Planning

Minutes HILLINGDON PLANNING COMMITTEE 16 December 2025 Meeting held at Council Chamber - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW Committee Members Present: Councillors Henry Higgins (Chair) Roy Chamdal Elizabeth Garelick Tony Gill Ekta Gohil LBH Officers Present: Eoin Concannon, Planning Team Leader Natalie Fairclough, Deputy Principal Planning Lawyer Roz Johnson, Head of Development Management and Building Control Ed Laughton, Area Planning Service Manager Sally Robbins, Senior Planning Officer Ian Thynne, Head of Environmental Specialists Dr Alan Tilly, Transport Planning and Development Team Manager 106. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Adam Bennett, Councillor Keith Burrows and from Councillor Raju Sansarpuri with Councillor Tony Gill substituting for the latter. 107. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS COMING BEFORE THIS MEETING (Agenda Item 2) There were no declarations of interest. 108. TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3) RESOLVED: That t he minutes of the meeting dated 5 November 2025 be agreed as an accurate record. 109. MATTERS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OR URGENT (Agenda Item 4) None. 110. 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. 111. HEATHROW AIRPORT - 41573/APP/2024/2838 (Agenda Item 6) Enabling works to allow implementation of full runway alternation during easterly operations at Heathrow Airport including the creation of a new 'hold area' at the western end of the northern runway, the construction of new access and exit taxiways, the construction of an acoustic noise barrier to the south of Longford Village and temporary construction compounds. The proposed development is subject to an Environment Impact Assessment (Notice under Article 19 of the Town and Count ry Planning (Environment al Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017). The Area Planning Service Manager and the Head of Environmental Specialists introduced the application which concerned an application at Heathrow Airport. It was noted that the application r elated to enabling works intended to implement full runway alternation during easterly operations. The proposals included the creation of a new holding area at the western end of the northern runway, construction of new access and exit taxiways, installation of an acoustic noise barrier south of Longford village, and establishment of temporary construction compounds. These works were subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment. Officers clarified that the application did not propose an increase in the ai r traffic movement cap set by the Terminal Five decision, nor did it enable airport expansion. The submission was standalone and unrelated to expansion proposals. Detailed plans and constraints maps were presented, highlighting conservation areas, listed b uildings, and green belt land. Officers explained the operational context, including the historic Cranford Agreement, which had previously restricted departures over Cranford village. It was noted that the agreement had been formally ended to allow equitab le noise distribution and predictable respite periods for affected communities. The proposed easterly alternation mirrored westerly operations, introducing runway alternation to provide relief from noise. Planning history indicated that a similar application had been refused in 2013 but subsequently approved on appeal in 2017, with consent later lapsing. The current application sought to secure appropriate mitigation measures, including the noise barrier and rapid access taxiways. Due to the significant en vironmental effects, permitted development rights had been removed, necessitating a full assessment. Members heard that an extended consultation process had been undertaken, involving 370 letters, public notices, advertisements in local and regional newsp apers, and publication o n the Council’s website. It was noted that the London Borough of Hounslow had objected, citing insufficient engagement and technical detail regarding mitigation measures. Officers clarified that these concerns had been addressed in the Committee report and Heathrow’s response, and recommended approval of the application with mitigation secured. Amendments to conditions and heads of terms were outlined, including sustainable water management and ultrafine particle considerations. A petition had been received in objection to the application, and the lead petitioner was in attendance to address the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:  It was stated that the officer’s recommendation was unsound because it relied on an i ncomplete environmental statement with key impacts either unassessed or assessed using flawed methodologies. Noise, vibration, and ultrafine particle impacts were identified as missing or uncertain, while mitigation measures were deferred, undefined, and i neffective. The proposed increase in departures from approximately 100 per year to over 56,000 was highlighted as a significant concern, exposing the Council to legal risk.  It was stated that the application failed to comply with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017, as Regulation 26 required a clear and reasoned conclusion on the significance of environmental effects. The environmental statement lacked baseline monitoring for ultrafine particles and vibration, and relied on uncertain modell ing and future assessmen ts, making a lawful conclusion impossible.  The noise and vibration assessment was criticised for using LAQ averaging, which masked event -based disturbances, and for treating a 3 dB increase as minor despite its acoustic significance . Limited real -world data and absence of baseline vibration monitoring further undermined reliability. The claimed benefits for 62,100 people were deemed questionable due to flawed methodology.  Mitigation measures were considered legally inadequate under C IL Regulation 122, as th ey were undefined, deferred, and disproportionate. Monitoring and compensation were deemed insufficient to make unacceptable impacts acceptable. Specific concerns included reliance on flawed noise contours, lack of low-frequency noise mitigation, and inadequate vibration measures.  The lead petitioner requested that the Committee either refuse the application or defer determination until baseline monitoring, and a complete environmental statement were provided. This approach was prese nted as evidence -led and procedurally sound, rather than anti-development. Representatives of Heathrow were also in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:  It was noted that the application involved no increase in flights or passenger numbers but required significant runway works and a noise barrier, representing substantial costs to Heathrow. It was confirmed that the application had been submitted to fulfil Heathrow’s commitment to introduce easterly alternatio n following the governme nt’s decision to cancel the Cranford Agreement, which had created an inequitable situation since the 1950s by subjecting tens of thousands of households to continuous overflying during easterly operations.  Heathrow reaffirmed its pl edge to implement easterly alternation as soon as practicable, subject to planning consent, with completion targeted for 2028. This commitment was embedded in Heathrow’s People and Planet Strategy and Noise Action Plan. It was noted that the environmental statement had been fully scoped with Borough officers and reviewed by legal and technical experts. It was stated that the application would deliver fairness and equity, providing 62,000 people with predictable respite from overflying for half of each day, regardless of wind direction.  It was acknowledged that a smaller number of communities previously protected under the Cranford Agreement would experience change. To address this, noise insulation exceeding government policy requirements and additional miti gation measures for newly affected areas were being offered.  Regarding Longford, it was stated that the impacts had been taken seriously, and that Heathrow had engaged with residents early, held meetings and public exhibitions, and conducted a postal surv ey regarding the noise barrier design. The airfield works had been designed to minimise impacts on Longford, and the barrier would be installed first to reduce construction and operational noise. The barrier was expected to slightly reduce ground noise com pared with current levels. On easterly operations, it was confirmed that Longford would experience take-offs for 50% of the day instead of landings, equating to approximately 15% of the year, with noise increasing by less than one decibel. Longford already qualified for full noise insulation, with 470 properties eligible and 70% completed.  Air quality impacts were assessed as negligible, with no increase in flights and only a minimal change in ground emissions. However, Heathrow committed to installing a ne w ultrafine particle mon itor in Longford —one of only six in the country—and to collaborate with officers on an air quality plan for the area In response to the lead petitioner’s submission, the Head of Environmental Specialists acknowledged residents’ con cerns regarding ultrafine particles (UFPs) and confirmed that the impact had been recognised. However, it was explained that no policy framework had previously existed to enable a comprehensive assessment, as the necessary policy backing had not yet been e stablished. Proposals ha d been secured through the heads of terms, which required compliance and action linked to prevailing UK standards, forming part of an agreed action plan with Heathrow Airport Limited. In relation to Regulation 26, officers believed that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) satisfied the requirements, as it considered vibration and noise, including assessments based on LAeq, which was the standard metric for aviation noise and had been used in previous cases such as Gatwick and Luton. It was noted that the environmental statement contained a range of methodologies, providing sufficient information to assess noise impacts, and was therefore deemed appropriate and policy compliant. Regarding mitigation, it was noted that Heathrow Airport Limited had been challenged, and a package of measures considered adequate had been agreed. For vibration, a monitoring process was required, as impacts varied depending on property structure and foundations. Consequently, mitigation was to be appl ied where impacts were identified. This approach was regarded as fair and reasonable. Concerning UFP monitoring, it was explained that deferring the application until comprehensive monitoring was in place would have caused significant delays, as long -term controls and evidence were needed to establish trends. The existing monitor measured concentrations rather than particle counts, which were necessary for assessing UFP impacts. Further work was required with Heathrow Airport Limited and Defra to ensure robust monitoring. It was considered that sufficient information had been provided within the environmental statement to support the recommendation. It was also confirmed that ongoing work with Heathrow Airport Limited would ensure mitigation was appropriate ly targeted and monitoring was robust, as set out in the heads of terms. Members sought clarifications as to why compensation or mitigation costs differed from those at other airports, despite the same noise level thresholds being applied. In response, re presentatives of the app licant explained that the differences were attributable to the nature of the projects and what was being sought. It was noted that the Luton and Gatwick schemes involved substantial Development Consent Order applications with signif icant increases in aircraft movements, and their mitigation reflected the scale of impact and number of affected residents. It was stated that no specific justification for the funding levels at Luton and Gatwick had been identified in the evidence reviewe d. Heathrow’s approach w as based on its current quieter neighbourhood support scheme, and the proposed amounts were considered sufficient to achieve internal noise level criteria in accordance with British Standards for appropriate living conditions. In su mmary it was clarified that there was no new air noise in this case, whereas in Gatwick and Luton there had been a significant expansion of the airport. Members queried the applicant’s approach noting that alternation and its delivery were key elements, as well as compliance wi th policy and previous inspectors’ decisions. It was explained that, although Gatwick and Luton had gone beyond Heathrow’s measures, the critical point was the significant observed adverse effect level, where full costs were require d to be paid. It was confirmed that Heathrow Airport Limited had imposed a cap of £34,000, but officers stated that full costs would be secured through the heads of terms if exceeded. It was further highlighted that the application was Cranford-specific and represented a signific ant improvement on the previous planning application, with alternation providing additional mitigation. Officers had deemed the measures presented to be adequate. Councillors questioned whether engagement with Longford residents ha d been sufficient. The applicant responded that efforts had been made to maximise participation, including two exhibitions in Longford, one arranged at the request of the Residents’ Association, a postal survey, social media engagement, letter drops, and door-to-door visits. Atte ndance at exhibitions was described as healthy, and it was stated that residents had access to information through multiple channels, including summaries on the Council’s website. When asked whether schools had been contacted, the applicant confirmed that they had. Committee Members raised concerns regarding enforcement powers if Heathrow Airport Limited failed to deliver mitigation, insulation, or rehousing commitments. Officers explained that, unlike the current noise scheme, the proposed measures would be incorporated into the Section 106 agreement, making them enforceable through planning regulations. It was confirmed that detailed provisions would be included for dispute resolution, complaint handling, and local authority involvement. A further question was asked by Members about the reliability of vibration data from a 2011 report, given that some instruments listed were outdated. Officers confirmed that a fresh approach to vibration monitoring would be implemented under the Se ction 106 agreement, usi ng up -to-date equipment and extending beyond the original scope to ensure accurate assessment and appropriate mitigation. It was clarified that the existing report was not redundant but would be supplemented by additional work. Councillors raised concerns regarding air quality and health impacts, citing local and London Plan policies requiring prevention of unacceptable pollution and mitigation of impacts. They questioned whether reliance on post -consent monitoring and future action plans met these policy tests, given uncertainty around ultrafine particles (UFPs) and the absence of defined mitigation. Officers acknowledged the challenge, explaining that while conventional pollutants were addressed through standard measures and action plans, UFPs lacked scientific and policy benchmarks. It was stated that the World Health Organisation had proposed particle count standards, but these had not yet been adopted nationally. Officers confirmed that robust heads of terms had been secured, lin king future action to an y forthcoming government standards, and enforcement would be possible through Section 106 if breaches occurred. It was acknowledged that this was not an ideal situation but considered the best achievable outcome under current circum stances. Officers also confirmed that neighbouring boroughs had been consulted and responses addressed in the report, with ongoing engagement offered. Members noted the potential risk of losing negotiated mitigation if the application were to be refused o r deferred. It was obser ved that, despite objections and concerns, the officers had secured significant improvements compared to previous applications. Councillors concluded that the best possible outcome had been achieved. The officers’ recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, approved with three Members voting in favour and two abstentions. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to Section 106 , conditions set out in the report and the information in the addendum. 112. 78 HIGH STREET, NORTHWOOD - 32265/APP/2025/280 (Agenda Item 7) Demolition of existing rear workshop buildings (Use Class E) and construction of 2 no. self-contained flats and 1 no. dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) with associated private amenit y space, landscaping, cycle and refuse storage, together with alterations and a two -storey rear extension to the existing building, including internal layout changes to the first -floor residential flat above the retail unit and the installation of a rear dormer window (REVISED DESCRIPTION) Sally Robbins, Senior Planning Officer, pr esented the application and highlighted the information in the addendum. It was noted that the site was located within the Old Northwood Area of Special Local Character and subje ct to constraints including critical drainage, air quality focus, and potential land contamination. The proposal introduced a car-free arrangement with bin and cycle storage, hard and soft landscaping, and defensible space within a courtyard. The unit mix comprised one retained and altered flat, two two-storey dwellings, and one single-storey dwelling, all meeting internal space standards. It was considered that the design broadly reflected the existing footprint and preserved the character of the area whil e optimising site capacity. The proposal was considered to provide acceptable living conditions, safeguard neighbour amenity, and address environmental matters through conditions. Highways officers had raised no objection, and the increase in built form wa s not deemed harmful to neighbouring properties. Overall, the scheme represent ed an appropriate design -led approach for a High Street location and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set out in the report. A petition had been received in objection to the application, and a representative of the Northwood Residents’ Association (NRA) was in attendance to address the Committee Members on behalf of the lead petitioner who had been the tenant of the shop and resident of the flat above since 1985. Key points highlighted included:  The proposal required the lead petitioner to vacate the premises, resulting in the loss of her home and business.  The NRA strongly opposed the application, primarily due to the complete absence of on-site car parking.  It was argued that reliance on proximity to bus stops as justification for no parking would set a borough -wide precedent, as most properties were within walking distance of public transport.  Previous applications for the site had included car parki ng spaces, and earlier refusals highlighted inadequacy of proposed parking provision.  The current scheme introduced three additional residential units to the rear of the site, accommodating approximately ten residents, without any on -site parking provision.  Concerns were raised about increased illegal parking and difficulties for residents and visitors, as well as the impracticality of assuming reliance solely on public transport.  The applicant had initially claimed ownership of the pavement in front of the shop for parking purposes, later admitting this was incorrect after eviden ce was provided.  Additional objections included inadequate amenity space, lack of lift access to upper floors, and loss of storage facilities for the retail unit.  The NRA submi tted a further objection during the November reconsultation, reiterating that on -site parking was a requirement under the local plan and that the property’s distance from the station did not justify its exclusion.  It was noted that granting consent withou t parking provision would create a precedent affecting the entire borough and could not be justified by special circumstances.  The NRA requested that the application be refused. The agent for the application was also in attendance and addressed the Commi ttee Members. Key points highlighted included:  The scheme aimed to make effective use of a previously developed Brownfield site to deliver much -needed modern housing in line with central government directives.  The location was described as highly sustai nable, and the development sought to enhance the character of the site and its surroundings.  The existing site comprised a ground-floor shop with a flat above and a series of dilapidated ancillary storage and former workshop buildings to the rear.  The proposal included extending the frontage building at ground and first -floor levels to create two new residential units (one one -bedroom and one two - bedroom), along with a new WC and storage areas for the shop.  The rear workshops were to be demolished and re placed with a three -bedroom family home over ground and loft levels, featuring a private garden.  The design incorporated an attractively landscaped pedestrian courtyard providing outlook and defensible space, with bin and cycle storage positioned near the High Street frontage.  Statutory consultees, including highways, had raised no technical objections, and all proposed units complied with space and daylight/sunlight standards.  The applicant had engaged proactively with officers during pre -application and formal submission stages to achieve a well-resolved scheme.  It was noted th at land ownership was not a material consideration in planning decisions.  The application was commended to the Committee for approval. Officers responded to the points raised by the petitioners noting that their main concern related to the absence of parking provision and an alleged conflict with the Local Plan. It was explained that the London Plan, which succeeded the Hillingdon Local Plan, had taken precedence regarding parki ng standards. Policy T6 of the London Plan was highlighted, stating that car -free development should have been the starting point for proposals in areas well connected by public transport. Officers confirmed that there were no sustainable grounds to refuse the application on the basis of lack of parking, given the site’s accessibility and sustainable location. It was further reiterated that opportunities for overspill parking in the vicinity were extremely limited. On the eastern side of the High Street, p arking bays and waiting restrictions were in place, while the western side con tained numerous dropped kerbs serving residential properties, leaving no available space. Controlled parking zones existed further afield; however, as the site was outside these zones, residents would not have been eligible for permits. It was therefore concluded that overspill parking could not have been accommodated in the immediate area. Dr Alan Tilly, Transport, Planning and Development Team Manager, explained that, under the London Plan, the development would have been permitted a maximum of 2.5 car p arking spaces. On that basis, it was anticipated that up to 2.5 cars could have been displaced onto the street, assuming car ownership. It was noted that the surrounding area was subject to extensive parking controls, making the location suitable for residents seeking a car -free lifestyle. The proximity of bus stops served by two routes providing access to Eastcote and Greenford was highlighted. It was noted that the site would no t be appropriate for individuals reliant on a car for daily travel needs, whereas those wishing to adopt a car -free lifestyle would find it suitable. It was further observed that, for those who still owned a car, surrounding roads were covered by parking restrictions. A question was raised by Councillors regarding the absence of parking provision in the current application compared to the previous submission, and clarification was sought on the design approach and the PTAL value, which was understood to be 2, suggesting car dependency. In response, the agent explained that the red l ine boundary did not determine parking rights and confirmed that the land previously considered for parking was owned by Hillingdon Council, where parking was prohibited. It was noted that illegal parking had occurred in front of the shop and adjacent premises, but this was under Council control. Further concerns were expressed by Members about the PTAL rating and the presence of parking for neighbouring properties, as shown in p hotographs. Officers responded that, although the PTAL rating was 2, the site was located within a town centre accessibility zone where residential units above commercial premises typically lacked dedicated parking. It was added that the rear development r eferenced had been approved on appeal in 2008 under previous policies, whereas current London Plan policies imposed maximum parking standards. Officers confirmed that the site’s location and proximity to transport routes, including a seven -minute walk to a school, supported a car-free scheme. Members reiterated their concerns that PTAL 2 indicated car reliance and that surrounding properties had parking, suggesting the proposed development would also require it. The Transport, Planning and Development Team Manager acknowledged the low PTAL rating but stated that car -free development was acceptable due to nearby rail services, local shops, and parking controls on surrounding streets, which would deter car ownership. The Chair commented t hat refusal could not be justified solely on numerical PTAL grounds and that real-world circumstances must be considered, noting that harm could not be demonstrated. A further question was raised about emergency access for fire and ambulance services. Officers confirmed that f ire engines could operate within the required 45 -metre hose length from the highway and that other emergency vehicles could access the site on foot. Committee Members suggested revising the scheme to include parking or imposing conditions restricting car ownership by visitors, but officers advised that such conditions were unenforc eable and that an appeal would likely result in loss of control over conditions. No further queries or concerns were raised. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously approved. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to conditions and the information in the addendum. 113. ADDENDUM (Agenda Item 8) The meeting, which commenced at 7.00 pm, closed at 8.48 pm. These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of the resolutions please contact Liz Penny on democratic@hillingdon.gov.uk Circulation of these minutes is to Councillors, Officers, the Press and Members of the Public.

Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Planning Committee Report Case Officer: Daniel Ambrose 15756/APP/2024/3112 Date Application Valid: 26/11/24 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 26/01/2026 Application Type: Full Ward: Hillingdon East Applicant: Mr Kiran Bhatia Site Address: 47 Sweetcroft Lane, Uxbridge Proposal: Demolition of the existing house and erection of a two storey, new build house consisting of 6no. bedrooms with a basement and garage outbuilding to the front. 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 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing house and erection of a two storey, new build house consisting of 6no. bedrooms with basement and a garage outbuilding to the front. 1.2 The application follows on from the submission of application reference 15756/APP/2023/2417 which was withdrawn on 09-11- 2023. It should be noted that whilst the application was withdrawn, Officers had concerns with the application based on the proposed new dwellings siting, design and massing and the subsequent impact this would have on the street scene and Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Local Character. A further issue with the previous application related to the absence of a tree report to demonstrate that there would be no unacceptable loss of trees to facilitate the development. 1.3 This revised application demonstrates that the applicant has taken on board the points that were raised during the assessment of the previous application. This revised scheme illustrates a reduction in the massing, particularly the height of the proposed dwelling and the reduction in the scale of the crown roof. An Arboricultural Impact Assessment has also been submitted, which has been reviewed by Officers and out of the 31 trees surveyed, 2 would require removal. These are category U and C trees which have the lowest value and therefore their removal is not considered to result in an objection. Furthermore, an enhanced landscaping scheme has been submitted, and further details are proposed to be secured by condition. It is considered that the revised submission satisfactorily addresses and resolves the issues raised during the assessment of the previous application. 1.4 During the processing of the application, a petition in objection to the development was received with 41 signatures. 1.5 The main issues, which shall be addressed within this Committee Report, relate to the impact on neighbouring dwellings and the impact on the character and appearance of the street scene. 1.6 The Committee Report seeks to provide a comprehensive assessment of the application and supporting documentation. All relevant material planning considerations have been considered. 1.7 The proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan, and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. Consequently, Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The site is approximately 1,854 sqm in area and is located on the south side of Sweetcroft Lane. There is currently a large detached, single storey, single family dwelling known as No. 47 Sweetcroft Lane on the site, with associated parking and private amenity space. The existing site contains 1 main building and two small out-buildings, one at the front of the site and the other at the rear for storage. 2.2 The site is accessed via a narrow strip of land between two houses, numbers 45a and 49, which are situated on the frontage of Sweetcroft Lane. Number 47 Sweetcroft Lane sits to the rear of these properties and therefore comprises a backland site. This property sits amongst a number of other backland properties, including numbers 31, 35, 39, and 43 Sweetcroft Lane which are situated to the East of the application site. 2.3 The site is located within the Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Local Character and is subject to Tree Protection Order (TPO 32a) and is also within a Critical Drainage Area. The site is also bound to the south by the Hillingdon Court Park which is an area of Nature Conservation Site of Grade II Borough Importance and forms part of the Green Belt. The area also forms part of the declared Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area. Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figures 2-5: Agent Photographs of the Application Property Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figures 6: Agent Photograph of the driveway Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figures 7-8: Agent Photographs of the front lawn and parking area Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figures 9-10: Agent Photographs of neighbouring property of no. 43 Sweetcroft Lane Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figures 11-12: Agent Photographs of neighbouring property of no. 51 Sweetcroft Lane and Portman Gardens viewed from the upper floor windows of the existing dwelling Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figures 13-14: Agent Photographs of existing dwelling when viewed from Portman Gardens Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 The application proposes the demolition of the existing house and erection of a three storey, new build dwelling consisting of 6no. bedrooms with a basement and garage outbuilding to the front as depicted in the proposed plans. Whilst the description refers to a three storey dwelling, the dwelling would comprise of a two storey dwelling with accommodation provided in the roof. The previous applications on the site referred to the development as being 3 stories in height therefore in the interest of consistency the reference to heights is retained within the description of development for the current application. Figure 15: Proposed Site Plan (please note larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 16: Proposed Basement Floor Plan Figure 17: Proposed Ground Floor Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 18: Proposed First Floor Plan Figure 19: Proposed Second Floor Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 20: Proposed Roof Plan Figure 21: Proposed North and South Elevations Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Figure 22: Proposed East and West Elevations Figure 23: Proposed Site Sections Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 Application ref 15756/APP/2023/2417 was withdrawn on 09-11-2023. Officers had and massing and the subsequent impact this may have on the street scene and Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Local Character. A further issue with the previous application related to the absence of a tree report to demonstrate that there would be no unacceptable loss of trees to facilitate the development. 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 4 neighbouring properties were consulted on the application by letter dated 11-12-24. The consultation period expired 12-01-25. However, re- consultation was required again due to the Christmas and New Years break and to include some additional neighbouring properties. A final re-consultation was undertaken upon the submission of revised information to address initial inconsistencies in the supporting documents, this consultation expired 08-10-25. 6.2 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response A petition of 41 valid signatures has been received against the application seeking refusal I. Out of character overdevelopment with substantial massing Discussed at paragraph 7.5 to 7.19 of this report. II. Impacts neighbouring amenity of other properties on Discussed in paragraph 7.20 to 7.25 Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Sweetcroft Lane and Portman Gardens III. Removal of trees Discussed in paragraph 7.49 to 7.54 IV. Impact of construction traffic A construction management plan condition is to be added to decision notice. V. Feasibility of the basement Discussed at paragraph 7.40 to 7.46 of this report. 15 individual letters of objection have been received across the 3 rounds of consultation I. Out of character and excessive in size Discussed at paragraph 7.5 to 7.19 of this report II. Gardens have flooding issues and a basement will make this worse Discussed at paragraph 7.40 to 7.46 of this report. III. The construction will generate noise and dirt pollution An informative relating to construction hours is to be added and a construction management plan condition is to be added to the decision notice IV. Removal of existing screening (trees and hedging) 2 trees out of the 31 on site would be removed. The revised landscaping scheme would result in an enhancement in terms of planting in comparison with the existing situation on site. V. Loss of privacy Discussed in paragraph 7.20 to 7.25 of this report. VI. Height is excessive Discussed at paragraph 7.5 to 7.19 of this report. VII. The proposal is too large, will be overdominant and overshadowing Discussed at paragraph 7.5 to 7.19 of this report. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Access Officer: The entrance level WC is acceptable as it is the step free access arrangement to the principal entrance. Level access via the rear entrance should be annotated to confirm that step free access would be achieved. The comments from the access officer are noted and it is now acceptable from an accessibility perspective subject to a condition to secure further step free access details. Highways Officer: The reduction to two on- plot parking spaces is now policy compliant so the only further requirement would spaces via planning condition. In all other respects, the proposal is considered acceptable hence there is no objection to the application. The comments from the Highways Officer are noted and the relevant condition is recommended to be added to the decision notice. Design and Conservation Officer: No objection 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 Policies DMHB 11 and DMHD 12 states that new development proposals should ensure that development contributes positively to the built environment and enhances the character and quality of places in Hillingdon and improve the quality of streets. Policy DMHB 5 seeks to protect the unique character and appearance of Areas of Special Local Character. 7.2 The Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Local Character (ASLC) is a non- designated heritage asset. It is noted that the Council's Conservation Officer did not previously object in respect to the loss of the existing property and its current contribution to the ASLC. It is considered that a refusal of the application on this ground alone would be unsustainable in the event of an appeal. 7.3 The existing property is not a statutory listed building, nor is it a locally listed building. Subject to compliance with relevant planning policies and other material Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press considerations, the principle of replacing the existing dwelling with another dwelling is considered acceptable. 7.4 Overall, the principle of the proposed development is accepted and complies withPolicies DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHB 5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Development Management Policies (2020). These policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix. Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.5 Policies DMHB 11 and DMHD 12 states that new development proposals should ensure that development contributes positively to the built environment and enhances the character and quality of places in Hillingdon and improve the quality of streets. Policy DMHB 5 seeks to protect the unique character and appearance of Areas of Special Local Character. 7.6 As the site is located within an Area of Special Local Character, proposed development should consider the architectural style and formation of the originally established building patterns, specifically in regard to the design, height and architectural language. To respond to this, the scheme has been redesigned to imitate an Edwardian style of architecture, which is much more reminiscent of the street scene on Sweetcroft Lane. 7.7 At present, the application site is characterised by a large detached two- storey property. Sweetcroft Lane does not feature a uniformed set of building lines, the road itself is undulating with one gradual and one sharper bend, which has informed the location of the buildings within their respective plots. 7.8 As noted above, the site is located to the rear of the rear gardens of the properties which front Sweetcroft Lane. The application property forms a row of 6 properties, which do not share uniformed building lines. The dwelling at No. 51 Sweetcroft Lane (directly adjacent to the west of the application site) has been demolished, following a grant of planning permission reference 33932/APP/2021/1920 for the erection of 2 x 4 bedroom dwellinghouses with associated parking and landscaping. I t is evident from visiting the site that its surrounding context and the street scene comprises of large residential properties of varying designs. The existing building is set back quite significantly from the front boundary and can only be accesse d via an extensively deep access road in between 49 and 45A Sweetcoft Lane. The existing dwelling features a hipped roof, two stories in height with a modest rear porch and modest single storey side outrigger. There is also a conservatory feature which is single storey in height and attached to the rear elevation. The existing building is not considered to contribute significantly to the character and appearance of the area, it is not a listed acement would not be harmful in principle. Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.9 As noted above the previous application proposing a replacement dwelling at 47 Sweetcroft Lane was not determined, however it does provide a useful reference to describe the reduction in the bulk, scale and massing of the proposed building. The previous submission proposed a two-storey dwelling with accommodation in the roof (although referred to as three storey in the description). The height of the dwelling measured 10.7m, the footprint would have been increased from 85m2 to 236m2. 7.10 Whilst the footprint of the building would remain circa 236m2 in the current application , the height of the building has been reduced to 9.2m, the rear upper floor has already been reduced in depth by 1.3m and due to the reduction in the roof height, the extent and scale of the crown roof has been significantly reduced. 7.11 In assessing whether the bulk, scale and mass of the building is appropriate, consideration has been given to other developments within the immediate area . Below are some examples of developments which are considered similar in scale overall: - No. 39 Sweetcroft Lane is a two- storey property with a traditional pitched roof and small crown roof, measuring circa 8m in height and 160m2 in footprint plus circa 40m2 footprint in later additions; - No. 43 Sweetcroft Lane is a new chalet bungalow with accommodation in the roof, with a pitched roof, measuring circa 8.1m in height and 247m2 in footprint. 7.12 Having regard to the site context and the location of the proposed dwelling within its generous plot, it is considered that the height, scale and mass of the proposed dwelling would be acceptable and would not give rise to any significant harm to the streetscene / character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, it should be noted that crown roofs are not uncommon in this area with No.50 and No.59 being two examples close to the site. The Sweetcroft Care Home is another property of note that extends much deeper into the site and has a much greater footprint than the proposed development. It extends almost the entire width of the site and is located next to single family dwelling houses. 7.13 Turning to the increase in footprint, it is useful to note that an overlay is provided on the site plan which illustrates the extent of the existing dwelling. The front building line would be brought forward modestly, and the 3 front gabled projections provide an element of articulation that aid in reducing the bulk of the front elevation. The two- storey building has been set in by at least 1m from the side boundaries and given the spacious plot, it is considered that the development would not appear cramped. 7.14 With regards to the architectural design, the front elevation would feature a stepped building line formed by 3 gabled projections which are a common feature within the Area of Special Local Character. This creates articulation within the front elevation by the gabled roofs being set down from the main ridge and the various set ins applied across the width of the façade. Mock Tudor beams are to be constructed to the upper floor level with an alternative set of coloured windows compared with the ground floor to break up the bulk and extent of the façade. To the rear the first- floor element has Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press been set back from the ground floor by 2m which reduces the prominence of the side and rear elevations at upper floor level. A central gabled feature is proposed with modest rear dormers set comfortably within the roof space, which break up the bulk and massing of the rear elevation. The entire property would be constructed of a red external brick finish and grey roof tile. These design features and materials are not uncommon with the street scene and therefore would not appear out of character within the street or the wider Area of Special Local Character. 7.15 Whilst the adjacent dwelling at number 51 has been demolished (as noted above), it is considered that the proposed dwelling would relate satisfactorily to a development in the form of the previous planning permission at number 51 were such a development to come forward. 7.16 To conclude whilst this proposal is greater in bulk and scale than the existing dwelling to be demolished, it will be similar in mass to several other two- storey dwellings in the area, including the adjacent dwelling at no. 43. Furthermore, the bulk and scale of the proposed development are further mitigated by the deep nature of the site allowing the dwelling to sit comfortably on the property. The design features provide articulation to the elevation and break up the scale and massing of the building. As such, it is considered the proposed dwelling, while large, would be compatible with the existing varied character of the area, more recently approved developments and would not unduly harm the character of the streetscape or wider Area of Special Local Character. 7.17 As the site is located to the rear of existing gardens which serve the properties which front Sweetcroft Lane the site is considered to constitute as backland. Accordingly, consideration has been given to Policy DMH 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2. However, importantly, the site already accommodates a dwelling and sits within a row of other backland properties. The proposed replacement of the existing dwelling is accepted in principle and despite the new dwelling being larger than the existing, it would sit comfortably within its large plot and therefore would not appear cramped or contrived. It is also noted that properties within the area benefit from a l arger built form than the existing property and a similar bulk, mass and scale to the proposed dwelling. As such for the reasons mentioned above , the proposed new dwelling would not appear overly dominant, cramped or o therwise result in any significant harm to the area that would warrant the refusal of planning permission. The proposal is therefore deemed acceptable and accords with the principle of DMH 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020). 7.18 It is not considered that the proposed development would cause harm to the Area of Special Local Character. It is acknowledged that although modest a sufficient separation distance is retained between the proposed dwelling and site boundaries which is extended due to the neighbouring buildings also being set away from the shared boundary, as such the development would not appear cramped within the plot. 7.19 Taking into consideration the above, the proposal would respect the character and appearance of the surrounding area in compliance with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies and Policies DMHB 5, DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHB 14 of the Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020), as well as relevant design guidance contained within the London Plan (2021) and NPPF (2024). Residential Amenity 7.20 Policy DHMB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) states that development proposals should not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. An assessment of the potential impact on neighbouring residential amenity is discussed as follows. 7.21 The existing dwelling sits some 2.5m away from the neighbour at No. 43, this gap would be increased to approximately 2.9m. Given the large plot sizes and the proposed size, mass and scale of the new dwelling, there would be some impact of the proposed dwelling on this neighbour. However, it is considered that there would be no undue harm. Application reference 17412/APP/2020/3984 as amended by 17412/APP/2021/2904, includes approved drawings relevant to the redevelopment at No.43. The plans illustrate the upper floor side facing windows within the roof slope are obscurely glazed. These side facing windows do not serve a primary habitable room window and are obscurely glazed, therefore the proposed dwelling would not result in a reduction of privacy or outlook to this neighbouring dwelling. 7.22 The application is supported by a Daylight and Sunlight Assessment . The assessment makes reference to compliance with the BRE Guidance but also references the mirror image methodology within the assessment. This methodology was replaced by the NSL (no skyline limit) and VSL (vertical skyline ) assessments in the update to the BRE Guidelines adopted in 2022. Notwithstanding this point, the submission includes the floor plans for the neighbouring property at No.43 on drawing reference 21060- GAA-ZZ-00-DR-T-0102 Rev C04 , this illustrates that the location of the new dwelling would not breach the 45-degree line of sight drawn from the centreline of the nearest neighbouring primary window serving a habitable room. is an appropriate baseline test for overshadowing as set out within Policy DMHB 11 of the Local Plan Part Two. considered that given the use of this room, not only would it not meet the description of a habitable room, but the nature of the use would indicate that it would need to be private and therefore obscurely glazed. The approved drawings indicate this to be the case. Based on the orientation of the primary habitable room windows and the 45- degree line shown on drawing reference 21060-GAA-ZZ-00-DR-T-0102 Rev C04 which is not breached, Officers conclude that the proposed development would not result in a level of overshadowing to the neighbouring property at No.43 which would be harmful. 7.23 Turning to the adjacent plot at No.51, the dwelling on this site has now been demolished . Nevertheless, it is considered that were a development to come forward on the site in the form previously approved under application reference 33932/APP/2021/1920, the proposed new dwelling would relate satisfactorily. Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Officers have reviewed the previously approved drawings 20-036-P04 Rev B & 20- 036-P03 Rev A which are the ground and first floor plans. These drawings illustrate that the development previously approved at No. 51 does not feature side facing primary habitable room windows (with those windows located in the front and rear elevations of the two dwellings). Having regard to the relative siting , it is not considered that the proposed dwelling at 47 would give rise to harmful overshadowing, overbearing or loss of privacy impacts in respect of 51 Sweetcroft Lane. 7.24 All other properties are considered to be located sufficiently far from the application site, so as not to be adversely affected in respect of residential amenity impacts. 7.25 Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. It would therefore comply with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Quality of Residential Accommodation (Internal and External) 7.26 Regarding internal accommodation, Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) sets out the requirements for the gross internal floor area of new dwellings at a defined level of occupancy. Table 3.1 of the London Plan (2021) set outs the same gross internal area space standards set out in the technical housing standards - nationally described space standard (2015). Policy DMHB 16 of the Local Plan (2020) aligns with this policy. 7.27 The proposed development comprises a spacious dwelling with multiple living and utility areas. The dwelling would meet all internal space standards of the London Plan (2021). The development proposes a large basement which would provide ancillary leisure and living space for the enjoyment of future occupiers. No primary living space (such as a bedroom) is illustrated within the basement therefore no concerns are raised regard ing the lack of outlook due to the absence of windows. A modest amount of natural light will be provided via the lightwell indicated on drawing ref 21060-GAA- ZZ-B1-DR-T-2001 Rev C02. It is considered all habitable rooms would have an adequate source of light and outlook. As such the proposed development complies with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMHD 16 of the Local Plan (2020). 7.28 With regard to external amenity space, Policy DMHB 18 of Local Plan (2020) states that all new residential development and conversions will be required to provide good quality and usable private outdoor amenity space. Amenity space should be provided in accordance with the standards set out in Table 5.3, which requires a 4- bedroom plus house to provide a minimum of 100 square metres of private genuinely usable amenity space. Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.29 The site would retain in excess of 100sqm of rear garden for private external amenity space. The external private amenity space provision is of a sufficient size, usability and functionality, in accordance with Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020). Highways and Parking Parking 7.30 The existing property is a family sized dwelling, the proposal would replace this dwelling with a new family sized dwelling and would be served by two car parking spaces to the front. This accords with the maximum car parking standards set out within Policy T6.1 of the London Plan. Cycle Parking 7.31 The Published London Plan (2021) Table 10.2 Maximum Cycle Park ing Standards requires dwellings with two or more bedrooms to have a minimum of 2no. cycle parking spaces. Cycle storage has been identified on the submitted plans and is secure and accessible cycle storage to the front of the site. Electric Vehicle Charging Points 7.32 In line with the London Plan (2021), within the final parking quantum there is a requirement for a minimum 20% 'active' EVCP provision with all remaining spaces pace should be provided in order to future proof for anticipated demand. As the submitted plans do not acknowledge this requirement, it is recommended provision of the EVCP is secured by way of condition. Vehicular Access Provision 7.33 The established driveway from Sweetcroft Lane will remain and is considered fit for purpose. Vehicular Trip Generation 7.34 Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) requires the council to consider whether the traffic generated by proposed developments is acceptable in terms of the local highway and junction capacity, traffic flows and conditions of general highway or pedestrian safety. The Highways Officer considers there would be no discernible difference in vehicle bound activity as compared to the scale and single tenure of the existing dwelling hence any generated activity can therefore be readily absorbed within the local road network without notable detriment to traffic congestion and road safety. The application is in accordance with Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2. Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press Operational Refuse Requirements 7.35 Refuse collection will continue via Sweetcroft Lane as is the case at present. In order to conform to accepted 'waste collection distances' from the public highway, the bin storage area should be positioned within 10m of a refuse vehicle. Although the positioning of the waste storage at the front lawn is more than 10m from the public highway, this is the current arrangement with the existing dwelling where they take the bins to the public highway on collection days. Construction Management Plan 7.36 The Highways Officer considers a full and detailed CMP should be required given the constraints and sensitivities of the local road network to avoid/minimise potential detriment to the public realm. It is recommended provision of a CMP is secured by adding a condition to the decision notice. Conclusion 7.37 The Highway Authority have been consulted on the application and are satisfied that the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress and would not raise any measurable highway safety concerns and offer no objection to the application subject to certain conditions. Noise 7.38 The site would be used in an exclusively residential capacity. Therefore, in terms of the operational phase of the proposed development (occupation of the dwelling), no significant issues are raised by the proposal in respect to noise. 