly comply with the aims of Policies SI2 and SI3 of The London Plan, Policy EM1 of the Local Plan Part 1, and Policies DMEI 2 and DMEI 3 of the Local Plan Part 2. Waste Management 7.58 The Applicant has submitted a Deliveries and Waste Strategy Note (prepared by Q+A Planning Ltd). 7.59 There would be three bins (general waste, food, and glass) stored within the service yard. Cardboard and plastic recycling would be returned in the store’s delivery lorries to their local Responsible Supply Chain. A private waste collection company would collect the waste weekly, like the previous retail use. 7.60 The Council’s Waste Services Team has reviewed the submitted documents and raised no objection to the proposed development. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.61 The proposal would comply with Policy SI 7 of The London Plan and DMHB 11 of the Local Plan Part 2. Fire Safety 7.62 The Applicant has submitted a Fire Statement (Issue-1, prepared by D. W. Pointer (Fire Consultants) Ltd, dated 16.12.2024), prepared by a qualified fire consultant, detailing the key fire safety features of the building . There would be three stairs serving the proposed first floor mezzanine. One would be an open staircase at the front of the sales floor , while the other two would be protected escape routes . There would also be a passenger lift and escalator. 7.63 The technical aspects of the materials to be used in any development, in relation to fire safety, are considered under the Building Act (1984) and specifically the Building Regulations, Approved Document B amended version (2022). These require minimum stan dards for any development, although the standards would vary between residential and commercial uses and in relation to new build and change of use/conversions. The Regulations cover a range of areas including structure and fire safety. Any person or organisation carrying out development can appoint either the Council’s Building Control Service or a Registered Building Control Approver to act as the Building Control Body (BCB), to ensure the requirements of the Building Regulations are met. The BCB carry ou t an examination of drawings for the proposed works and make site inspections during construction work to ensure the works are carried out correctly. On completion of work the BCB would issue a Completion Certificate to confirm that the works comply with the requirement of the Building Regulations. 7.64 London Fire Brigade has reviewed the submission and raised no objection to the proposal. 7.65 The proposal complies with the aims of Policy D12 of The London Plan. Land Contamination 7.66 The Site is within a Potentially Contaminated Land area. Notwithstanding, the proposal does not include any ground disturbance, with the proposed mezzanine floor above the established ground floor retail space within the existing building . Therefore, there would be no increased risk from contamination. A land contamination informative is recommended. Planning Obligations 7.67 The Section 106 Heads of Terms are as follows: i. Air Quality Mitigation contribution of £40,396. ii. A Construction Employment Training Scheme secured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press iii. An End -User Employment Scheme secured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD. iv. A Project Management and Monitoring Fee, equalling 5% of the total financial contributions to be paid under this agreement. 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 / t he 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 Community Infrastructure Levies (CIL) 8.6 The proposed development consists of the installation of a 1,332 sq. m. mezzanine floor within a l arge format retail unit outside of a designated town centre within Use Class E(a). 8.7 Mezzanine floors, inserted into an existing building, are not liable for the levy unless they form part of a wider planning permission that seeks to provide other works as well. The application is not considered liable for CIL. 8.8 Notwithstanding, the liability and final amount will be reviewed post-determination by the Council's Planning Obligations Team and if applicable, sent to the liable party in accordance with the CIL Regulations. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The proposal would create 50 to 60 local jobs and bring a vacant retail unit back into retail use. The principle of development is supported in this instance. No external extensions or alterations are proposed. The development would not have any detrimental impact on the street scene or upon residenti al amenity. The Applicant does not propose any modifications to the site access, cycle parking, or car parking. There are no objections from the Council’s Urban Design Officer, Hillingdon Planning Committee – 5th November 2025 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Landscape Officer, or Highways Officers. Whilst located on Potentially Contaminated Land and within a Critical Drainage Area, ground works are not proposed as the proposal seeks to install a mezzanine floor above an existing ground floor retail unit within the existing building envelope. The increased retail floor space would generate a modest uplift in vehicle trips and associated vehicle emissions. An Air Quality Mitigation contribution is recommended to offset this impact. 9.2 The proposal is acceptable and would be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, The London Plan, and Hillingdon Local Plan. 9.3 The planning application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 and Section 106 Heads of Terms detailed in paragraph 7.67. 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 43510/APP/2024/3336 Hillingdon Planning Committee - 2nd October 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 17 Appendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. COM3 Time Limit The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. COM4 Accordance with Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers: 241054 0TBC0-000-030-006-Rev-E 0TBC0-000-030-007-Rev-E 0TBC0-000-030-008-Rev-E 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 London Plan (2021) and Hillingdon Local Plan Parts 1 (2012) and 2 (2020). 3. COM5 General compliance with supporting documentation The development hereby permitted shall not be used/occupied until the following has been completed/carried out in accordance with the specified supporting plans and/or documents: Planning and Retail Statement (incorporating Design and Access Statement), prepared by Q+A Planning Ltd, dated December 2024 Addendum to Planning and Retail Statement, prepared by Q+A Planning, dated July 2025 Fire Statement-Issue-1, prepared by D. W. Pointer (Fire Consultants) Ltd, dated 16.12.2024 Travel Plan-Rev-01, project number 415.064851.00001, prepared by SLR Consulting Limited, dated 20.12.2024 Transport Statement-Revision 01, project number 415.064851.00001, prepared by SLR Consulting Limited, dated 20.12.2024 Energy Statement, prepared by Quality Engineering Design Consultants Ltd, dated 20.12.2024 Urban Greening Factor Statement, prepared by Q+A Planning Ltd Noise Assessment, prepared by SLR Consulting Limited, dated 18.03.2025 Hillingdon Planning Committee - 2nd October 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 17 Deliveries and Waste Strategy Note, prepared by Q+A Planning Ltd Construction Environmental Management Plan-Rev-1, prepared by Central Shopfitters Ltd, dated 06.03.2025 Accessibility Statement, prepared by Q+A Planning Ltd 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 London Plan (2021) and Hillingdon Local Plan Parts 1 (2012) and 2 (2020). 