7.39 Given the built-up residential nature of the area, a Construction Management Plan will be necessary to minimise noise and other emissions caused during the construction phase as far as practicable. It is recommended this is added as a condition to the decision notice. Basement Impact & Flood Risk 7.40 Policy DMHD 3 requires the submission of a Basement Impact Assessment of developments which include a basement. Applicants must demonstrate that the construction of the basement would not result in a potential increase in floodrisk or structural integrity. 7.41 The proposal involves a significant basement measuring 292sqm in total. The basement would be split into rooms for different uses such as a gym, entertainment room and space for the properties plant equipment and thus would remain ancillary to the main dwelling. As none of the illustrated spaces are to provide primary accommodation the lack of windows to provide outlook, daylight and sunlight does not raise a concern that would warrant a refusal reason based on internal amenity. Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.42 In order to demonstrate that the principle of a basement in this location is acceptable or disrupt the free flow of ground water, the applicant has submitted a Baseme nt Impact Assessment and Flood Risk Assessment. These documents confirm that the site is located within Flood Risk Zone 1 which means there is no significant risk of flooding from rivers or the sea. 7.43 The reports considered the existing geology, the existing water table and the potential flood risk both fluvial and pluvial. The groundwater levels are below the proposed basement level and would therefore not impede the free flow of water. 7.44 Although there is an increase in built form proposed, the site area is significant which is of benefit as it provides the opportunity to increase natural attenuation features. The report states that a pond would be constructed within the rear garden, soft landscaping and permeable paving would be introduced to the front above an underground attenuation tank and rainwater harvesting will be used to ensure that the development would not result in an increase to potential flood risk. 7.45 Following a review of the report it is noted that there are some minor inaccuracies which are not likely to have been intentional or significantly material to the assessment of the application. The report refers to there being no evidence of subsidence within the local area. This is not strictly correct, however it should be noted that such information would not be available publicly as it would be contained within building d these files are not publicly available. As such the consultant can only produce a report based on the information available to them. Notwithstanding this point, Officers have reviewed a secondary report submitted by the applicant which provides not only information on geology and ground water which are relevant considerations to both flooding and structural integrity, but also a methodology to be followed during the construction of the development. Furthermore, the proposed basement would be set away from the elevations of the neighbouring properties. Whilst the public consultation responses raise some concerns regarding the proposed basement and the potential for an increase in flood risk, it should be noted that the site is not located within an area identified as being at risk of flooding, including surface water. The applicant has submitted a BIA in two parts which covers both the structural elements for constructing a basement in a residential area and also the drainage requirements. It is recognised by Officers that the report in drainage terms does not elaborate on the potential drainage needs to serve the basement . Notwithstanding this point the report does demonstrate that the construc tion of the development as a whole would not pose an increased risk of flooding and therefore Officers considered that the detailed drainage design that includes specific reference to any drainage requirements needed to serve the basement shall be conditioned. 7.46 Although the basement would measure circa 290 sqm, which is significantly sized, the site is not located in an area identified as being at risk of potential fluvial or pluvial flooding. The application is supported by a specialist report which demonstrates that Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press basement can be constructed without risk to the free flow of ground water or structural stability of neighbouring properties. Adequate drainage mitigation and enhancements are provided both naturally and through and underground attenuation tank. Officers are mindful that the report provides information to address the planning considerations of Policy DMHD 3 and DEMI 9 and any further considerations would be matters to be considered outside of the planning regulations such as civil matters. Officers therefore consider the proposal acceptable and would accord with Poli cies DMHD 3 and DMEI 9 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Development Management Policies (2020). Accessibility 7.47 Policy D5 and D7 of the London Plan requires the design of new development meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusive design. 7.48 The Council s Access Officer has been consulted on the application and has no objection to the proposed development in terms of accessibility, subject to securing conditions pertaining to ensuring step free access to the dwelling. It is recommended this is added as a condition to the decision notice. Subject to this condition the proposal accords with Policies D5 and D7 of the London Plan (2021). Trees and Landscaping 7.49 Policy DMHB 14 requires developments to contribute towards greening through comprehensive landscaping both soft and hard through the retention of existing trees and new planting. 7.50 The site is subject to a Tree Preservation Order Area, however no trees on the site are protected. There are mature trees located within the gardens of the site. The new dwelling is to be located mostly within the footprint of the existing dwelling. 7.51 An Arboricultural Impact Statement, Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan have been submitted to ensure the safety and protection of the onsite trees during the construction works. 7.52 The site accommodates 31 trees according to the Arboricultrual Survey ranging from category A to U. Two of the 31 trees would be felled to facilitate the development which are category C and U. Given their low grade no objection is raised to the loss of the two trees, a landscaping plan has been submitted which illustrates enhancements and a condition is to be added to the decision notice to secure further details including implementation and maintenance. 7.53 In addition to the two trees to be felled, crown works, and lopping would need to be undertaken. No objection is raised to the type of tree works proposed subject to the agreement of a tree retention condition, which will ensure that it is only the two trees proposed for removal within the assessment that would be felled. Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.54 The landscaping plan illustrates an enhancement to the existing landscaping arrangement on site. In addition to 29 of the 31 trees being retained, additional trees will be planted, soft landscaping is to be planted to the front of the property and a modest pond is to be constructed within the rear garden. The proposed landscaping scheme is supported by Officers and a condition to secure further details including implementation and maintenance is to be added to the decision notice. Subject to these conditions the proposal accords with DMHB 14 Hillingdon Local Plan Part Two (2020). Biodiversity Net Gain 7.55 During the processing of the application a Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment was requested and provided. The report states that achieving the statutory 10% gain is not possible on-site and off-site compensation will be required. 7.56 The application is supported by a BNG assessment in the form of a statutory metric and ecological report. The ecology report concludes that the site does not display any features which would provide an established and attractive habitat environment for local wildlife including bats. It is suggested within the conclusion of the report that enhancement features are secured, this has been added to the landscaping condition. 7.57 It is noted that there is a discrepancy in the submitted BNG metric which refers to the presence of a pond within the pre-development calculation which would infer that the pond exists on site at present. Having visited site and reviewed the images of the rear garden Officers have confirmed that there is not a pond within the boundary of the site at present. In terms of how this impacts the outcomes of the statutory metric, the document states there to be a shortfall in on site provision of 0.0816 credits. Noting that the pond has been included in the pre-development and not post- development calculation clearly this would have a negative impact on the metric calculation and post-development outcome. Based on the outcome which is presented in the document and the fact that once the pond is placed within the post- development calculation the level of on site provision in terms of credits secured would increase, it is considered that the development could provide adequate provision of on-site biodiversity, and this can be secured by way of an appropriately worded condition. As such it is recommended that a condition be attached to the decision notice for an accurate BNG report and statutory metric submitted prior to the commencement of development and this will need to demonstrate how an on site 10% net gain will be achieved or evidence of the purchase of off-site credits to off-set the shortfall in on- site provision. 7.58 A condition has been added to the decision notice to secure an updated BNG assessment and if required evidence to demonstrate that the shortfall in on- site net gain would be offset by the purchase of statutory credits. Waste Management Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press 7.59 Policy DMHB 11 part(d) of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020) states that development proposals should make sufficient provision for well- designed internal and external storage space for general, recycling and organic waste, with suitable access for collection. External bins should be located and screened to avoid nuisance and adverse visual impacts to occupiers and neighbours. To conform with the Council's 'waste-collection' distance parameter of 10 metres, refuse, recycling and food waste would need to be deposited kerbside on collection day. 7.55 As stated in paragraph 7.33, t he proposed plans show provision for refuse and recycling storage that is well-designed and screened from the street and neighbours. For the reasons explained it is deemed satisfactory. Sustainability 7.60 Policy DMEI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020) requires all developments to make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the London Plan targets. 7.61 The proposed development is of a minor scale therefore whilst the principle of SI 2 (carbon reduction) is applicable, the London Plan Policy applies more specifically to major scale applications. The applicant is therefore not required to submit an energy statement with the application or demonstrate a policy level of on-site savings. 7.62 However, to ensure the development is in accordance with SI 2, it is recommended to require the proposed development to achieve as a minimum, a water efficiency standard of no more than 110 litres per person per day maximum water consumption (to include a fixed factor of water for outdoor use of 5 litres per person per day in accordance with the option requirement defined within Approved Document G of the Building Regulations). It is recommended this is secured via a condition (see Condition 17 of the condition list) to the decision notice. 7.63 The proposal would therefore be compliant with Policy SI 2 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMEI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Airport Safeguarding 7.64 Policy DMAV 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020) states that the Council will ensure that uses such as housing, education and hospitals are not located in areas significantly affected by aircraft noise without acceptable mitigation measures. 7.65 The application site is within 3km of the RAF Northolt Zone. However, as the site is within an established residential area within this zone, it is considered that visibility and audibility of aircraft operations associated with RAF Northolt would not be o f significant harm to the living conditions of future occupiers. It is therefore considered that it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on the ground of harm to the Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press residential amenity of the future occupiers, in respect to aircraft noise associated with RAF Northolt. Land Contamination 7.66 Policy DMEI 12 of the Local Plan (2020) states that for sites which are identified as being at potential risk of land contamination a contaminated land report detailing the history of contamination on site, relevant survey work and findings should be submitted in support of the application. 7.67 The application site is not located on contaminated land therefore a survey is not required nor are conditions pertaining to the submission of further information. 8 Other Matters Human Rights 8.1 The development has been assessed against the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and in particular Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the Act itself. This Act gives further effect to the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to the applicant's reasonable development rights and expectations which have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance. Equality 8.2 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the assessment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.3 The Council adopted its own Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on 1st August 2014. The Hillingdon CIL charge for residential developments is £95 per square metre of additional floor space. This is in addition to the Mayoral CIL charge of £60 per square me tre. CIL rates are index linked. The proposal involves the erection of a new dwelling and is therefore CIL liable if planning permission is granted. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The proposal is for a replacement of an existing family sized dwelling. Notably the new dwelling would be larger in scale bulk and massing, however th e development would not result in a significant departure from the prevailing character and appearance or established pattern of development within the Area of Special Local Character. The proposal would not result in a harmful reduction of daylight, sunlight Hillingdon Planning Committee 14th January 2026 PART 1 Members, Public & Press or outlook for neighbouring properties, nor would there be any notable impact upon the local highway network. The design is complementary to the character of the area which does vary and despite the scale of the basement it has been sufficiently demonstrated that the development would not result in an increase to the free flow of ground water or potential flooding. An appropriate standard of living accommodation is proposed including an enhancement upon the existing landscaping on site. Based on these points and the more detailed assessment set out above, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. 9.2 The proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents taken into account in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential information) are available on the Council's website here, by entering the planning application number at the top of this report and using the search facility. Planning applications are also available to inspect electronically at the Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW upon appointment, by contacting Planning Services at planning@hillingdon.gov.uk. AAPPENDICES Planning Application 15756/APP/2024/3112 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 13 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 the submitted plans, numbers: PJC.1235.001 Rev B 21060-GAA-ZZ-XX-DR-T-2201 Rev C02 21060-GAA-ZZ-XX-DR-T-2102 Rev C02 21060-GAA-ZZ-XX-DR-T-2101 Rev C02 21060-GAA-ZZ-RF-DR-T-2005 Rev C02 21060-GAA-ZZ-B1-DR-T-2001 Rev C02 21060-GAA-ZZ-02-DR-T-2004 Rev C02 21060-GAA-ZZ-01-DR-T-2003 Rev C02 21060-GAA-ZZ-00-DR-T-2002 Rev C03 21060-GAA-ZZ-00-DR-T-0103 Rev C01 21060-GAA-ZZ-00-DR-T-0102 Rev C04 21060-GAA-ZZ-00-DR-T-0101 Rev C02 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. RES7 M Materials (Submission) Notwithstanding any of the approved plans, no development shall take place until details of all materials and external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and be retained as such. Details should include information relating to make, product/type, colour and photographs/images. REASON Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 13 To ensure that the development presents a satisfactory appearance in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 44. RES9 L Landscaping (car parking & refuse/cycle storage) Notwithstanding any of the approved plans, 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), 1.b Written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken, 1.c Schedule of plants giving species (including pollution absorbing plants), plant sizes, and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate 2. Details of Hard Landscaping 2.a Refuse Storage 2.b Accessible Cycle Storage for 2no bicycles 2.c Means of enclosure/boundary treatments 2.d Car Parking Layout for 2 vehicles including electric vehicle charging points to serve both spaces. 2.e Hard Surfacing Materials 2.f External Lighting 3. Details of Landscape Maintenance 3.a Landscape Maintenance Schedule for a minimum period of 5 years. 3.b Proposals for the replacement of any tree, shrub, or area of turfing/seeding within the landscaping scheme which dies or in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority becomes seriously damaged or diseased. 4. Schedule for Implementation Thereafter the development shall be carried out and maintained in full accordance with the approved details. REASON To ensure that the proposed development will preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and provide adequate facilities in compliance with Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 12, DMHB 14, DMEI 1 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 5. RES8 T Tree Protection and Method The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the recommendations contained within the approved Arboricultural Method Statement, Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan, PJC/6711/24-01 Rev 02. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 13 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 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 6 6. RES12 N No additional windows or doors Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no additional windows, doors or other openings shall be constructed in the walls or roof slopes of the development hereby approved facing No's 51 and 39 Sweetcroft Lane. REASON To prevent overlooking to adjoining properties in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 7. RES13 O Obscure Glazing The windows at first floor and roof level in the side elevations facing Nos. 51 and 39 Sweetcroft Lane shall be glazed with permanently obscured glass to at least scale 4 on the Pilkington scale and be non-opening below a height of 1.8 metres taken from internal finished floor level for so long as the development remains in existence. REASON To prevent overlooking to adjoining properties in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 8. NONSC B Basement Impact and Drainage No development shall commence (excluding demolition and site clearance) until an updated Drainage Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall include, but not be limited to: 1. Full surface water and foul water drainage design details for the entire development, including: a. Detailed layout drawings of the proposed drainage network; b. Pipe sizes, gradients, flow rates and attenuation volumes; c. Calculations demonstrating compliance with greenfield runoff rates or the maximum allowable discharge rate; d. SuDS features (above-ground and/or below-ground), their design specifications and maintenance arrangements. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 13 2. Basement drainage details, including: a. Measures to prevent sewer surcharge and groundwater ingress (e.g., sump pumps, non- return valves, waterproofing classification); b. Groundwater risk assessment and evidence demonstrating that the design will not result in increased flood risk to the site or neighbouring land; c. Details of any proposed pumped systems, including capacity calculations and secondary/backup arrangements. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the approved details, and the drainage systems shall be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development. REASON To ensure that adequate and sustainable foul and surface water drainage arrangements are provided for the development, including the basement, in order to prevent increased flood risk, manage groundwater impacts, and ensure long-term resilience. This is required to comply with Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 Policies DMHB 11 and DMEI 10, and with the London Plan (2021), including policies SI 12 and SI 13. 9 9. NONSC S Step free Access Prior to any works on site above damp proof course level, details of step free access via all points of entry and exit (excluding the basement lightwell) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The measures implemented as approved shall be retained thereafter. REASON To ensure housing of an inclusive design is achieved and maintained in accordance with Policies D5 and D7 of the London Plan (2021). 10. NONSC M M4(2) Dwelling The dwelling hereby approved shall accord with the requirements of Policy D7 of the London Plan and shall not be occupied until certification of compliance with the technical specifications for an M4(2) dwelling, as set out in Approved Document M to the Building Regulations (2010) 2015, has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. All such provisions must remain in place for the life of the building. REASON To not only allow the Building Control body to require the development to comply with the optional Building Regulations standards, but to also ensure the appropriate quantity and standard of accessible and adaptable housing is constructed and maintained in accordance Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 13 with Policy D7 of the London Plan (2021). 111. NONSC D Demolition and Construction Management Plan No development shall take place until a Demolition and Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall detail: a) The phasing of development works b) Types of vehicles accessing the site, including their ability to enter the Frays Avenue without affecting neighbouring properties c) The hours during which development works will occur d) How vehicles will access the site whilst protecting neighbouring sites e) Measures to prevent mud and dirt tracking onto footways and adjoining roads (including wheel washing facilities) f) 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) g) Measures to reduce the impact of the development on local air quality and dust through minimising emissions throughout the demolition and construction process h) The storage of demolition/construction materials on site. The approved details shall be implemented and maintained throughout the duration of the demolition and construction process. REASON To safeguard the amenity of surrounding areas in accordance with Policies DMHB 11, DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 12. NONSC N Non Standard Condition No development shall take place on any part of the site until a Biodiversity Gain Plan for the site, demonstrating compliance with the 10% biodiversity net gain requirement in accordance with the Environment Act 2021, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Biodiversity Gain Plan should include: i. Baseline Biodiversity Assessment: Using the latest Defra Biodiversity Metric, a report of the site's pre-development biodiversity value; and ii. On-Site Enhancement and 30-year Habitat Management Plan (HMP) detailing measures to achieve BNG on-site, including species protection, habitat creation, and ongoing management strategies to maintain gains for a minimum of 30 years. The HMP should, as a minimum, include: a) Description and evaluation of the features to be managed. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 13

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Alan Corcoran 1126/APP/2023/3671 Date Application Valid: 19.01.2024 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 30.01.2026 Application Type: Full Ward: Heathrow Villages Applicant: R Heathrow Ariel Opco Ltd Site Address: Ariel Hotel, 118 Bath Road, Hayes, UB3 5AJ Proposal: Reconfiguration, alteration, and extension of existing hotel (providing additional hotel rooms) (Use Class C1), together with erection of a new apart -hotel building (Use Class C1) on car park land to the north. 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 – 14th January 2026 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. 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 £88,533. ii. A Carbon Offset sum based on an Updated Energy Strategy (to be submitted to discharge the Updated Energy Strategy condition) , with the offset calculation based on £95 per tonne of CO2 over a 30-year period. iii. An Employment/Construction Training Scheme secured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD. iv. An End-User Employment Scheme secured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD. v. A Healthy Streets/Active Travel Zone contribution of £112,700. vi. A Project Management and Monitoring Fee, equalling 5% of the total financial contributions to be paid under this agreement. B) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in preparation of the Section 106 agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed. C) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreement and conditions of approval. D) That, if the Legal Agreement has not been finalised within six 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 p lanning permission for the following reason: 'The applicant has failed to mitigate the impacts posed by the proposed development (in respect of Air Quality, Carbon Emissions, Employment, and Highways works). The scheme th erefore conflicts with Paragraphs 56-58 of the National Planning Po licy Framework (2024), Policy DF1 of The London Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Plan (2021), Policy DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020), and the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2014).’ 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 0.8 hectare application site is located 170 metres north of Heathrow Airport, at the junction of Bath Road and High Street Harlington. It contains a 1960’s four- storey circular hotel building and associated car park. The existing hotel has 186 guest rooms. 1.2 The application proposes to intensify the existing hotel use (Use Class C1). The proposed development comprises a two-storey upward extension and alterations to the existing Ariel Hotel to create an additional 113 rooms, increasing the total from 186 to 299 guest rooms. To accommodate the increase in guests, the ground floor area adjacent to the courtyard (currently occupied by a games room, reception, and plant room) would be ex tended and reconfigured to provide additional seating space for the hotel's ancillary restaurant. 459 sq. m. of outdoor amenity space would be located centrally on the restaurant’s roof at first -floor level. The hotel’s gross external floor area would increase from 7,540 sq. m. to 11,070 sq. m. – an increase of 3,530 sq. m. The application also proposes the construction of a four -storey building along the north of the Site to contain 99 apart-hotel units (Use Class C1), following the demolition of single-storey garages and the removal of hotel car parking. This building would have a gross external floor area of 4,730 sq. m. The car park would be reduced by 6 3 spaces – from 118 to 5 5 – to facilitate the development. Additional soft landscaping (approximately 540 sq. m.) would be introduced around the proposed apart-hotel and site’s perimeter, as well as green roof s (approximately 1,720 sq. m.) on the extended hotel and apart-hotel. 1.3 Given the application site’s planning history and existing hotel use, and following a review of the submitted Sequential Assessment, the principle of intensifying the hotel use (Use Class C1) and constructing an apart-hotel (Use Class C1) on this site is acceptable. The buildings’ height, scale, and mass would be comparable to the surrounding context, and it would not unduly impact residential amenity. The proposal represents a contextually appropriate development that aligns with Local Plan and London Plan policy objectives to optimise land near significant transport nodes and support tourism infrastructure. There are no objections from the Council’s Urban Design Officer, Landscape Officer, Policy Officer, or Highways Officer. While located on potentially contaminated l and, the Council’s Land Contamination Officer has no concerns subject to a recommended condition. Noting the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and Air Quality Focus Areas, which the site is within, the Council’s Air Quality Officer has no objections subject to an air quality mitigation contribution of £88,533 (contained within the Section 106 Heads of Terms) and planning conditions, which have been recommended. Whilst the site is within an Archaeological Priority Zone (Heathrow), Historic Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press England’s Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) has no objection subject to conditions. 1.4 The Council received one objection fr om the Harlington Conservation Area Advisory Panel and one ind ividual objection from a resident , which raised concerns regarding the proposed scale and design, impact on neighbouring residential amenity, car parking, and disruption to residents during construction works. These concerns are discussed within this assessment, and it is considered that the matters would not warrant a recommendation for refusal. 1.5 The proposal is acceptable and would be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, The London Plan, and Hillingdon Local Plan. 1.6 The planning application is therefore re commended for approval subject to the condition as set out in the appendix and Section 106 Heads of Terms detailed in the ‘Summary of Recommendation’ section of this report. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The 0.8 hectare application site is located 170m north of Heathrow Airport, at the junction of Bath Road and High Street Harlington. It contains a 1960’s four-storey circular hotel building and associated car park. The existing hotel has 186 rooms. There are several single-storey garages on-site along the northern boundary. 2.2 The site is within Potentially Contaminated Land, an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), an Air Quality Focus Areas (A4 Corridor Focus Area and Harlington Focus Area), and an Archaeological Priori ty Zone (Heathrow). It is within Flood Zone 1 – the lowest probability of flooding. It is not within a Critical Drainage Area, though it is subject to a small area (approximately 115 sq. m.) of Surface Water Flooding towards the centre of the site. The application site does not contain any Listed Buildings and it is not located within a Conservation Area or Area of Special Local Character. 2.3 The site has two existing vehicular accesses. One vehicular access is off the A437 High Street Harlington (to the northwest of the Site) and the second is to the south off Bath Road. The s ite has good access to public transport, with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 4, on a scale of 0 to 6b, where 6b is the highest. There are 118 surface car parking spaces on the s ite surrounding the hotel. 2.4 There is a six-storey hotel to the east of the site. To the south of the site, on the opposite side of Bath Road, are three-storey commercial properties and Heathrow Airport. Three and four-storey residential blocks neighbour the site on the opposite side of Marlborough Crescent to the north. To the west, on the opposite side of High Street Harlington, is a four-storey office building. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figure 2: Aerial View of the Application Site Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Aerial View of the Application Site Figure 4: Street View Image of the Application site facing north Figure 5: Street View Image of the Application site facing northwest Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 6: Street View Image of the Application site facing northeast Figure 7: View From the Site (Facing East), Including On-Site Garages (to be Demolished) and Neighbouting Hotel 3 Proposal 3.1 The Applicant proposes to reconfigure, alter, and extend the existing hotel and construct a new apart-hotel building along the north of the site. 3.2 The proposal comprises an additional 113 hotel rooms within a two-storey upward extension to the existing hotel. This extension would increase the hotel’s capacity from 186 guest rooms to 299. The hotel’s facades would be updated and entirely reclad with new aluminium cladding and composite windows to match the proposed apart hotel to the north. The hotel would increase in height from four storeys (approximately 14 metres) to si x storeys (approximately 20 metres), retaining its distinct circular, centric ring layout. To accommodate more guests, Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the ground floor area adjacent to the internal courtyard (currently occupied by a games room, reception, and plant room) would be extended and reconfigured to provide additional seating space for the hotel's ancillary restaurant. 459 sq. m. of outdoor amenity space would be located centrally on the restaurant’s roof at first- floor level. The hotel’s gross external floor area would increase from 7,540 sq. m. to 11,070 sq. m , an increase of 3,530 sq. m. The extended hotel would have a 764 sq. m. green roof with photovoltaic panels. 3.3 The proposal also includes the construction of 99 apart-hotel units across a standalone four-storey building that would be located to the north of the existing hotel. The apart-hotel would be constructed following the demolition of the existing single-storey garages and the removal of surface- level hotel car parking spaces. The apart hotel would measure approximately 70 metres wide and 17.5 metres deep and have a height of approximately 13 metres (four storeys). It would have a gross external floor area of 4,730 sq. m. The apart hotel would have a 956 sq. m. green roof with photovoltaic panels. 3.4 The site's two existing vehicular accesses would be retained. The High Street access would facilitate two-way movements into and out of the site, while the Bath Road access would facilitate inbound mo vements only. The car park would be reduced by 63 spaces – from 118 to 55 – to facilitate the proposed development, and additional soft landscaping would be introduced. Figure 8: Proposed Plan and Landscape Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 9: Proposed Hotel South Elevation Facing Bath Road Figure 10: Proposed Apart-Hotel North Elevation Facing Marlborough Crescent Figure 11: Proposed Apart-Hotel West Elevation Facing High Street Harlington 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to t he consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 The Council sent consultation letters to 114 neighbouring properties and the Harlington Village Residents Association on 30-01-2024 . The Council also advertised the application with a site notice and press notice on 15-02-2024. The consultation expired on 07-03-2024. Following the submission of revised drawingsa re -consultation was undertaken on 15-12-2025 and expired 31 -12- 2025. 6.2 The Council received one objection fr om the Harlington Conservation Area Advisory Panel and one individual objection from a resident in response to the public consultation . The consultee responses are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response The Council received one objection from the Harlington Conservation Area Advisory Panel and one individual objection from a resident. i) The proposed scale and design Discussed at paragraphs 7.11 to 7.15 of this report. ii) impact on neighbouring residential amenity Discussed at paragraphs 7.16 to 7.29 of this report. iii) car parking Discussed at paragraphs 7.30 to 7.35 of this report. iv) disruption to residents during construction Discussed at paragraph 7.45 of this report. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response External Consultee Comments Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS): No objection subject to condition and informative regarding a Written Scheme of Investigation. A condition and informative have been recommended in line Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press with GLAAS’ recommendations. Transport for London (TfL): No objection. Noted Metropolitan Police Design Out Crime: No comments received. A condition has been recommended regarding ‘Secured by Design’ accreditation. National Air Traffic Services: No objection. Noted Heathrow Airport: No objection subject to conditions regarding Bird Hazard Management Plan and PV panel glare assessment. Informative recommended regarding the Bird Hazard Management Plan , cranes, landscaping, and lighting. Conditions and informatives have been recommended in line with Heathrow Airport’s recommendation. Thames Water Utilities: No objection subject to recommended i nformative regarding wastewater assets. An informative has been recommended in line with the Thames Water Utilities’ recommendations. London Fire Brigade: No comments. Noted. Internal Consultee Comments Urban Design and Landscape Officer No objection subject to a condition regarding external materials. A condition has been recommended in line with the Urban Design Officer’s request. 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. These requests are recommended Heads of Terms to be secured in the S106 Agreement. Access Officer Recommendations received regarding disabled person car parking provision and room accessibility. Conditions have been recommended in line with the Accessibility Officer’s recommendations. Refuse and Recycling Officer Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press No objection. Noted. Planning Policy Officer No objection. Noted. Highways Officer No objection subject to conditions regarding a Car Parking Design and Management Plan and a Construction Logistics Plan as well as a Section 106 Agreement contribution of £112,700 towards Healthy Streets/Active Travel Zone improvements. Condition have been recommended in line with the Highways Officer’s recommendations and a Section 106 clause is included in the recommended Heads of Terms. Air Quality Officer No objection subject to an Air Quality Mitigation contribution of £88,533 secured by a Section 106 Agreement and conditions regarding a low emission strategy (LES) and reducing emissions from demolition and construction. A S106 financial contribution is included in the recommended Heads of Terms and conditions have been recommended in line with the Air Quality Officer’s recommendations, except for LES, as the travel plan and electric vehicle charging spaces are covered by separate conditions. Noise Pollution Officer No objection. Noted. Environmental Health Officer (Land Contamination) No objection subject to a condition regarding land contamination. A condition has been recommended in line with the Land Contamination Officer’s recommendations. Environmental Specialist (Energy and Biodiversity) No objection subject to condition s requiring a revised Energy Strategy and ‘be seen’ energy monitoring, and a carbon offset contribution based on the updated Energy Strategy secured by a S106 Agreement. A S106 carbon offset contribution clause is included in the recommended Heads of Terms. Condition have been recommended in line with the Environmental Specialist (Energy and Biodiversity). Flood Risk and Drainage Consultant Conditions have been recommended to Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Additional Surface Water Runoff details requested, and a Detailed Drainage Design condition recommended. ensure the detailed design aligns with the Drainage Consultant’s recommendations. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The principle of a hotel use on this site has been established by the long-standing use of the site as a hotel since the 1960s. 7.2 This application seeks to create a further 113 hotel guest rooms (Use Class C1) – increasing capacity from 186 to 299 guest rooms – by constructing a two-storey upward extension to the Ariel Hotel . The application also proposes the construction of a four -storey building to contain 99 apart-hotel units (Use Class C1) along the north of the site to replace car parking and single-storey garages. 7.3 The Applicant submitted a Sequential Assessment to demonstrate why it is an appropriate hotel location, despite not being in a Town Centre or Hotel Growth Location. 7.4 The application states that the additional hotel rooms and apart-hotel units would be managed by the existing hotel provider. 7.5 The submitted Sequential Assessment concludes that ‘An extensive search was taken within the relevant catchment area for potential sites that could host the proposed development. It has been identifi ed that no sites located within a town centre or edge of centre location would be suitable, available, and viable for the proposed hotel scheme, despite allowing fo r flexibility with the type and size of scheme.’ 7.6 Although the proposal is not within a Town Centre location, the proposed additional hotel rooms and apart-hotel units (Use Class C1) would be within an existing hotel site and would be adjacent to a neighbouring hotel and to Heathrow Airport. 7.7 The Council's Planning Policy Team has been consulted and has reviewed the submission documents. They do not raise any objection to this proposed hotel development, advising that the Sequential Test provides evidence of the limited availability of land for hotels in relevant Town Centres. When the demonstrated limited availability of land for hotels in relevant Town Centres is considered in relation to the strategic need for serviced visitor accommodation, as outlined in The London Plan (2021) and its associated evidence base, it is apparent that the need for serviced visitor accommodation cannot be met solely on Town Centre and Edge -of-Centre sites. A refusal of the application on this basis is therefore not justified or recommended. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.8 The proposal would help to meet the demand for visitor accommodation linked to Heathrow Airport , intensifying the use of an established hotel with good public transport links. The principle of development is acceptable in this instance. 7.9 Given that there are no specific inter nal living standards set within the development plan for visitor accommodation, a condition restricting occupation to no more than 90 days within a calendar year is to be attached to the decision notice. This is essential for an apart-hotel and / or hotel development to ensure the accommodation operates as genuinely short -term, visitor accommodation rather than functioning as de facto perma nent residential units. Such a control helps maintain compliance with planning policies that distinguish commercial hospitality uses from residential us e. Additionally, the restriction supports proper management of guest turnover, reinforces the business model’s alignment with tourism objectives, and provides the local authority with a clear, enforceable mechanism to prevent misuse of the premises. 7.10 The proposal complies with the aims of Policy E10 of The London Plan, Policy E2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1, and Policy DME 5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2. Design/Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.11 The proposed design has evolved thro ugh the pre-application and application process and respond s positively to officer’s inputs. With regards to the existing hotel extension, it is clear from the site photos that the existing building is of some architectural merit but needs refurbishment works both internally and externally in order to enhance its visitor accommodation offering. The proposal comprises the extension of the existing hotel in the form of a two storey upward extension and the refurbishment of the existing external façade with a more modern cladding in terms of specification, but the appearance would be more akin to the design of original building which dates to the 1960’s. The proposal also brings forward enhancements to the existing courtyard whic h is located within the centre of the circular shaped building. In terms of scale, bulk, massing, the upward extension is modest and would not appear over dominant. The proposed façade treatments are a vast improvement in both sustainability and appearance. The soft landscaping enhancements to the central courtyard are also welcomed. 7.12 Turning to the new apart-hotel building, this would be located to the northern end of the car park. Further north there are a cluster of residential blocks of apartments ranging from 3 to 4 stories in height. To the east lies the rear elevation of the Courtyard by Marriot Hotel which extends up to 6 stories in height. The proposed new building would be set away from the northern boundary and would extend up to 4 stories in height. The height of the new building is comparable with the residential blocks to the north and although the building would extend almost the entire width of the site articulation has been proposed to the most prominent elevations (the front and rear) in the form of a modest 3 storey projection around the eastern and western elevations and the centre of both the front and rear façade. This in combination with the use of an alternative façade treatment helps to break up the extent of the façade reducing the visual bulk and massing. The Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press introduction of a new ground floor entra nce from the proposed apart hotel onto High Street, Harlington would contribute to the activation and visual animation of the public realm, particularly along a ped estrian route frequently used by those accessing bus stops on Bath Road. The entrance is a welcome addition. As stated above the height and scale of the proposed apart hotel building and extended hotel building would have due regard to the local context and surrounding developments, including the apartments to the north, hotels to the east, and offices to the west. 7.13 Furthermore, by utilising the same materials on both buildings would create a cohesive architectural appearance. The development’s design and appearance would be in keeping with the area's character, and the proposed building would sit comfortably within the streetscene. 7.14 The Council’s Urban Design Officer has been consulted and has no objections regarding the proposed design, subject to a condition regarding materials, which has been recommended. 7.15 The proposal complies with Paragraph 131 of the NPPF, Policies D3 of The London Plan, Policy BE1 of the Local Plan Part 1, and Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Local Plan Part 2. Residential Amenity 7.16 There are homes within a four-storey residential block situated 18.3 metres to the north of the proposed apart -hotel on the opposite side of Marlborough Crescent. There are no concerns regarding direct overlooking or outlook impacts, given the intervening street, the separation distance, building heights, design, and the existing and proposed soft landscaping and boundary treatment. Whilst the separation distance does fall modestly short of the 21 metre separation distance set out within DMHB 11 of the Local Plan, there is generally a more flexible approach taken to this separation distance where the existing and proposed windows are separated by a street. 7.17 A daylight and sunlight assessment has been submitted in support of the application. The study has been undertaken in accordance with the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidance Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight – A guide to good practice (Third Edition, 2022). The assessment considers the potential impact of the proposed development at the Ariel Hotel, 118 Bath Road, Harlington, on the daylight and sunlight received by neighbouring properties. 7.18 The submitted Daylight and Sunlight Assessment identifies that out of 108 windows assessed, only six —all at ground-floor level at 1– 10 Marlborough Crescent—fall marginally below the BRE guidel ines for Vertical Sky Component (VSC) and the 0.8 retained daylight ratio threshold. These windows experience VSC values of 23 –25% and daylight ratios of 0.77–0.79 times existing. The GLA’s independent review (Representation Hearing Report D&P/3067/03) confirms that in an urban environment, VSC values above 20% are “reasonably good,” and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press values in the mid-teens are generally accept able. All six affected windows retain VSC levels well above 20%, ranging from 23% to 25%. 7.19 The BRE Guidance (2022) explicitly states that its numerical criteria are “not mandatory” and should be interpreted flexibl y, particularly where site context or urban form necessitates greater massi ng. The London Plan and Housing SPG reiterate the need for sensitive, non -rigid application of BRE targets in higher- density areas. The assessment notes that the site lies within a highly urbanised location adjacent to Heathrow Airport, where more constrained daylight outcomes are normal and expected. 7.20 Of 108 windows tested, only six show any shortfall. BRE Appendix H classifies impacts affecting only a small number of windows, and where shortfalls are “only just outside the guidelines,” as minor adverse —not significant. This is precisely the scenario identified in the assessment. 7.21 The NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to take a flexible approach to daylight/sunlight where strict application would inhibit making efficient use of a site, particularly where housing or accommodation needs must be met. Whilst this application does not propose residential accommodation, there is a demand for visitor accommodation across London which cannot currently be met within Town Centre locations. As such this development would go some way to addressing this demand and the principle of taking a more flexible approach advocated within the NPPF is accepted here. The assessment concludes that, in this planning context, these small shortfalls represent an acceptable consequence of optimising the site to meet a recognised need, which aligns with national policy direction. 7.22 Although the reductions are noticeable, the resulting daylight levels (23–25% VSC and 0.77 –0.79 retained daylight) remain within the range considered good for urban residential conditions. They do not fall into thresholds associated with poor amenity or unacceptable harm (e.g., VSC below 10%). 7.23 The daylight shortfalls identified at six windows represent very minor deviations from BRE guidance, occurring only in a small number of locations and retaining daylight levels that remain good for an urban context. National and London -wide policy explicitly supports flexibility in applying daylight standards where needed to make efficient use of land. Taking these factors together, the assessment robustly demonstrates that these shortfalls cons titute a minor and acceptable impact in planning terms. 7.24 BRE Guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory. Flexibility regarding sunlight reduction is appropriate and expected in urban areas, such as the location of the proposed development. Section 3.2.10 of the BRE Guidelines states, 'if the existing building stands unusually close to the common boundary with the new development or has a large balcony or overhang above the window, then a greater reduction in sunlight access may be unavoidable. The guidelines are purely advisory. Planning authorities may wish to use different criteria based on the requirements for sunlight in particular types of developments in particular areas. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Sometimes a larger reduction in sunlight may be necessary if new development is to match the height and proportion of existing buildings nearby.' 7.25 All assessed windows would fully meet the recommendations contained within the BRE Guidance in relation to Annual Pr obable Sunlight Hours (APSH). As such, the impact to these windows regarding access to sunlight is acceptable. 7.26 Out of the 108 windows evaluated, six windows at 1-10 Marlborough Crescent would not fully meet the recommendations outlined in the BRE Report. These six windows would experience a slight decrease in daylight, falling below 27 per cent Vertical Sky Component (VSC) and less than 0.8 times the existing level. The proposed level of daylight would exceed 23 per cent VSC at all windows. Furthermore, the proposed level of daylight would be between 0.77 and 0.79 times the existing level of daylight. While this reduction may be noticeable, these deviations from BRE Guidance are minimal and fall within the tolerances specified in the GLA's Hearing Report guidelines for London and urban areas. As such, this slight impact is , on balance, acceptable within the s ite's context and would not warrant a recommendation for refusal. 7.27 The submitted analysis demonstrates that on the 21st of March, whilst there would be a slight reduction in the amount of outd oor amenity space that receives direct sunlight, over at least half of the area wo uld continue to receive direct sunlight. Therefore, the impact on this amenity space would not be significant and is acceptable in the urban context. 7.28 Please see relevant sections below regarding noise. 7.29 The proposed scheme is supported and would not be overdevelopment or cause undue impacts on residential amenity. It complies with the aims of Policy D3 of The London Plan and Policy DMHB 11 of the Local Plan Part 2. Highways and Parking 7.30 The Applicant submitted a Transport Assessment, a Vehicular Trip Generation Note, a Travel Plan, Interim Construction Management Plan and an Interim Construction Logistics Plan. 7.31 The site is located on the A4 Bath Road, Harlington, immediately adjacent to the junction with the A437 High Street Harlington. It is located approximately 2.7km, 5.1km, and 5.4km northeast of Heathrow Terminal 2 and 3, Heathrow Terminal 4, and Heathrow Terminal 5, respectively. The A437 High Street Harlington borders the site to the west, the A4 Bath Road to the south, Marlborough Crescent to the north, and the Courtyard by Marriott Lon don Heathrow Airport Hotel to the east. The site is situated in a location with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 4, where a score of 0 indicates very poor access to public transport and 6 indicates excellent access. 7.32 The Council’s Highways Team has been consulted and raised no objection to the proposed development, subject to conditions regarding a Car Parking Design and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Management Plan and a Construction Logistics Plan, as well as a Section 106 Agreement contribution of £112,700 towards Healthy Streets/Active Travel Zone improvements. Appropriate highways conditions are recommended in this planning assessment and recommendation, and a Section 106 clause is included in the recommended Heads of Terms. 7.33 The site's two existing vehicular accesses would be retained. The High Street access would facilitate two-way movements into and out of the site, while the Bath Road access would facilitate inbound movements only. The proposed development would have 5 5 on-site car parking spaces, a reduction of 63 spaces from the current 118 on -site car parking spaces. Twelve spaces would be fitted with active electric vehicle charge po ints (EVCPs). Six per cent of all parking provision (three spaces) would be designated as disabled person parking, whilst a further four per cent would be enlarged bays (two spaces). The Applicant proposes twenty secure and covered long- stay cycle spaces for staff and eight short-stay cycle spaces for guests. 7.34 Policy T6.4 of The London Plan (2021) is non-prescriptive for hotel car parking. It states that hotel car parking 'should be assessed on a case -by-case basis'. Similarly, the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) is also no n-prescriptive, stating that car parking numbers should be determined on an 'individual basis'. T he proposed reduction in car parking is supported in this PTAL 4 area, which has good public transport connections. The provision of twelve active EVCPs and twenty-eight cycle parking spaces exceeds the London Plan policy requirements and is therefore acceptable. The proposed blue badge car parking bay and enlarged bay provision comply with The London Plan. Conditions are recommended to ensure their delivery and ongoing availability. 7.35 Subject to the recommended conditions and obligations to be secured under the section 106 legal a greement, 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 7.36 The Site is within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and Air Quality Focus Areas (A4 Corridor Focus Area and Harlington Focus Area). 7.37 The Applicant has submitted an Air Quality Assessment with their application. 7.38 The proposed development would be air quality neutral, however, it would not be air quality positive. Therefore, further appropriate mitigation is required. 7.39 Mitigation measures to reduce emissions can be applied on-site or off-site. Where this is not practical or desirable, pollutant offsetting will be applied. The level of mitigation required associat ed with the operation al phase of the proposed development is calculated using Defra's Damage Cost Toolkit in this instance. Any proposed mitigation measures are evaluated in terms of their likely impact on local Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press air quality. Wherever quantifiable, these are calculated and subtracted from the overall value due. When quantification is not possible, a flat -rate discount is applied. The mitigation required to offset the proposed development's traffic emissions in this instance is £88,533. 