4. NONSC Construction Management Plan Prior to the commencement of development (including demolition, site clearance, and initial ground investigation works), a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Transport for London. The plan shall detail: (i) The phasing of development works. (ii) The hours during which development works will occur. (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. (ix) Measures to demonstrate compliance with the GLA's Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition SPG. (x) All Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) of net power of 37kW and up to and including 560kW used during the demolition, site preparation and construction phases shall comply with the emission standards set out in https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-and- strategies/environment-and-climate-change/pollution-and-air-quality/nrmm. Unless it complies with these standards, no NRMM shall be on site, at any time, whether in use or not, without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. The developer shall keep an up-to-date list of all NRMM used during the demolition, site preparation and construction phases of the development on the online register at https://nrmm.london/. The approved details shall be implemented and maintained throughout the demolition and construction process. REASON Hillingdon Planning Committee - 2nd October 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 17 To reduce the impact on air quality during construction, protect amenity, and ensure highways safety and to ensure that construction work and construction equipment on the site and adjoining land does not obstruct air traffic movements in compliance with Policies T7, GG3, and SI 1 of The London Plan (2021) and The GLA's Control of Dust and Emissions during Construction and Demolition SPG. 5. NONSC BREEAM Water Consumption The development hereby approved shall achieve at least the BREEAM excellent standard for the 'Wat 01' water category or equivalent (commercial development), and incorporate measures such as smart metering, water saving, and recycling measures, including retrofitting. REASON To help to achieve lower water consumption rates and to maximise futureproofing in accordance with Policy SI 5 of The London Plan (2021). 6. MCD16 Restriction to Use Applied For Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (or any orders revoking and re-enacting either of these orders with or without modification), the mezzanine floor hereby approved shall be used only in association with Unit 2 Ruislip Retail Park for retail purposes involving the sale of clothing, footwear, furniture, homewares and ancillary items only, with an ancillary cafe and ancillary storage. The development shall not be used for any other purpose including any other purpose within Use Class E(a) or E of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987. For the avoidance of doubt the mezzanine floor shall not be subdivided to create separate units. REASON To comply with the assessed terms of the planning application and to enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the use so as to ensure that it complies with the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), the London Plan (2021) and Hillingdon's Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020). Informatives 1. 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). Hillingdon Planning Committee - 2nd October 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 17 2. I70 LBH worked applicant in a positive & proactive (Granting) In dealing with the application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available detailed advice in the form of our statutory policies from Local Plan Part 1, Local Plan Part 2, Supplementary Planning Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application advice service, in order to ensure that the applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an application which is likely to be considered favourably. 3. The Equality Act 2010 aims to safeguard individuals accessing goods, facilities, and services from discrimination based on a 'protected characteristic', including disability. In accordance with the Act, service providers must enhance access to and within their premises, especially when reasonable adjustments are feasible and straightforward to implement. The Act mandates that service providers proactively identify and eliminate barriers hindering disabled people. 4. The application site is located within the Critical Drainage Area. All developments in this area must contribute to managing the risk of flooding from surface water by reducing surface water runoff from the site. Therefore the applicant should minimise the water from the site entering the sewers. No drainage to support the mezzanine extension should be connected to any existing surface water sewer, other than as an overflow. Water run off from any roof or hard paving associated with e development should be directed to a soakaway, or tank or made permeable. This includes any work to front gardens not part of the planning application, which must be permeable or be collected and directed to a permeable area, otherwise it would need an additional permission. A water butt should be incorporated. 5. There is a possibility that there may be some contaminating substances in the ground at the site. Our contaminated land record shows the site to be on a former contaminated land use identified as Works (Various). We would advise persons working on site to take basic precautions in relation to any contamination they may find. You are advised that this development is on a former contaminated land use identified as Works (Various). Therefore, the above advice is provided on the grounds of Health and Safety of the workers on site and to ensure the appropriate restoration of the site is done should there be any contamination identified during the development, where there is a need for ground work once such works are complete to minimise risk to the occupants of the site. I53 Compulsory Informative (2) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies Hillingdon Planning Committee - 2nd October 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 17