7.40 The Council’s Air Quality Officer has be en consulted and raised no objection subject to an a ir quality mitigation contribution of £88,533 secured by a s ection 106 legal a greement and a condition regarding reducing emissions from demolition and construction. This S106 financial contribution is included in the recommended Heads of Terms , and a condition has been recommended in line with the Air Quality Officer’s recommendations. 7.41 Subject to legal agreement and the recommended conditions, 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 7.42 The Applicant submitted an Environmental Noise Impact Assessment Report for Planning assessing daytime and night-time levels likely to be experienced by the proposed development. To mitigate internal noise levels, the Applicant proposed a robust glazing specification. The repo rt concludes that ‘adverse effects are unlikely to occur at the proposed development if appropriate mitigation measures are implemented, for which the specifie d external building fabric has been provided.’ 7.43 The closest neighbouring development is a hotel to the east, while a residential block is located on the opposite side of Marlborough Crescent to the north. The proposed apart-hotel and upward hotel extension would not contain a large internal floor area allocated for conference or banqueting purposes. Given the separation distance and nature of the proposed development, it is considered that the proposals would not cause undue noise disturbance to nearby residents or hotel. 7.44 The Council's Noise Pollution Officer has reviewed the submission and raised no objection or concerns about noise and v ibration given the transient nature of the hotel and apart-hotel use and context of the proposed development on an existing hotel site adjacent to an airport. 7.45 A Construction Management Plan condition is recommended to mitigate and manage potential noise disturbances. 7.46 The proposal complies with Policies D13 and D14 of The London Plan. Accessibility 7.47 The supporting Planning Statement states that the proposals include two additional accessible hotel rooms. Lifts and stair cores servicing the existing hotel Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press floors are to be extended to serve the two proposed additional storeys. The proposed apart-hotel would also contain lifts and stair cores. 7.48 Six per cent of all car parking provision (three spaces) would be designated as disabled person parking , whilst a further four per cent would be enlarged bays (two spaces). This level of disabled person car parking is supported and recommended to be secured by condition. 7.49 To comply with The London Plan, nine per cent (ten hotel rooms) of the 113 additional proposed Ariel Hotel bedroo ms and nine per cent (nine apart -hotel units) of the 99 proposed apart-hotel units must be fully accessible to wheelchair user guests, with these rooms designed in accordance with BS 8300- 1:2018. A further one per cent (one hotel room and one apart -hotel unit) must be fitted with a tracked hoist system and have an adjoining door to a standard bedroom. A planning condition is recommended to ensure policy compliance is achieved. 7.50 The Council’s Accessibility Officer ha s reviewed the proposal and made recommendations regarding disabled person car parking, enlarged car parking bays, and hotel and apart-hotel room accessibility. Appropriate conditions to secure these requirements are recommended should the application be determined for approval. 7.51 Subject to the recommended conditions, the proposed development complies with Policies D5 and D12 of The London Plan. Urban Greening, Landscaping, and Public Realm 7.52 The existing site lacks significant levels of soft landscaping and consists of mostly of hardstanding and buildings. 7.53 The Applicant submitted an Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement, a Tree Protection Plan and a landscape strategy which detailed trees on and close to the Site, the tree species, and their quality and spread, as well as proposed planting and landscaping. 7.54 There are five category B trees, ten category C trees, and one category U tree assessed and identified on and immediately around the Site. None of the trees are protected by a Tree Preservation Order or by Conservation Area designations. The submitted Assessment states that no trees would be removed to enable the proposed development and there would be no construction within the Root Protection Areas of retained trees. The proposed landscape strategy proposes the introduction of mixed, diverse planting to include wildflower areas, raingarden- style low -level planting, specimen planting, flowering perennials, and ornamental grasses, as well as new block paving, gr asscrete to most of the retained car parking spaces, and new hedges and trees around the proposed apart-hotel and Site's perimeter. The proposed landscape enhancements are supported, and a condition is recommended to ensure the improvements are delivered on-site. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.55 Policy DMEI 1 of the Local Plan Part 2 requires all major development to incorporate living roofs and/or walls. The proposal includes a 764 sq. m. green roof on the apart-hotel and 956 sq. m. of green roof introduced to the roof of the extended hotel. 7.56 Subject to conditions, the proposal wou ld comply with Policy G5 of The London Plan and Policy DMHB 14 of the Local Plan Part 2. Biodiversity 7.57 The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Preliminary Roost Assessment and landscape strategy, which finds that there are no notable habitats on the site and ‘negligible’ bat roosting suitability as no potential bat roost features were recorded. 7.58 As the application was submitted in January 2024, it is not subject to recent Biodiversity Net Gain requirements. Nonetheless, the proposal would see a notable uplift in biodiversity on the site as it is currently predominantly extensive hardstanding and buildings, and the proposed layout would contain soft landscaping and planting features at ground level. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal proposed enhancements, including additional native planting, pollinator friendly plant species, the installation of two bat boxes, and installation of one bird box. Furthermore, there would be 764 sq. m. of green roof included on the apart- hotel and 956 sq. m. of green roof introduced to the roof of the extended hotel that would contribute to the site’s improved biodiversity. 7.58 The Council’s Environmental Specialist (E nergy and Biodiversity) reviewed the submitted biodiversity details and raised no objection regarding the proposed development. 7.59 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 7.60 The Site is in Flood Zone 1 (lowest flood risk). It is not with in a Critical Drainage Area, though it is subject to a small area (approximately 115 sq. m.) of surface water flooding towards the centre of the site. The existing site comprises mostly of hardstanding and buildings. As such, there are minimal natural forms of attenuation within the site boundary. 7.61 The Applicant submitted a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy. The application states that ‘there is insufficient space to incorporate infiltration-based drainage. Therefore, in accordance with the drainage hierarchy, an attenuation- based surface water drainage strategy, with disposal to the existing surface water sewer is proposed .’ Post-development surface water discharge is proposed to be restricted to a rate of 3.5 litres per second. This would provide more than betterment over the existing brownfield situation. On-site attenuation would be Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press provided within a cellular attenuation ta nk measuring eight metres by 17 metres by 0.8 metres deep (108.8m3 storage). Furthermore, the development would introduce approximately 540 sq. m. of new soft landscaping around the proposed building, ensuring a reduction in runoff from the s ite compared to the existing scenario. 7.62 The Council’s Flood Risk and Drainage Consultant has reviewed the submission and recommended further details to be submitted to ensure acceptable flood and surface water runoff and drainage mitigation. Appropriate conditions are recommended as part of this planning recommendation. 7.63 Subject to the recommended conditions, the proposed development is acceptable regarding Flooding and Drainage and complies with 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 7.64 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. 7.65 Subject to the recommended condition, the proposal complies with Policy SI 5 of The London Plan. Energy and Sustainability 7.66 The Applicant has submitted a Sustainability, Energy and Overheating Statement and a Whole Life Carbon Assessment. They have also submitted a Circular Economy Statement. 7.67 Rooftop photovoltaic (PV) panels are proposed to generate renewable electricity on-site. The proposal would also incorporate Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHP) to serve the space heating and cooling demands, and water heating demands of the proposed apart-hotel and the proposed extension to the existing Ariel Hotel. 7.68 The application provides a positive approach to carbon reduction and concludes that there would be a cumulative onsite saving of 89.8 per cent from a baseline position. The development consists of modifications to an existing hotel structure and a new apar t-hotel building. The submitted assessment is not broken down into parts (existing and new), making it difficult to determine if policy -compliant carbon savings would be achieved. The new build is required to fully meet the requirements of Policy SI2 of The London Plan (i.e. achieving zero carbon with a minimum 15 per cent saving from energy efficiency and a minimum 35 per cent saving on site), whilst flexibility is allowed for in the modifications to the existing building providing a net zero carbon solut ion is delivered (i.e. the total carbon emissions resulting from the upward extension are offset either through the whole Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press of the modification, within the fabric of the current building, a combination of these, or with any shortfall to be secured through a Section 106 contribution to the Council’s Carbon Offset Fund. A carbon offset payment, priced at £95 per tonne of CO2 per year (over 30 years) is to be secured via the Section 106 legal agreement following review of a revised Energy Strategy, which is recommended to be secured by condition. 7.69 The Council’s Environmental Specialist (E nergy and Biodiversity) reviewed the submitted details and raised no objection subject to conditions requiring a revised Energy Strategy and ‘be seen’ energy monitoring, and a carbon offset contribution based on the updated Energy Strategy secured by a S106 Agreement. 7.70 Subject to the recommended S106 obligation and conditions, the proposal would comply with 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 7.71 The Applicant submitted a Waste Strategy within the Transport Assessment and a Design and Access Statement. 7.72 Refuse collections would be accommodated via a loading bay adjacent to the proposed bulk waste storage container located on the north-eastern corner of the site. This would be managed privately and serviced from within the site. 7.73 The Council’s Waste Services Team has reviewed the submitted documents and raised no objection to the proposed development. 7.74 The proposal is therefore deemed to comply with Policy SI 7 of The London Plan and DMHB 11 of the Local Plan Part 2. Land Contamination 7.75 The Site is within a Potentially Contaminated Land area. 7.76 The Applicant submitted a Phase 1 Site Investigation and Preliminary Risk Assessment. The Assessment has identified on-site and off-site potential sources of contamination that would require further investigation and recommends that a ground investigation is undertaken to enable preliminary foundation design. 7.77 The Council’s Land Contamination Officer has been consulted and advised that they have no objection to the proposed development. The Officer recommended a land contamination condition which has been attached to this recommendation. 7.78 Subject to condition, the proposal is cons idered to comply with Policies DMEI 11 and DMEI 12 of the Local Plan Part 2. Fire Safety Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.9 The Applicant submitted a Fire Statement, detailing the key fire safety features of the building. The existing first, second, and third floors of the hotel would remain largely unchanged except for a new evacuation lift and refuge space in each of the stai r cores to accord with current building and fire regulations.The apart-hotel would be provided with evacuation lift and refuge space in the stair cores. The London Fire Brigade has been consulted and stated that they ‘have no observations to make’ regarding the proposed development. 7.80 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 standards for any development, although the standards would vary between residential and commercial us es 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 Private Approved Inspector to act as the Building Control Body (BCB), to ensure the requirements of the Building Regulations are met. The BCB carry out 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 co nfirm that the works comply with the requirement of the Building Regulations. 7.81 The fire strategy will be subject of further review during the detailed design stages to ensure compliance with relevant bu ilding design requirement including the relevant Building Regulations and other recommendations set out in n BS9991:2015, Fire safety in the design, management and use of residential buildings – Code of practice and BS 9999: 2017, Fire safety in the design, management and use of buildings - Code of practice. 7.82 The proposal is considered to comply with the Policy D12 of The London Plan. Archaeological Impact 7.83 The site is within an Archaeological Priority Zone. 7.84 Accordingly, the Applicant submitted an Archaeological Heritage Assessment, which concluded that ‘ significant ground disturbance has occurred within the immediate footprint of the existing building, and potentially to a lesser extent within the car park. It is possible that further archaeological work will be required, this should be confirmed in conjunction with Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS), consideration can be given to conditioning this work on an approved application’. 7.85 The Local Planning Authority consulted Historic England’s GLAAS, who reviewed the submission and stated that ‘the development could cause harm to archaeological remains and field evaluation is needed to determine appropriate mitigation. However, although the NPPF envisages evaluation being undertaken prior to determination, in this case consideration of the nature of the development, Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the archaeological interest and/or practical constraints are such that I consider a two-stage archaeological condition could provide an acceptable safeguard.’ GLAAS concluded they had no objection to the proposed development, subject to condition and informative regarding a Written Scheme of Investigation. 7.86 The requested condition and informative are therefore recommended to be attached should the application b determined for approval. 7.87 Subject to condition, the proposal is deemed to comply with the NPPF, Policy HC1 of The London Plan, and Policy DMHB 7 of the Local Plan Part 2. Odour 7.88 The two additional floors proposed to the hotel would not include ancillary kitchen facilities. The apart-hotel unit would include cooking facilities. A planning condition is recommended regarding extraction and odour control to protect amenity. 7.89 Subject to condition, the proposal complies with Policy D13 of the London Plan and Policies DMHB 11 of the Local Plan Part 2. Planning Obligations 7.90 Policy DMCI 7 of the Local Plan Part 2 states to ensure development is sustainable, planning permission will only be granted for development that clearly demonstrates there will be sufficient infrastructure of all types to support it. Infrastructure requirements will be predominantly addressed through the Council's Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Pl anning obligations will be sought on a scheme -by-scheme basis to secure the provision of affordable housing in relation to residential development schemes, where development has infrastructure needs that are not addressed through CIL, and to ensure that development proposals provide or fund improvements to mitigate site -specific impacts made necessary by the proposal. Applications that fail to secure an appropriate Planning Obligation to make the proposal acceptable will be refused. 7.91 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulation 2010 (Regulations issued Pursuant to the 2008 Act) and the NPPF have put three tests on the use of planning obligations into law. It is unlawful (since 6 April 2010) to request planning obligations that do not meet the following tests: i. necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms ii. directly related to the development, and iii. fairly and reasonable related in scale and kind to the development 7.92 The effect of the Regulations is that the Council must apply the tests much more strictly and can only request planning obl igations that are genuinely necessary and directly related to the development. Should the Council request planning obligations that do not meet the policy tests, the Council would have acted unlawfully and could be subject to a High Court challenge. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.93 The proposed Section 106 Heads of Terms are as follows: i. Air Quality Mitigation contribution of £88,533. ii. A Carbon Offset sum based on an Updated Energy Strategy (to be submitted to discharge the Updated Energy Strategy condition), with the offset calculation based on £95 per tonne of CO2 over a 30-year period. iii. A Construction Employment Training Scheme secured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD. iv. An End-User Employment Scheme secured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD. v. A Healthy Streets/Active Travel Zone contribution of £112,700 within the London Borough of Hillingdon. vi. 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 / the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance. Equality 8.2 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the assessment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.3 As of 1 April 2012, all planning approvals for schemes with a net additional internal floor area of 100 sq. m. or more were liable for the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), as legislated by the CIL Regulations 2010 and The CIL (Amendment) Regulations 2011. From April 2019, the liability payable is £60 per sq. m. The MCIL2 charging schedule rate, including indexation for calendar year 2025, is £71.09 per sq. m.

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Emilie Bateman 78935/APP/2025/2287 Date Application Valid: 28-08-25 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 16.01.26 Application Type: Full Ward: Ruislip Applicant: Bika Construction Site Address: 82-84 High Street, Ruislip Proposal: Creation of 5no. self-contained flats with associated cycle and bin storage, following the change of use of first floor from office (Class E) to residential (Class C3), the erection of a two storey rear extension at first floor level, an infill first floor extension, and the retention and reconfiguration of the Class E unit at ground floor level with alterations to fenestration. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 2 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Member call-in request) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 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 creatio n of five self-contained flats through the change of use of the first floor from Class E to Class C3, the erection of a two- storey rear extension at first and second floor level, alterations to rear building at first floor level and the retention and reconfiguration of the ground- floor commercial unit. Associated cycle and refuse storage is also proposed. 1.2 The application is required to be determ ined at Planning Committee following a Member call-in raising concerns regarding overdevelopment, amenity impacts and the adequacy of external space. 1.3 The committee report seeks to provide a comprehensive assessment of the full planning application and supporting documentation. All material planning considerations have been considered. 1.4 The site comprises a Locally Listed building within the Ruislip Village Conservation Area. The proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area, consistent with th e conclusions reached by the Planning Inspector on the earlier appeal. The scheme retains the existing High Street frontage, introduces modest rear exte nsions, and delivers a design response considered appropriate to the established built form. 1.5 The development would deliver five homes (net increase of four residential units) in a highly accessible town centre location. All units exceed London Plan internal space standards, and the revised design addresses previous concerns regarding outlook and enclosure. While a shortfall in private amenity space remains for four of the units, the scheme includes an enlarged communal terrace and benefits from access to a wide range of nearby public open spaces. This matter is considered further in the planning balance. 1.6 The proposal has been assessed in terms of its effect on neighbouring residential amenity. Amendments to the layout of Flat 3 and the increased set -back of the northern boundary fence have significantly improv ed the relationship with adjoining properties, including No. 80A. The development would not result in unacceptable harm in respect of privacy, outlook, daylight/sunlight or noise. 1.7 Highways, servicing and access matters are acceptable. The Highway Authority raises no objection, noting the car-free arrangement is appropriate in this PTAL 4 town centre location, with cycle storage and refuse arrangements satisfactorily Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press provided. 1.8 Air quality matters have been reviewed by the Council’s Air Quality Officer, who confirms that the residual impact is minimal and can be appropriately managed by onsite mitigation. 1.9 It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions (Appendix 1), as the development would not cause harm to neighbouring amenity or highway safety, and would preserve the character and appearance of the Ruislip Village Conservation Area. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site comprises 82–84 High Street, a three-storey mixed-use corner building located on the southern side of Ruislip High Street within the Primary Shopping Area. The ground floor accommodates a Class E commercial unit, with former office accommodation at first floor and an existing residential flat at second floor level. To the rear of the application site is a two-storey rear block which fronts onto a pedestrian alleyway. 2.2 The wider area is characterised by a traditional 1920s High Street frontage of consistent scale, plot widths and architectural detailing, with a typical mix of retail, commercial and residential uses. 2.3 To the west, adjacent to the alleyway, the site adjoins the Thomas Moore building, a six and five- storey residential block with balconies orientated towards the alleyway and the rear of the application property, sited next to a large car park. To the north, the site adjoins No. 80, 80A and 80B High Street, which contains commercial floorspace at ground floor and residential accommodation above. To the south, the site adjoins No. 2 and 2A Ickenham Road, which also contains commercial floorspace at ground floor and residential accommodation above. 2.4 The site falls within the Ruislip Village Conservation Area, and the property is Locally Listed and contributes positively to the hist oric streetscape. The site lies within Flood Zone 1, the Ruislip Town Centre Air Quality Focus Ar ea, the Ruislip Motte & Bailey Archaeological Priority Area , and an area of potentially contaminated land (due to former land use). 2.5 The location benefits from a moderate accessibility, with a PTAL rating of 4, and good access to local bus and rail services. The site is within walking distance of a range of amenities, services and open spaces, contributing to its highly sustainable town centre setting. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figure 2: Street View Images of the Application Site 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the creation of 5no. self-contained residential flats (net increase of 4) across the first and second floors of the building, following the change of use of the existing first -floor office (Class E) to residential (Class C3). The proposal includes a two-storey re ar extension at first and second floor Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press level, alterations to the rear building and fenestration, and the rete ntion and internal reconfiguration of the ground floor Class E unit, including integrated cycle and refuse storage. 3.2 Following a previous refusal of planni ng permission (and dismissed appeal), this revised scheme introduces an enlarged communal terrace for the units which would serve 4 of the flats. To address the standard of accommodation, Flat 3 has been reconfigured providing a dual-aspect kitchen/living/dining space with direct access to private outdoor amenity. The relocation of fenestration openings also seeks to address the privacy issues associated with the potential overlooking of the first-floor balcony serving the nearby Thomas Moore Building which had been highlighted within the appeal decision (refer to section 4 of this report for further details regarding the appeal). 3.3 Revisions were sought during the current application process which include a further set-back of the boundary fence adjacent to No. 80A to reduce sense of enclosure to this nearby residential property. Additional CGI views and supporting information have also been submitted to demonstrate improved internal living conditions. Figure 3: Proposed Floor Plans and Roof Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4: Proposed Elevations (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 The most relevant planning history relates to application 78935/APP/2024/1992, which sought extensions and alterations to the building and the conversion of the existing first -floor office (Class E) to residential use to provide five flats. This application was refused in October 2024 on grounds including loss of class E space, poor amenity, impact on neighbouring amenity and lack of air quality mitigation. 4.3 The subsequent appeal (APP/R5510/W/24/3356952) was dismissed in July 2025. In dismissing the appeal, the Inspector u pheld the Council’s concerns relating to poor outlook to both bedrooms of Flat 3, the lack of private outdoor amenity provision for four of the proposed units, and the tunnelling effect created by the boundary fence in relation to the first-floor rear bedroom window of No. 80A. The Inspector also concluded that the propos al failed to demonstrate any active contribution towards improving air qu ality within the Ruislip Town Centre Air Quality Focus Area. The Inspector did not support the Council’s concerns regarding design, character and appearance, heritage impact, daylight and sunlight, or the marketability of the commercial unit, and confirmed that the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press development would preserve the character and appearance of the Ruislip Village Conservation Area. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 A total of 36 no. letters were sent to neighbouring properties on 18th of September 2025. A site and press notice were also displayed. 6.2 The consultation period expired on 29th of October 2025. 6.3 The application was also the subject of a Member call-in. The Ward Councillor expressed concern that the proposal represents overdevelopment with inadequate amenity space for future occupiers and unacceptable impacts on existing residential amenity, including pote ntial loss of light to nearby properties. The Councillor stated that the development was considered contrary to relevant planning policies and requested that the application be reported to Planning Committee should officers be minded to recommend approval. T hese points are addressed in the table below. 6.4 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response 3 letters of objection have been received from 2 households. I. Loss of privacy and overlooking Discussed at paragraph 7.23-7.29 of this report. II. Noise and disturbance of terrace Discussed at paragraphs 7.30 – 7.33 of this report. III. Loss of light, overbearing and enclosure Discussed at paragraphs 7.20 7.25 of this report. IV. Highway and Parking concerns Discussed at paragraphs 7.46 – 7.52 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press V. Disturbance from construction activity, including noise, dust and traffic disruption Disturbance arising from construction works, such as noise, dust, and traffic, is not a material planning consideration in itself as it is temporary in nature. However, to minimise impacts, a Construction Management Plan would be secured by condition requiring details of working hours, vehicle access, site set-up and mitigation measures. An informative would also be added to remind the applicant of their obligations under environmental health legislation regarding construction noise and site practices. Member Call-In I. Inadequate Amenity Provision Discussed at paragraphs 7.42– 7.45 of this report. II. Overdevelopment Discussed at paragraphs 7.7 – 7.15 of this report. III. Harm to neighbouring amenity Discussed at paragraphs 7.19 – 7.29 of this report. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Conservation and Design Officer The Conservation Officer raises no objection in principle to the conversion of the upper floors to residential use. However, concerns are expressed regarding the extent of the proposed rear extension to the Locally Listed building. The rear elevation is considered an important component of the building’s historic and architectural interest, and the Officer advises that extending it to accommodate two units per floor would erode its character and would be difficult to replicate in matching materials. The Conservation Officer’s comments are noted. However, the previous Appeal Inspector raised no objection to the principle or scale of a rear extension and confirmed that such works would preserve the character and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Further concerns relate to the internal arrangement of Flat 2, which is considered to have an awkward layout with poor daylight, limited outlook towards a blank wall, and potential privacy issues due to its proximity to the communal terrace. The Officer therefore recommends that the rear extension is omitted and that only one flat should be provided per floor above ground level. The replacement door from a double to single door is accepted provided it is the same design and made of timber. appearance of the Conservation Area. The current proposal is refined compared with the appealed scheme, and the rear elevation being non- prominent and not visible from the High Street makes only a limited contribution to the significance of the Locally Listed building. The revised internal layouts address the Inspector’s earlier concerns regarding outlook and daylight, and all units now meet London Plan standards. On this basis, the heritage comments are not considered to justify refusal. Access Officer: The proposal has been reviewed against London Plan (2021) Policy D7. As the development relates to the creation of five self -contained flats within an existing building, the full step-free and M4(2) accessibility requirements of D7 are not applicable. No objections are raised from an accessibility perspective. The comments have been noted . Waste Services: No comments/ objections. Noted. Highways Authority: No objections are raised. The development is acceptable on a car -free basis given the site’s high PTAL, surrounding parking controls and limited scope for increased trip generation. Cycle parking, refuse collection and servicing arrangements are The comments have been noted, and the relevant conditions have been added. Please refer to Condition 5 which Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press suitable. A Construction Management Plan (CMP) will be required by condition. secures submission and compliance with an approved CMP. Air Quality Officer: No objection. The submitted assessment required clarification on trip generation and air quality neutral calculations, and revised information confirmed a small residual transport -related impact. Given the modest scale of impact and the inclusion of on-site mitigation measures, the development is considered acceptable in air quality terms. Noted. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The proposal seeks the creation of five self-contained residential flats within the first and second floors of an existing mixed-use building located within the Ruislip Primary Shopping Area. The ground floor Class E unit would be reconfigured and retained. Policy H1 of the London Plan encourages the optimisation of housing delivery on appropriate sites, particularly in accessible town centre locations. The site has a PTAL of 4 and is within walking distance of a full range of services, employment opportunities and public transport. Residential accommodation on upper floors in town centres is well -established and supported in principle, reflecting the efficient use of existing buildings and sustainable locations. Loss of Commercial Floor Space 7.2 In the recent Planning Appeal Decision (APP/R5510/W/24/3356952), the Inspector accepted the principle of intro ducing residential use to the upper floors and confirmed that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Ruislip Village Conservation Area. No concern was raised regarding the retention or marketability of the commercial unit, which maintains an active frontage and contributes to town centre vitality. 7.3 The Inspector concluded that, whilst works to the rear of the site to provide ancillary facilities to serve proposed residences would result in the loss of retail floorspace, overall it would not cause harm to the marketability of the ground floor retail unit or to the wider function and vitality of the town centre. It is considered that the current proposal is similar, in that the primary retail unit would remain unaffected, retaining an active frontage and continuing to contribute to the vitality of Ruislip Town Centre. The rear section proposed for residential use has no direct customer access and provides limited commercial value, meaning its loss is unlikely to compromise the attractiveness or viability of the ground floor retail use, which would retain an active frontage, or the wider shopping parade. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.4 In this context, the mixed-use arrangement aligns with London Plan Policies SD6 and SD7, and Policies DMTC1 and DMTC2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two. While the proposal reduces the overall Class E space on the ground floor, it does not lead to the total loss of protected employment floorspace and does not conflict with London Plan employment policies. Retention of the Class E unit at ground floor level ensures continued commercial activity, while the conversion of the first floor to residential use is supported by Policy DMH2, which allows such changes where high -quality accommodation can be achieved, and the functioning of the commercial unit is not compromised . Accordingly, the land- use aspects of the proposal are acceptable in principle. Housing Mix and Need 7.5 Paragraph 124 of the NPPF promotes the efficient use of land to meet housing needs and London Plan Policy GG4 seeks to ensure that more homes are delivered, whilst Policy H1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 provides that the Council will seek to meet and exceed it s housing growth targets, with Policy T1 steering development to the most appropri ate locations in order to reduce their impact on the transport network and encourage access by sustainable modes including cycling and walking. There is no objecti on in principle to introducing additional residential development to the upper floor and rear of the site. It is noted that the Council currently has a five -year supply of deliverable housing sites, therefore, the “tilted balance” under paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF does not apply. Nevertheless, the modest, net contribution of 4 residential units weighs in favour of the proposal. 7.6 The development would provide 4 x 1-bedroom 1 person and 1 x 1-bedroom, 2- person units. The Council's current information on housing need indicates a borough -wide requirement for larger affordable and private market units, particularly three-bedroom properties. While the proposed housing mix does not include a 3-bedroom family home, given the town centre location, it is on-balance acceptable. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would consist of an appropriate housing mix in accordance with Policy DMH 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) and Policy H10 of the London Plan (2021). Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.7 Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Bu ildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Paragraphs 138 and 140 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) confirm that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets, with harm requiring clear and convincing justification. 7.8 The application site lies within the Ruis lip Village Conservation Area and forms part of a traditional 1920s High Street frontage characterised by red brick facades, vertically proportioned windows, parapet detailing and a consistent commercial ground floor rhythm. The host property is a Locally Listed building and makes a Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press positive contribution to the significance of the conservation area. Upper-floor residential uses are a well -established feature of the High Street, and the form, scale and frontage articulation of the building are typical of the parade. 7.9 While it is noted that Hillingdon’s Con servation Officer has objected to the proposed two storey rear extension, the Planning Inspector for the previous appeal confirmed that the proposed extensions and alterations would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. The Inspector noted that the additions are located to the rear, are visually recessive in the to wnscape and would not disrupt the established rhythm or architectural qualities of the principal elevation. This forms an important material consideration and establishes that, subject to detailing, the broad scale and massing of works at the rear are acceptable in heritage terms. 7.10 The Inspector’s heritage assessment also placed greater emphasis on the front of the building. The changes to the front were considered modest and preserved the architectural interest of the building. The Inspector also noted that the rear extension would be small in scale and would not cause a sense of overdevelopment given the overall size in the context of the existing building. The back building was also considered to partially scree n the changes to the locally listed building from the car park and the alleyway. This ensured that it would not appear overly prominent. The Inspector also highlighte d fenestration as sympathetic to the regular pattern of windows along the parade. 7.11 Whilst the comments from the Conservation Officer have been recognised, given the development proposed under the current scheme would be very similar to the appeal scheme (which the Inspector found acceptable), it would not be justifiable in refusing the scheme on design grounds. In considering the scale of the rear extension, it is also relevant that the application site and a number of neighbouring properties along this part of the High Street already benefit from multi -storey rear projections. These additions form an established part of the built pattern to the rear, which is largely concealed from public viewpoints. The proposed two-storey rear extension would not project beyo nd the depth of comparable extensions on adjoining plots. 7.12 In addition, the architectural detailing at the rear draws on the materials and typologies present in the host building, with matching brickwork and sympathetic window proportions ensuring continuity between the existing building and the extended elements. 7.13 The current proposal retains the full commercial frontage, preserving its established proportions and architectural detailing. No changes are proposed to the principal elevation , other than the replacement of the front door, details of which are conditioned (Condition 11), ensuring that the contribution the building makes to the character of the conservation area is maintained. 7.14 The proposed alterations to the building at the rear include the demolition of the corner to make way for a private terrace, which would open up the corner. Other alterations include changes to the fenestration, introduction of green roof Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press elements, and the refined arrangement of the upper terrace structure. All of these other elements remain visually contained and would not be perceptible from key public viewpoints along the High Street. Figure 5: CGI showing proposed rear elevations from the west of the site 7.15 Taking account of the site’s location with in a designated conservation area, the Locally Listed status of the building, an d the previous Inspector’s findings, the design approach, scale, siting and material treatment of the proposal are considered to preserve the character and appearance of the area. No harm has been identified, and the development is acceptable on design grounds. The proposal accords with Policies HE1 and BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012); Policies DMHB 1, DMHB 4 and DMHB 11 of the Local Plan: Part 2 (2020); Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021); and the provisions of the NPPF (2024). Heritage 7.16 The site is located within the Ruislip Village Conservation Area, which is a designated heritage asset. The building is also Locally Listed and forms part of a consistent and well -preserved 1920s High Street frontage that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the conservation area. 7.17 The previous appeal decision is a significant material consideration. The Inspector concluded that the proposed extensions and external alterations would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and raised no heritage objections to the principle or scale of development at the rear of the building. The current proposal is modestly reduced in ex tent and continues to retain the entire High Street elevation without alteration (other than the replacement of the front door). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 6: CGI showing the northern fl ank elevation and communal terrace and rear flat Figure 7:CGI showing longer views from the west of the proposed rear elevation from car park 7.18 The proposal maintains the established proportions, detailing and active commercial frontage of the host building. The rear additions remain visually recessive and would not be perceptible from the primary public realm. The use of matching brickwork and sympathetic fenestration ensures integration with the existing building fabric. On this basis, the development is considered to preserve Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the significance of both the Locally Listed building and the wider conservation area. Residential Amenity 7.19 Paragraph 135 of the NPPF (2024) requires that development creates places that are safe, inclusive and accessible, promotes health and well -being, and secures a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers. Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020) confirms that development must not adversely affect the amenity, daylight or sunlight of adjoining occupiers. Paragraphs 5.38 –5.41 of the Local Plan Part Two set expectations regarding privacy, separation distances, outlook and the avoidance of undue enclosure, with a minimum 21-metre separation generally required between facing habitable-room windows unless strong justification exists. These policies collectively require that new development avoids unacceptable overlooking, overshadowing, noise or overbearing impacts. Daylight/Sunlight 7.20 A daylight and sunlight assessment has been submitted and reviewed. The assessment considers the impact on neighbouring property nos. 2 Ickenham Road, 8 Ickenham Road and 78-80 High Street, scoping in a total of 17 windows into the assessment. Please refer to pages 9 and 11 of the report for the results. The assessment was undertaken in accordance with the BRE guidance (Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight) and focused on the most sensitive and potentially affected windows, including those serving principal living rooms and bedrooms of adjoining properties. The assessment used the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) to evaluate daylight and Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH) to assess sunlight availability. 7.21 The results demonstrate that all 17 windows assessed pass the criteria set out in the 2022 BRE guidelines . All windows would retain in excess of 80% of their existing VSC values, meaning that no material loss of daylight would occur to any neighbouring window. Similarly, all windows facing within 90 degrees of due south would continue to receive sunlight level s exceeding the BRE targets for both annual and winter periods. 7.22 Whilst it is noted that the report considers the previous scheme, both the previous and current schemes are considered materially the same with regards to potential daylight and sunlight impacts , noting that the only changes are to the internal configurations and private terrace to Flat 3. It concludes that all neighbouring windows continue to meet the BRE guidance for daylight and sunlight after the proposed development. Privacy and Outlook 7.23 The appeal Inspector previously identified concerns centred on the relationship with the first-floor rear bedroom window of No. 80A, noting that the proposed Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press boundary treatment created a tunnelling effect resulting in a sense of enclosure and restricted outlook. Figure 8: Site photo showing relationship between the application site and the residential bedroom window at No.80a 7.24 In response, the present application increases the setback of the boundary fence by a further metre, reducing its prominence and widening the visual corridor adjacent to the affected window. There is an existing brick wall which would be retained. The revised fence alignment provides a more open aspect and materially improves the relationship previously identified as harmful. There would no longer be a tunnelling effect to this adjoining neighbour. Figure 9: CGI image showing the additiona l set in of the fence from the nearest window at 80a High Street Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.25 The proposed extension at the rear remains broadly in line with existing two-storey forms already present on the neighbouring plot and do not project further than established structures. Given the additi onal spacing provided to the mutual boundary and the modest height of the boundary fence (1.8m), the development is not considered to give rise to unacceptable enclosure or loss of outlook for adjoining properties. The appeal Inspecto r did not find harm arising from the overall scale or positioning of the rear extensions, and the current amendments further reduce the potential for adverse effects. 7.26 Concerns have been raised regarding potential overlooking and loitering associated with the new external staircase leading to the communal terrace. It is acknowledged that there is a change in levels between the application site and neighbouring properties, including the conservatory at No. 2A Ickenham Road. In the previous scheme considered at appeal, access to the rear building was provided via an enclosed walkway, which prevented any possibility of overlooking. Figure 10: Site photo showing relationship between the application site and the residential conservatory at No.2a Ickenham Road 7.27 In the current proposal, the external staircase could, at its uppermost landing, allow some degree of views towards th e neighbouring conservatory. To address this, Condition 8 is proposed and requires the installation of a 1.8- metre privacy screen at the top of the staircase to pr event direct overlooking. At the lower sections of the staircase, existing boundary treatments provide adequate Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press screening, and no undue loss of privacy is anticipated. Subject to the privacy- screen condition, and with the terrace restricted to quiet enjoyment (Condition 13), the proposal would not result in harmf ul overlooking or loitering impacts on neighbouring occupiers. 7.28 Fenestration alterations have been desi gned to avoid direct window-to-window alignment. Where new windows face the Thomas Moore building, they do so obliquely and are screened by the terrace balustrades and privacy measures. The separation distance across the alleyway remains consistent with the existing town centre pattern, where tighter grain relationships are common. The proposal does not introduce new, elevated or unduly prom inent windows capable of giving rise to unacceptable overlooking of habit able rooms or private amenity spaces. Sightlines from the terrace areas have been managed through privacy screening, and the depth and position of the terrace structures prevent harmful direct overlooking into nearby balconies or windows. 7.29 With the amendments to the fenestration and the screening of the Flat 3 terrace, the revised scheme addresses the concerns regarding privacy to nearby residents particularly those within the Thomas Moore building. The first-floor balcony serving these residents would no longer be overlooked and conditions have been attached to ensure that the screening is installed prior to first occupation of the new residential units. Noise, Activity and Disturbance 7.30 London Plan Policy D14 seeks to avoid si gnificant adverse noise impacts on health and quality of life. The site is located within a busy town centre environment where a degree of activity, servicing and pedestrian movement is established and characteristic . The introduction of five upper- floor residential units is not anticipated to give rise to movements ma terially different from those typically associated with small-scale town centre residential conversions. 7.31 The communal terrace is located at first-floor level and would be enclosed by privacy screening to prevent overlooking. While its use will introduce some level of outdoor activity, the terrace serves only f our of the five units and the scale of residential occupation is modest. Its position within the rear courtyard, where ambient noise is already influenced by bo th commercial and residential uses, further limits the potential for disturbance. The previous Inspector also confirmed that general residential a ctivity at this site was acceptable in principle and they did not consider the terrace a concern from a noise perspective. To provide additional assurance and address neighbour concerns, Condition 13 is proposed preventing amplified music from the terrace . Subject to this control, the terrace is not considered to give rise to noise or acti vity that would materially undermine the amenity of surrounding occupiers. 7.32 Construction-phase effects cannot be considered grounds for refusal, but can be controlled through a Construction Management Plan secured by Condition 5 to minimise noise, dust and disruption to neighbours. Such a condition is standard Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press practice for constrained town centre si tes and would be effective in managing temporary impacts. 7.33 In light of the Inspector’s previous conclusions, the amendments made to the relationship with No. 80A, the manage d sightlines from terraces, the BRE- compliant daylight/sunlight findings and the urban context of the site, the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of surrounding occupiers. The proposal therefore accords with Policy DMHB 11 of the Local Plan Part Two (2020), Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Paragraph 135 of the NPPF (2024). Quality of Residential Accommodation (Internal and External) Internal 7.34 Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) sets out minimum standards for internal floorspace, bedroom sizes, functional lay outs, daylight and ventilation. Policy DMHB 16 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020) similarly requires that new residential units provide a high standard of internal living accommodation, including adequate outlook, daylight and internal arrangement. 7.35 All five proposed units meet or exceed the minimum Gross Internal Area (GIA) standards set out in Table 3.1 of the London Plan, and all bedrooms meet the required minimum sizes and widths for single and double rooms. The internal layouts provide functional circulation space and appropriately sized habitable rooms. Ceiling heights exceed 2.5 metres for Flats 1 to 4, with Flat 5 achieving approximately 2.46 metres due to structural constraints. The London Plan recognises that lower heights may be acceptable within conversions and extensions where overall amenity remains satisfactory, and in this case the modest shortfall is not considered to result in poor living conditions. 7.36 A daylight and sunlight assessment has been submitted. While it is based on the previous unit configuration, it demonstrates that principal habitable rooms achieve appropriate levels of daylight. Policy DMHB 11 and paragraph 5.41 of the Local Plan Part 2 require natural light to be assessed in accordance with BRE guidance, and the analysis indicates compliance with recommended Average Daylight Factor (ADF) and Vertical Sky Compo nent (VSC) thresholds. No evidence suggests that the updated layout would materially worsen daylight performance. 7.37 The appeal Inspector’s findings are an important material consideration. The Inspector confirmed that Flats 1 and 4, although single -aspect, w ould provide acceptable living conditions subject to mi tigation for overheating and ventilation, noting the tall floor -to-ceiling heights and the potential to secure glazing specifications and mechanical ventilation by condition. The Inspector was satisfied that all proposed flats met London Plan space standards and that the layouts of Flats 2 and 5 were adequate in terms of width and overall usability. The Inspector’s concerns were specifically limited to: (i) the poor outlook from the bedrooms in Flat 3, and (ii) the absence of private outdoor space for four of the five units. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.38 In this revised scheme, Flat 3 has been reconfigured to address Officers previous concerns regarding outlook. The unit now comprises a dual- aspect kitchen/living/dining room with a primary north -facing window across the terrace and a secondary side -facing window providing additional light. CGI imagery submitted by the applicant demonstrates that the main habitable space now benefits from an outward view, materially improving upon the outlook criticised in the dismissed appeal. The small study room within Flat 3 is served by a rooflight; as it is not a habitable room, its daylight provision is acceptable. The improved outlook is demonstrated through figures 11 and 12 below. Figure 11: Internal CGI of Flat 3 showing views from the habitable living space 7.39 Whilst it is recognised that one of the windows serving Flat 3 would face the Thomas Moore flank wall. A level of outlook would still be visible from this room along this elevation. The additional window facing northwards, creates a second fenestration opening to living space which ensures a suitable overall standard of accommodation for future occupants. Similarly for the bedroom, the floor to ceiling access door ensures that there would be a sufficient lev el of visible skyline past the terrace screening. Figure 12: Internal CGI of bedroom within Flat 3 showing large doors serving bedroom Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.40 Internal relationships between units have been arranged to avoid harmful overlooking. The communal terrace is situated at a lower level relative to the main building, meaning it would not result in overlooking into Flat 2, whose habitable windows sit above the terrace level. Flat 3 has no windows on its eastern elevation, preventing any direct intervisibility with the terrace or neighbouring properties. 7.41 As such, it is considered that future occupiers would have a good standard of living accommodation complying with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMHB 16 of the Hillingdon Local Plan, Part 2 (2020). External 7.42 Policy D6 of the London Plan and Policy DM HB 18 of the Local Plan Part Two require all new residential units to be provided with appropriate private or communal amenity space. In the previous appeal, the Inspector identified the absence of private amenity space for four of the five flats as a shortcoming, contributing to their overall conclusion that the living conditions for future occupiers were unsatisfactory. 7.43 In response, the revised scheme now provides Flat 3 with a materially improved private terrace. While the previous propos al included a small and enclosed area of limited usability, the current design increases its size, opens up the space, and integrates it directly with the main living area, resulting in a significantly better- quality private outdoor area. 7.44 In addition, the communal terrace serving the remaining units has been enlarged, landscaped and redesigned to improve functionality and usability. Although four units still rely on communal provision, the increased terrace size, enhanced green roof coverage and refined layouts deliver an improved standard of shared amenity. Figure 13: CGI birds eye view of proposed communal space and green roofs. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 14: CGI showing proposed view of private terrace for Flat 3. 7.45 Whilst this shortfall is acknowledged, the site benefits from close proximity to a wide range of publicly accessible open spaces. Taking into account the highly accessible town centre location, the physica l constraints of the existing building, and the enhancements made to both the private terrace for Flat 3 and the enlarged communal terrace, the overall level of amenity provision is considered acceptable in this context. The scheme therefore provides a balanced and proportionate response to the Inspector’s findings and is judged to offer an appropriate standard of living conditions for future occupiers , according with London Plan Policy D6, Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 18 of the Local Plan Part Two (2020), and the relevant provisions of the NPPF (2024). Highways and Parking 7.46 The site is located within Ruislip Town Centre, where a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) operates throughout the day and the majority of surrounding kerbside space is designated as pay -and-display. The site benefits from a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 4, reflecting good access to bus services and Ruislip Underground Station. In such locations, r eliance on private vehicles is typically lower and car-free development is supported by London Plan policies. 7.47 No on-site parking is proposed. Although the maximum London Plan standard for the five units would allow between two and four parking spaces, Policy T6.1 confirms that car-free schemes are appropriate in accessible town centre settings. The Highway Authority has confirmed that any potential shortfall is marginal and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press would be unlikely to result in unacceptable parking stress, given the absence of residential parking permits within the surrounding CPZ, the controlled nature of nearby parking bays, and the Inspector’s previous appeal findings that the earlier, similar scheme raised no highways concerns. 7.48 Cycle parking is proposed within an enclosed store at ground-floor level to the rear of the building, providing eight long-stay spaces, which meets the requirements of London Plan Policy T5. This location is accessible from the rear service alley and is considered acceptable. Short-stay cycle parking for visitors can be accommodated within the public realm. 7.49 Refuse storage is also positioned at ground-f loor level to the rear, with collection taking place from the established servicing route between No. 6 High Street and the Thomas Moore building. This arrangement mirrors the servicing pattern for the existing commercial unit and is conside red acceptable for a development of this scale. The Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposed refuse and servicing strategy. 7.50 The development is expected to generate very limited additional vehicle movements due to its car -free nature. Trip generation associated with servicing, deliveries and trade access would remain comparable to existing levels and can be accommodated safely within the local network. Accordingly, the proposal would not give rise to adverse impacts on congestion or highway safety. 7.51 Given the constrained town centre environment and the proximity to residential properties, a Construction Management Plan will be required by Condition 5 to ensure construction traffic, deliveries an d contractor activity are managed to prevent disruption to the adjacent highway and footway network. 7.52 The Highway Authority has reviewed th e application and raises no objection, subject to conditions relating to cycle parking and construction management. The proposal is therefore acceptable in highways and parking terms and complies with Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020) and Policies T4, T5 and T6 of the London Plan (2021). Noise 7.53 Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021) requires development to minimise noise impacts and protect the health and quality of life of occupants. The NPPF (2024) also requires that developments provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. 7.54 The site lies within a busy town centre context where a degree of activity, pedestrian movement, and servicing is already established. The proposed use of the upper floors as five residential unit s would not result in levels of operational noise that would be out of keeping with the High Street environment. The scheme would not introduce external plant or equipm ent likely to result in harmful noise emissions, and any internal ventilation or extraction equipment can be adequately controlled by Condition 7. However, in orde r to protect the amenity of future and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press neighbouring occupants, the ground floor Class E unit hours of use are proposed to be limited by Condition 15. 7.55 Concerns relating to construction noise are acknowledged, particularly given nearby residential accommodation. Construction -related impacts are temporary and can be controlled through a Construction Management Plan, secured by Condition 5, to ensure that noise, dust, vehicle movements and working hours are appropriately managed. Subject to this safeguard, the proposal is considered acceptable in noise terms. Air Quality 7.56 The site is located within the Hillingdon Air Quality Focus Area and the Ruislip Town Centre NO₂ Focus Area, where elevated pollutant levels and high levels of human exposure require careful assessment. Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMEI 14 of the Local Plan Part Two (2020) require development to minimise air quality impacts and avoid worsening local exposure. 7.57 An Air Quality Neutral Statement has been submitted. Initial review identified that vehicle trip generation associated with the scheme resulted in a modest exceedance of the transport emissions benchmark. Further modelling confirmed that the residual impact was very small in scale, reflecting the development’s car- free nature, the limited number of units and the surrounding parking controls which restrict car ownership. The proposed all -electric heating strategy and increased green roof coverage provide additional on-site mitigation. 7.58 The Council’s Air Quality Officer raised no objection, confirming that any residual impacts would be negligible and capable of mitigation through planning controls. Subject to the delivery of air quality mitigation measures, as secured under Conditions 2, 3 and 6, the proposal is considered acceptable in air quality terms. Accessibility 7.59 Policy D7 of the London Plan (2021) se ts requirements for accessible and adaptable dwellings. The proposal relates to the conversion of the upper floors of an existing building, where full step-free and M4(2) compliance cannot reasonably be achieved without extensive structur al alteration. The Access Officer has confirmed that, in such circumstances, strict application of D7 is not required. No objections are raised from an accessibility perspective. Trees and Landscaping 7.60 The site consists of a built-up High Street plot with no on-site trees or landscape features of significance. The rear courtyard is hard -surfaced and enclosed by existing built form. The proposed development includes the introduction of a green roof across the first-floor terrace areas, which would contribute positively to visual amenity and biodiversity within the constrained rear environment. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.61 The increased extent of green roof plan ting represents an enhancement relative to the existing condition. Subject to Condition 6 which secures the planting specification and maintenance regime for the green roof, the development is considered to accord with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020). Biodiversity Net gain 7.62 The Environment Act 2021 requires new development to achieve a minimum 10% biodiversity net gain (BNG), measured using the statutory biodiversity metric. 7.63 The site comprises existing built form and hardstanding, with no landscaping of ecological value. The proposal includes the introduction of green roof areas, which provide habitat creation and an overall uplift compared with the existing baseline. Given the very small footprint and urban cont ext, the proposal is not required to provide statutory 10% BNG but nevertheless delivers ecological enhancement through the green roof provision. Ecology 7.64 Policy DMHB 14 of the Local Plan Part Two (2020) and Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021) require development to prot ect biodiversity and, where possible, secure enhancements. The existing site comprises a heavily built-up rear service yard and brick structures with no vegetation capable of supporting protected species. The proposed development meets the de-minimis exemption for mandatory BNG, i.e. it affects less than 25 square meters of on- site habitat and less than 5 meters of linear habitat (such as hedgerow). 7.65 Nonetheless, it is considered that the proposed soft landscaping scheme and green roof, whilst limited in scale, would pr ovide biodiversity enhancements, to accord with paragraph 187 if the NPPF and Policy EM7 of the Local Plan. The green roof proposals offer new planting and ecological features suited to an urban setting. The development is therefore a cceptable in ecological terms subject to Condition 6 which secures submission and compliance with a detailed green roof specification. 7.66 A Preliminary Roost Assessment (June 2024) identified several low-medium potential roost features, although the building was assessed overall as having low potential due to its urban context, ligh t levels and lack of habitat connectivity. A Bat Emergence Survey (July 2024) recorded no bats emerging, entering or active around the structure, confirming likely absence. An updated survey undertaken in August 2025 by Ethos Environmental Planning accessed all parts of the building, including the loft void, and confirmed negligible bat roost potential, no evidence of bats and a high level of confidence that bats are not roosting in the building. The ecologist confirms that no further surve ys or mitigation are required, and that an updated survey would only be necessary if more than two years lapse beyond August 2025. As Condition 3 requires the development to accord with the approved ecological documents, this requirement is secured, and no separate bat condition is necessary. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.67 On this basis, the proposal complies with wildlife legislation and Policy DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020). Flooding and Drainage 7.68 The site is in Flood Zone 1. The proposal involves the conversion of the upper floors of an existing building to resident ial, and a rear extension to the first and second floor which does not increase site coverage. Therefore, there are no additional drainage or flooding concerns, beyond that which can be dealt with through the Building Regulations process. Therefore, the proposed development is not expected to increase flood risk on -site or elsewhere, in accordance with Policies DMEI 9 and DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) and Polic ies SI 12 and SI 13 of the London Plan (2021). Sustainability 7.69 Given the nature of the proposal, there are inherent limitations in applying the full energy hierarchy requirements typically associated with new -build development. However, the re-use of the existing structure represents a sustainable approach that reduces embodied carbon compared with de molition and rebuild. In this context, the most appropriate and proportionate sustainability requirement relates to water efficiency. 7.70 The London Plan (Policy SI 5) and Policy DMEI 2 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020) require new dwellings to minimise water consumption and to be designed to meet the optional Building Regulations target. Condition 12 is proposed and requires each unit to achieve a maximum indoor water consumption of 105 litres per person per day, which is considered both achiev able and proportionate for a conversion of this scale 7.71 Beyond this, general energy efficiency measures and carbon performance improvements will be secured through the Building Regulations process, which is the appropriate mechanism for smaller conversion schemes where large -scale building fabric interventions are not feasible. 7.72 Subject to Condition 12, the proposal is considered compliant with Policies SI 5 and SI 2 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMEI 2 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Fire Safety 7.73 Policy D12 of the London Plan (2021) requires all major and non-major residential developments involving the creation of one or more dwellings to demonstrate that fire safety has been considered from the earliest stages of design. A Fire Statement, prepared by a suitably competent assessor, is required to show compliance with the criteria in Poli cy D12(B), including means of escape, Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press evacuation strategy, access for firefighting, and suitable fire safety measures for both new and existing building elements. 7.74 No Fire Statement has been submitted with this application. Given the proposed creation of five self -contained flats, the introduction of a communal terrace, and the mixed-use nature of the building (commercial at ground floor with residential above), a Fire Statement is required to ensure safe means of escape and appropriate fire-fighting access. 7.75 These matters can be satisfactorily addressed by condition. Condition 10 requires submission and approval of a Fire Statement prior to commencement of development. Subject to this condition, the proposal is considered capable of meeting the requirements of London Plan Policy D12 (2021). Archaeology 7.76 The site is located within the Ruislip Motte & Bailey Archaeological Priority Area, however, having regard to the nature of the proposed development, it is not considered that the proposal would adversely impact upon archaeological remains. Land Contamination 7.77 The site is identified as being within an area of potential land contamination. The proposed development is limited to inter nal works at ground floor level, together with the works above first-floor level. 7.78 On the basis of the submitted information, the proposal would not give rise to land contamination risks and is considered acceptable in this regard. Confirmation is currently being sought from the Council’s Land Contamination Officer, and any updates will be reported to Members by way of an addendum, if necessary. 8 Other Matters Human Rights 8.1 The development has been assessed against the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and in particular Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the Act itself. This Act gives further effect to the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to the applicant's reasonable development rights and expectations which have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / the Devel opment Plan and Central Government Guidance. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 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 Planning Obligations 8.3 Policy DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan : Part 2 (2020) states that whilst infrastructure requirements will be predominantly addressed through the Council's Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) , p lanning obligations will be sought on a scheme-by-scheme basis. Applications that fail to secure an appropriate Planning Obligation to make the proposal acceptable will be refused. 8.4 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulation 2010 (Regulations issued Pursuant to the 2008 Act) and the NPPF have put three tests on the use of planning obligations into law. It is unlawful (since 6th Apri l 2010) to request planning obligations that do no t meet the following tests: i. necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; ii. directly related to the development; and iii. fairly and reasonable related in scale and kind to the development. 8.5 The effect of the Regulations is that the Council must apply the tests much more strictly and is only to ask for planning obligations that are genuinely necessary and directly related to a development. Should planning obligations be requested that do not meet the policy tests the Council would have acted unlawfully and could be subject to a High Court challenge. 8.6 On the basis of the NPPF and the Comm unity Infrastructure Levy Regulation 2010, it is not considered reasonable to request that any obligations be secured under a Section 106 legal agreement. Community Infrastructure Levy 8.7 The Council adopted its own Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on 1st August 2014. The Hillingdon CIL charge for resi dential developments is £95 per square metre of additional floor space. This is in addition to the Mayoral CIL charge of £60 per square metre. CIL rates are in dex linked. The proposal involves the erection of new dwellings and is therefore CIL liable if planning permission is granted. 9 Planning Balance 9.1 The development would deliver five resid ential units (net

Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Samuel Patten 36969/APP/2025/2303 Date Application Valid: 03.09.2025 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 30.01.2026 Application Type: Full Ward: Ruislip Applicant: Waitrose Ltd. Site Address: 9 Kingsend, Ruislip Proposal: Facade alteration for the installation of On Demand Grocery Hatch (ODG) at ground floor level, with associated parking space for delivery vehicles. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 6 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (the Council has a financial liability) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 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 installation of an On-Demand Grocery hatch to the exterior of a supermarket building, currently occupied by Waitrose Ltd. The proposal would also include the alloca tion of a dedicated parking space for delivery vehicles in the supermarket ’s customer car park , accessed off Wood Lane, Ruislip. 1.2 The purpose of the On-Demand Grocery hatch is to allow online orders to be collected by delivery drivers without needing to enter into the store , with the dedicated parking space offering a place for riders to safely park their bikes and reducing the risk of fly/illegal parking. 1.3 The Freehold of the customer car park is owned by the London Borough of Hillingdon. Therefore, whilst the Council is not the applicant, for transparency and in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation, the application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination. 1.4 In terms of design, the proposed On-Demand Grocery hatch and dedicated parking space are considered to be minor additions to the site , with both being located on the southern side of the site. The southern elevation of the supermarket building is facing away from the nearby Ruislip Village Conservation Area and is located close to the London Underground railway line. Therefore, O fficers consider that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the building nor the surrounding local area. 1.5 In terms of impacts upon neighbouring amenity, the collection of online orders currently occurs at the site. The closest residential properties would be located along Kingsend, with a separation distance of circa 40m. Therefore, there is likely to be minimal disruption to amenities of adjacent neighbouring properties . A condition restricting operating hours has been recommended . A further condition requiring an Operational Management Plan providing further detail on the management of the delivery service has been recommended prior to the delivery hatch becoming operationa l. This would provide further controls on how the delivery drivers would access the site, thereby mitigating against wider impact on the pedestrian pathways and nearby residents. 1.6 Hillingdon Council’s Highways Team raised concerns regarding potential fly/illegal parking of bike riders. Following these comments, the applicant provided amended details which included the allocation of a dedicated parking space within acceptable distance from the delivery hatch. The Highways Officer has reviewed these additional details and is satisfied that the proposal would not lead to Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press significant harm to highway safety both for pedestrians and vehicles. A condition requiring the installation of signage and anchor points for the parking space prior to use of the On-Demand Delivery hatch has also been recommended, to ensure the drivers are aware of the dedicated parking area. Subject to the parking and adverts being installed prior to the use of the hatch, it is considered that the proposal would not lead to any wider highway concerns. 1.7 It is concluded that the proposal complies with the Development Plan, and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. Therefore, this planning application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site comprises a part single, part two storey supermarket building, with an associated customer car park located to the west, which is accessed via Wood Lane, and a staff/store delivery entrance to the north, which is accessed via Kingsend. 2.2 To the south of the site runs the Londo n Underground and to the east is Ruislip Underground station and a block of residential flats, separated from the site by West End Road. In relation to West End Road, the supermarket site is located at lower level , due to the railway bridge over the underground line. There is a pedestrian access to the site from West End Road. 2.3 The site is located on the fringes of the Ruislip Village Conservation Area, with the boundary of the conservation area being located on the n orthern side of the site along Kingsend. This site is also cla ssified as being with Ruislip Town Centre, which is designated a primary shopping area. Figure 1: Aerial View of Application Site Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Location Plan (Locations of pr oposal outlined in red, and entire site outlined in blue) Figure 3: Image from customer car park facing towards supermarket building. 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the installation of an On-Demand Grocery hatch with associated parking space for delivery vehicles. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3.2 The purpose of the On-demand Grocery hatch is to allow online orders to be collected without the need for the delivery drivers to enter the store. These delivery collections will take place between the hours of 07:00 - 22:30 Monday to Sunday. This would mean that some collections would lie outside of regular store opening hours which are 08:00 - 21:00 Monday to Saturday, and 10:00 - 16:00 Sunday. It should be noted that the hatch will only be used for the collection of online orders fro m approved delivery apps by delivery riders/drivers and not directly by the customers. 3.3 During the application process, amendments were made to the proposal following initial comments made by Hillingdon Council’s Highways Team regarding concerns around highway safety. This included the allocation of a dedicated parking space within the customer car park that would be used by delivery riders when collecting from theOn-Demand Grocery hatch. The proposed parking space would be located in close proximity to the hatch , with a separation distance of around 18.00m. Figure 4: Proposed Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 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 10 Neighbouring Proper ties, Ruislip Residents Associ ation, Hillingdon Council’s Highways Team, and Hillingdon Council’s Conservation and Urban Design team were initially consulted by letter for 21 days from 17-09-2025 until 08-10-2025. 6.2 Re-consultation letters were sent to those neighbouring properties and Ruislip Residents Association, and additional neighbouring properties were included in the consultation following amendments made to scheme. These amendments included the allocation of a dedicated parking space for delivery drivers and the expansion of the blue line for the application site. 2no. s ite notices were also displayed around the application site . This re-consultation period lasted from 19- 11-2025 until 31-12- 2025. All internal consultees were reconsulted during this process. A revised location plan which omitted properties Nos 7-11 Kingsend from the blue line (as not within the Ownership of the applicant) was received on 8th December 2025. It was not considered necessary to re- consult on this amendment, given it was not originally within the red line. 6.3 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response 1no. Individual letter has been received from a resident. 1. Concerns around the use of a footpath by delivery drivers as a shortcut. This footpath is located towards the A condition has been attached requiring an Operation al Management Plan to be submitted detailing how the Applicant will control delivery bikes from utilising this pathway. This provides an Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press northern side of the site adjacent to side and rear boundary of No.11 Kingsend and the northern flank of the Waitrose Building. This footpath provides a shortcut pedestrian access point which links Kingsend with the Waitrose customer entrance and car park. Concerns raised regarding the safety of pedestrians from its use by delivery cyclists. appropriate mitigation control going forward. The delivery hatch shall not be used until this Operational Management Plan detail has been approved. 2. Request for barriers to be installed to prevent riders using this footpath. This matter is discussed at paragraphs 7.17-7.19 of this report. In summary, the request to install a barrier along a pedestrian footpath would be considered unreasonable/ unnecessary. Matters related to cycle traffic for the delivery service can be satisfactorily captured through the Operational Management Plan condition. Ruislip Residents Association Comments 1. Clarification was sought on the blue line which initially included properties Nos 5, 7, 7a Kingsend. A revised Location Plan has been received which reflects the applicant’s current leasehold/freehold arrangement. 2. Clarification was sought regarding ownership of the public footpath The footpath between Kingsend and the customer car park is under the ownership of the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press which links Kingsend to the Waitrose customer car park. Freeholder of the supermarket site, which is currently Waitrose Ltd. 3. Request for barriers to be installed to prevent riders using this footpath. This matter is discussed at paragraphs 7.17-7.19 of this report. In summary, the request to install a barrier along a pedestrian footpath would be considered unreasonable/ unnecessary. Matters related to cycle traffic for the delivery service can be satisfactorily captured through the Operational Management Plan condition. 4. Clarification on why there are 2no. red boxes on the site location and block plans. The 2no. red boxes on the site location and block plans are the areas that relate to this application. The red box on the supermarket building is where the delivery collection hatch will be located and the red box within the car park is where the dedicated parking space will be located. 5. Request for a dedicated bike safety route to be shown on the plans. Following consultation with Highways Officers, they are satisfied that the car park is safe for bike riders to use with a 10mph speed limit, advisory walkways and has compliant car park aisle widths. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Hillingdon Council’s Highways Team No objection to the proposal subject to a pre- operation condition being added to the final decision Noted – Issues surrounding highway Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press notice related to the allocation of the dedicated parking space for delivery riders. This condition requires the details of signage and anchor points for the dedicated parking space to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to the hatch becoming operational. safety will be discussed further in the report below and the required condition has been drafted as shown in Appendix 1. Hillingdon Council’s Conservation and Urban Design Team. No objection from a design perspective. Noted – Design matters will be discussed further in Section 7.2 of this report. Hillingdon Council’s Property Services No objection to the proposal as it fits within the current user clause of the lease. Noted 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The proposal is for minor alterations to a supermarket building and to an associated customer car park. As such, the principle of development is supported by national, regional and local planning policies, subject to the considerations set out below. Design / Character and Impact on the adjacent Conservation Area. 7.2 The application site lies on the fringes of the Ruislip Village Conservation Area and any application should ensure the setting of the conservation area is preserved . The National Planning Policy Framework (C hapter 16), the London Plan (2021) Policy HC1 and the Hillingdon Local Plan Parts 1 and 2 (including policies HE1 , and DMHB 1 and DMHB 4 respectively) seek to protect, conserve and enhance heritage assets. 7.3 In addition to the above, Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 – Strategic Policies (2012), DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 – Development Management Policies (2020) are all directly relevant to the proposal. These policies can be read in fu ll in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix, and in summary, seek to secure a high quality of design that enhances and contributes to the area in terms of form, scale and materials, is appropriate to the identity and context of the townscape and would improve the quality of the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press public realm and respect local character. These aims are also supported by Chapter 12 of the NPPF. 7.4 In terms of design, the proposed On-Demand Grocery hatch and dedicated parking space are considered to be minor additions to the site . Both of these alterations would be located on the southern side of the site. The proposed on- demand grocery delivery hatch would be formed by the replacement of an existing glazed shopfront panel and would be integrated within the established shopfront. The hatch measures approximately 1 .4m wide by 0.9m high (including frame) and is modest in scale relative to the host building, ensuring that it reads as a subordinate alteration rather than a visually prominent or discordant feature. 7.5 The proposed hatch would integrate within the existing fenestration to the existing supermarket building and be set in from the main customer car park located below a canopy. The elevation drawing demonstrates that the hatch would be set flush within the existing shopfront framework, maintaining the established proportions, alignment and fenestration pattern of the ground floor elevation. No projection beyond the existing buil ding line is proposed, and the installation of a hatch would not result in any additional bulk, enclosure or visual clutter to the frontage. 7.6 Materials and colour treatment have been carefully considered. The proposed shopfront finish would match the existing, ensuring visual con sistency with the remainder of the store frontage. In the context of the existing frontage, the material would ensure a visually cohesive addition to the building and avoids the introduction of contrasting or incongruous materials that could otherwise detract from the streetscene. 7.7 The southern elevation of the supermarket building is facing away from the nearby Ruislip Village Conservation Area and is located close to the London Underground railway line. Therefore, officers consi der that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the building nor the surrounding local area or the setting of the adjoining Ruislip Village Conservation Area. 7.8 The proposal includes the allocation of an existing car parking space in close proximity to the on -demand grocery delivery hatch to support its operation. The works associated with the demarcation of this space would be minimal in nature and limited to minor surface markings and discreet signage and anchor points to identify its specific use. Given the modest scale of the works and their functional necessity, these works associated with the use would not result in visual harm or adversely affect the character or appear ance of the car park or wider site. The signage and anchor points can be appropriately controlled by condition, as requested by the Highway Authority, to ensure that it remains proportionate, unobtrusive and acceptable in visual terms. 7.9 Overall, in terms of design and protection of the adjacent heritage asset of Ruislip Village Conservation Area, the proposal respects the architectural language of the existing Waitrose building and would not harm the character or appearance of the host property or the wider townscape. Officers consider that the development Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press would be in accordance with Policy BE1 and HE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One- Strategic Policies (2012), Policies DMHB 1, DMHB 4, DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020), Polices HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024). Residential Amenity 7.10 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) seeks to ensure a satisfactory relationship with adjacent properties with no unacceptable loss of outlook, amenity, daylight and sunlight to neighbouring occupiers. 7.11 Due to the scale and location of the proposed alterations to the supermarket building and car park, officers consider th at there will be no significant harm to amenities of adjacent properties. The closest residential properties would be located on Kingsend, with No. 11 Kingsend being separated from the proposal by circa 40m. The proposed use of the hatch would be related to the existing use of the building, with online delivery collections already taking place on site during current opening hours 7.12 In order to minimise disruption to local residents, a condition has been recommended restricting the hours of operation of the hatch to between 07:00 - 22:30 Monday to Sunday, which is set out in Appendix 1. A further condition in relation to the management of the delivery service has also been recommended. This would require an Operat ional Management Plan to be submitted prior to operation of the use . This would ensure that operational details on how the commercial operator would manage the delivery service and ensure that it would not cause any significant amenity concerns to the wider neighbouring properties would be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. 7.13 Having regard to the above and subject to conditions, it is considered that the proposal would not cause undue harm to the living conditions of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policies DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020). Highways and Parking 7.14 Policies T4, T6, T6.3 of the London Plan (2021), and DMT 1, DMT 2, DMT 5 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Loca l Plan: Part 2 (2020) are relevant to the proposed development. These policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix, and in summary, seek to deliver development which is sustainable in transport terms and safeguards highway and pedestrian safety. 7.15 The proposed On-Demand Grocery hatch will have a dedicated parking space in close proximity as shown in Figure 2 and on the proposed plans in Figure 3. This space will provide a safe place for riders to park their bikes, whilst also reducing the risk of fly/illegal parking along the pedestrian routes around the car park and store. The location of this space is within acceptable distance to ensure it would Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press be practical for use by riders. The works associated with the demarcation of this space would be minimal in nature and limited to minor surface markings and discreet signage and anchor points to identify its specific use. 7.16 The Highways Officer has also recommended further details on secure anchor points to be submitted. These would be fixed or permanent features within the parking area that ri ders can secure their vehicles to while waiting or collecting orders. This would mitigate against any bikes or mopeds being left freely and potentially causing disruption to the foot ways or access routes thereby ensuring public and vehicular safety. Given the modest scale of the works and their functional necessity, the demarcation would not result in visual harm or adversely affect the character or appearance of the car park or wider site. Signage for its location would also be included, and it is sufficiently set in from the highway to not cause any impact on the surrounding highway network. 7.17 Highways officers have reviewed the scheme and are satisfied that following the addition of a dedicated parking space that highway safety concerns have been addressed. The Highways Officer has requested that a pre- operational condition be added to ensure that signage and anchor points are provided for the parking space. Planning officers have drafted this condition which is set out in Appendix 1. 7.18 Comments received during the consultation raised concern regarding the potential use of the adjacent pedestrian footpath by delivery riders and suggested the installation of a physical barrier to prevent such use. The pedestrian footpath in question provides a right of way for pedestrians from Kingsend adjacent to No 11 Kingsend. The pathway runs adjacent to the sid e boundary of No 11 Kingsend running to the rear of this neighbouring property. It provides a further pedestrian access point from Kingsend along the northern side of the Waitrose to the customer parking area associated with the building .In this instance given the modest nature of the application , it would not be reasonable or necessary to request a barrier to be installed. There is also a concern that such additional barrier could lead to accessibility issues were this element to be installed. 7.19 Given the modest nature of the proposal, which comprises a small-scale delivery hatch within an existing shopfront, the installation of a physical barrier would be disproportionate and unrelated to the physical impacts of the development itself. Instead, Officers consider a condition on the operation management of the service could mitigate against any potential anti-social behavioural issues. 7.20 To address these concerns, it is proposed that an Operational Management Plan be secured by condition prior to the use of the delivery hatch. This Plan would require the applicant to set out appropriate measures to control delivery activity, including clear instructions to drivers and cyclists prohibiting use of the pedestrian footpath and identifying appropriate access arrangements within the site. Officers are satisfied that this approach repres ents a reasonable and effective means of mitigating potential highway and pedestrian safety impacts. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.21 Comments from the consultation also requested that a dedicated cycle safety route be shown on the submitted plans. This request has been reviewed by the Highway Authority, which has confirmed that such a measure is not necessary. The site already benefits from established access arrangements that allow cyclists to enter and manoeuvre within the car par k safely. In addition, the car park operates with a low -speed environment, including a 10mph speed limit, and incorporates advisory pedestrian walkway s, which collectively provide an appropriate level of safety for all users. 7.22 In light of the above, officers are satisf ied that the existing site measures are sufficient and that the modest scale and nature of the development does not justify the introduction of a formalised or segregated cycle route. As such, the absence of a dedicated cycle safety route is not considered to give rise to highway safety concerns, and the proposal is acceptable in transport and highway terms. 7.23 Having regard to the above and subject to conditions, it is considered that the proposal would not lead to significant harm to the highway safety of the area and supermarket site. Therefore, the proposal complies with the objectives of Policies T4, T6, T6.3 of the London Plan (2021), and DMT 1, DMT 2 , DMT 5 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Advertisement 7.24 Hillingdon Council’s Highways Team have asked for signage to erected adjacent to the dedicated parking space to ensure all users of the car park are made aware of this space’s allocation. These details would be secured via condition, and the nature of the adverts means they are considered to have deemed consent under the Advert Regulations (2007) Class 2: m iscellaneous advertisements on any premises. 8 Other Matters Human Rights 8.1 The development has been assessed against the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and in particular Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the Act itself. This Act gives further effect to the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to the applicant's reasonable development rights and expectations which have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / the Devel opment Plan and Central Government Guidance. Equality 8.2 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the assessment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th January 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.3 Not applicable. The proposed development is not CIL liable. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan, and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents taken into account in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential information) are available on the Council's website here, by entering the planning application number at the top of this report and using the search facility. Planning applications are also available to inspect electronically at the Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW upon appointment, by contacting Planning Services at planning@hillingdon.gov.uk. AAPPENDICES Planning Application 36969/APP/2025/2303 Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 12 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. HO1 T Time Limit The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. HO2 A Accordance with approved The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers:- 11469-BAR-CR-ZZ-DR-T-01001_S2-P03 (Site Location Plan) 11469-BAR-CR-ZZ-DR-T-01010_S2-P03 (Block Plan) 11469-BAR-CR-XX-DR-T-03130_S2-P00 (Existing and Proposed Elevations) 11469-BAR-CR-00-DR-T-03110_S2-P00 (Proposed Ground Floor Plan) REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020), and the London Plan (2021). 3. HO4 M Materials The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building and shall thereafter be retained as such. REASON To safeguard the visual amenities of the area and to ensure that the proposed development does not have an adverse effect upon the appearance of the existing building in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 4. NONSC S Signage and Anchor Points for Parking Space Prior to the approved delivery hatch becoming operational, details of the signage and anchor points that will be provided for the parking space dedicated for use by delivery riders, as shown on approved plan ref. 11469-BAR-CR-ZZ-DR-T-01010_S2-P03, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The signage should convey the message that the parking space is for the exclusive use by delivery riders. The approved signage and anchor points shall be installed and made available for use prior to the first operation of the delivery hatch and thereafter they shall be maintained and retained for the Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 12 lifetime of the development. REASON In the interest of highway safety and traffic management, in accordance with the requirements of policies DMT 1, DMT 2, DMT 5 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 5 5. NONSC O Operational Management Plan Prior to the approved delivery hatch becoming operational, an Operational Management Plan for the use and monitoring of the delivery hatch shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Operational Management Plan shall thereafter be implemented in full and retained for the lifetime of the development. The Operational Management Plan shall include (but not be limited to) details of: a) How the delivery collection hatch will be operated by the store, including operation hours. b) The collection procedure that delivery collection riders must follow in order to utilise the delivery hatch, which should include but not be limited to the parking of cycles within the designated parking space and not loitering in and around the site for long periods of time around collection of deliveries. c) The enforcement procedure to be put in place by the store to deal with delivery riders who do not follow the collection procedure requested under point b. d) Measures to be put in place to prevent the improper use of pedestrian footpaths that run through the site by delivery riders, including but not limited to riding bikes through these spaces. e) The methods of communication that will be utilised between the parties of interest, including the relevant delivery apps and riders, in order to implement and maintain compliance with procedures requested under points b.) and c.). f) A review and monitoring procedure, including how complaints relating to behaviour of delivery riders will be logged and addressed. REASON To ensure the safe and convenient use of the site by all users, and to prevent detrimental harm to the amenities of the neighbouring properties to the site, in accordance with policies DMHB 11, DMT 1, DMT 2, DMT 5 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 6. COM22 O Operating Hours The delivery hatch shall not be used except between:- 07:00 - 22:30 Mondays - Sundays, Public or Bank Holidays. REASON To safeguard the residential amenity of the occupiers of adjoining and nearby properties in accordance with policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 12 IInformatives 1. I15 C Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work Nuisance from demolition and construction works is subject to control under The Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Clean Air Acts and other related legislation. In particular, you should ensure that the following are complied with:- A. Demolition and construction works which are audible at the site boundary shall only be carried out between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 hours Monday to Friday and between the hours of 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturday. No works shall be carried out on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. B. All noise generated during such works shall be controlled in compliance with British Standard Code of Practice BS 5228:2009. C. Dust emissions shall be controlled in compliance with the Mayor of London's Best Practice Guidance' The Control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition. D. No bonfires that create dark smoke or nuisance to local residents. You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Protection Unit (www.hillingdon.gov.uk/noise Tel. 01895 250155) or to seek prior approval under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act if you anticipate any difficulty in carrying out construction other than within the normal working hours set out in (A) above, and by means that would minimise disturbance to adjoining premises. 2. I52 C 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). I53 C Compulsory Informative (2) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020) set out below, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and to all relevant material considerations, including The London Plan (2021) and national guidance. DMHB 1 Heritage Assets Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 12 DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 4 Conservation Areas DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP HC1 (2021) Heritage conservation and growth LPP T4 (2021) Assessing and mitigating transport impacts LPP T6 (2021) Car parking LPP T6.3 (2021) Retail parking NPPF12 -24 NPPF12 2024 - Achieving well-designed places NPPF16 -24 NPPF16 2024 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment NPPF4 -24 NPPF4 2024 - Decision making D Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 12 AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History 36969/AC/94/1248 Waitrose Supermarket, 9 Kingsend Ruislip Variation of condition 10 of planning permission ref. 36969C/88/982 dated 15/09/89; condition 8 of planning permission ref. 36969G/89/2037 dated 30/11/93; condition 13 of planning permission ref. 36969C/88/982 dated 15/09/89; and condition 9 of planning permission ref. 36969G/89/2037 dated 30/11/93 to allow Sunday/Bank Holiday opening and deliveries Decision: 01-03-1995 Approved 36969/ADV/2001/102 Waitrose Supermarket, 9 Kingsend Ruislip INSTALLATION OF SEASONAL DECORATIVE BANNERS ON EXISTING LAMP POSTS Decision: 29-10-2001 Approved 36969/ADV/2003/89 Waitrose, 9 Kingsend Ruislip INSTALLATION OF VARIOUS REPLACEMENT AND NEW SIGNAGE ON BUILDING Decision: 28-01-2004 Approved 36969/ADV/2009/71 Boots The Chemist, Waitrose Supermarket 9 Kingsend Ruislip Installation of 1 non-illuminated projecting sign and 1 non-illuminated logo sign. Retrospective Application Decision: 16-12-2009 Approved 36969/ADV/2025/39 9 Kingsend Ruislip Replacement of existing signage with 2no. internally illuminated letter signs, 3no. externally illuminated flag banners, 1no. non-illuminated totem sign, 1no. non-illuminated fence mounted sign, 1no. non-illuminated car park entrance sign and 1no. non-illuminated free standing sign (Description Amended). Decision: 19-11-2025 Approved 36969/ADV/2025/39 9 Kingsend Ruislip Replacement of existing signage with 2no. internally illuminated letter signs, 3no. externally illuminated flag banners, 1no. non-illuminated totem sign, 1no. non-illuminated fence mounted sign, 1no. non-illuminated car park entrance sign and 1no. non-illuminated free standing sign (Description Amended). Decision: 19-11-2025 Approved Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 12 36969/AE/94/3127 Waitrose, 9 Kingsend Ruislip Refurbishment and replacement of various internally illuminated signs DDecision: 10-04-1995 Approved 36969/AF/94/1827 Bounded By Kingsend, West End Road And Wood Lane Ruislip Amendments to erection of 13-unit shopping mall with staff/storage accommodation and extension to Waitrose supermarket with additional new proposal to erect offices above, incorporating additional car parking Decision: 26-04-1995 Approved 36969/AH/96/0275 Waitrose, 9 Kingsend Ruislip Installation of external security shutters Decision: 21-05-1996 Approved 36969/AJ/96/0410 Bounded By Kingsend, West End Road And Wood Lane Ruislip Amendments to planning permissions ref. 36969C/88/ 982 dated 15/09/89, 36969G/89/2037 dated 30/11/93 and 36969AC/94/1248 dated 01/03/95 to include Class A2 and Class A3 uses, enlarged first floors to Units 6,7,8 and 9, minor changes to elevations and reduction in the number of parking spaces from that approved in planning permission ref. 36969C/ 88/982 dated 15/09/89; Erection of 13 unit shopping mall and extension to supermarket Decision: 08-01-1997 Approved 36969/AK/97/1819 Bounded By Kingsend, West End Road And Wood Lane Ruislip Relaxation of condition 18 of planning permission ref.36969AJ/96/410 dated 08/01/97 to allow use of Units 6, 7, 8 and 9 as a public house Decision: 21-01-1998 Approved 36969/AL/98/0343 Waitrose Supermarket, 9 Kingsend Ruislip Installation of security shutters Decision: 06-05-1998 Approved 36969/AM/98/3034 Moss Chemists, Waitrose Store, 9 Kingsend Ruislip Installation of 2 non-illuminated pole mounted poster signs and one internally illuminated projecting box sign Decision: 06-05-1998 Approved Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7 of 12 36969/AN/99/0285 Bounded By Kingsend, West End Road And Wood Lane Ruislip Removal of conditions 15 and 16 (to close gates to the shopping area and service yard at specified times) of planning permission ref.36969AJ/96/410 dated 08/11/97; Erection of 13 unit shopping mall and extension to supermarket D Decision: 05-05-1999 Approved 36969/AP/99/0287 Adj To Kingsend Court & Waitrose Store West End Road Ruislip Erection of nine single domestic garages for Kingsend Court Decision: 05-05-1999 Refused 36969/APP/2001/1664 Waitrose, 9 Kingsend Ruislip INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL LIGHT TO CAR PARK EXTENSION, REPLACEMENT OF CAR PARKING SIGNAGE, INSTALLATION OF CAR PARK CONTROL SYSTEM AND TICKET MACHINE, REPLACEMENT OF LIGHTING HEADS TO EXISTING LOCAL AUTHORITY LIGHT COLUMNS Decision: 11-09-2001 Approved 36969/APP/2001/295 Waitrose, 9 Kingsend Ruislip VARIATION OF CONDITION 9 (TO ALLOW DELIVERIES BETWEEN 0600 HOURS AND 2000 HOURS MONDAY TO SATURDAY) OF PLANNING PERMISSION REF.36969/G/89/2037 DATED 30/11/93; RETAIL DEVELOPMENT Decision: 25-07-2001 Approve Limited Time 36969/APP/2001/296 Waitrose, 9 Kingsend Ruislip VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 3 AND 4 (TO ALLOW DELIVERIES BETWEEN 0800 AND 1700 HOURS ON SUNDAYS AND BANK HOLIDAYS) OF PLANNING PERMISSION REF.36969AC/94/1248 DATED 01/03/95; RETAIL DEVELOPMENT Decision: 25-07-2001 Approve Limited Time 36969/APP/2002/133 Waitrose Supermarket Kingsend Ruislip REMOVAL OF CONDITION 13 OF PLANNING PERMISSION REF.36969C/88/982 AND CONDITION 9 OF PLANNING PERMISSION REF. 36969G/89/2037 BOTH SUBSEQUENTLY VARIED BY CONSENTS REF.36969AC/94/1248, 36969/APP/2001/295 AND 36969/APP/2001/1296 AND THEIR REPLACEMENT BY A CONDITION TO PERMIT DELIVERIES BETWEEN 0600 HOURS AND 2000 HOURS MONDAYS TO SATURDAYS AND 0800 HOURS AND 1700 HOURS SUNDAYS AND BANK HOLIDAYS, AND TO ALLOW DELIVERIES BY FREEZER CONTAINER VEHICLES, ARTICULATED HGVS AND Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 8 of 12 OTHER HGVS ON A PERMANENT BASIS DDecision: 10-07-2002 Approved 36969/APP/2004/2834 Waitrose Supermarket, 9 Kingsend Ruislip DETAILS OF SCHEME FOR MONITORING NOISE LEVELS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION 2 OF PLANNING PERMISSION REF. 6969/APP/2004/803 DATED 21.07.2004: VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 (TO ALLOW SUNDAY/BANK HOLIDAY OPENING BETWEEN 09.00 AND 16.00 HOURS INCLUSIVE) OF PLANNING PERMISSION REF. 36969AC/94/1248 DATED 1 MARCH 1995 (TO ALLOW FOR SUNDAY AND BANK HOLIDAY OPENING) Decision: 04-01-2005 Approved 36969/APP/2004/803 Waitrose Supermarket, 9 Kingsend Ruislip VARIATION TO CONDITION 2 (TO ALLOW SUNDAY/BANK HOLIDAY OPENING BETWEEN 0900 AND 1600 HOURS INCLUSIVE) OF PLANNING PERMISSION REF.36969/AC/94/1248 DATED 01/03/1995 (TO ALLOW FOR SUNDAY AND BANK HOLIDAY OPENING) Decision: 13-07-2004 Approve Limited Time 36969/APP/2005/1565 Waitrose, 9 Kingsend Ruislip REMOVAL OF CONDITION 2 OF PLANNING PERMISSION REF.36969/AC/94/1248 DATED 21/07/1994, TO ALLOW PERMANENT OPENING BETWEEN 08:30 AND 18:00 HOURS ON SUNDAYS AND BANK HOLIDAYS Decision: 04-08-2005 Approved 36969/APP/2007/275 Waitrose, 9 Kingsend Ruislip INSTALLATION OF 4 ADDITIONAL CHILLER SYSTEM PLANT UNITS. Decision: 26-03-2007 Approved 36969/APP/2011/2450 Waitrose, 9 Kingsend Ruislip Variation of condition 8 of planning permission ref. 36969/G/89/2037 dated 30/11/1993 to extend Saturday opening hours (Erection of 13 unit shopping mall; extension to supermarket; and provision of additional parking (involving demolition of Kingsend Court and 5 & 7 Kingsend)) Decision: 02-12-2011 Approved 36969/APP/2013/918 Waitrose, 9 Kingsend Ruislip Variation of condition 1 of planning permission ref: 36969/APP/2011/2450 dated 02/12/2011 Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 9 of 12 to extend opening hours (Variation of condition 8 of planning permission ref. 36969/G/89/2037 dated 30/11/1993 to extend Saturday opening hours (Erection of 13 unit shopping mall; extension to supermarket; and provision of additional parking (involving demolition of Kingsend Court and 5 & 7 Kingsend))) D Decision: 07-08-2013 Approved 36969/APP/2015/2159 Waitrose, 9 Kingsend Ruislip Variation of condition 9 (Delivery Times) of planning permission ref: 36969/APP/2013/918, dated 16/03/2013, to extend the stores delivery hours (Variation of condition 1 of planning permission ref: 36969/APP/2011/2450 dated 02/12/2011 to extend opening hours). Decision: 28-10-2015 Approved 36969/APP/2015/2167 Waitrose, 9 Kingsend Ruislip Variation of condition 1 (Delivery Times) of planning permission ref: 36969/APP/2002/133, dated 10-07-02, to extend the stores delivery hours (Removal of condition 13 of planning permission ref: 36969C/88/982 and condition 9 of planning permission ref: 36969G/89/2037, and replacement delivery hours condition) Decision: 28-10-2015 Approved 36969/APP/2015/4251 Waitrose, 9 Kingsend Ruislip Installation of new window to north east elevation Decision: 19-01-2016 Approved 36969/APP/2022/816 9 Kingsend Ruislip Variation of Condition 7 (opening hours) of planning permission ref. 36969/APP/2015/2159 (dated 03/11/2015) to extend store opening hours Decision: 20-05-2022 Approved 36969/APP/2025/2390 9 Kingsend Ruislip Proposed removal of existing plant units at roof level and installation of 2no. new DAC Units, 6no. new LT & HT CUBO Condenser units and 2no. Air Source Heat Pumps, at existing roof level. Decision: 06-11-2025 Approved 36969/C/88/0982 Waitrose, 9 Kingsend Ruislip Erection of a supermarket and retail unit with associated parking; and erection of Health Centre with associated parking (by conversion/extension of "Pax") Decision: 15-09-1989 Approved Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 10 of 12 36969/F/89/2025 Bounded By West End Rd, Wood Lane & Kingsend Ruislip Details of materials in compliance with condition 12 of Planning permission ref 36969c/88/982 dated 15th September 1989 Erection of a supermarket and retail unit with associated parking, and erection of health centre with associated parking D Decision: 29-11-1989 Approved 36969/G/89/2037 Kingsend Court 5-7 And Rear Of 13-25 Kingsend Ruislip Erection of 13 unit shopping mall; extension to supermarket; and provision of additional parking (involving demolition of Kingsend Court and 5 & 7 Kingsend) Decision: 30-11-1993 Approved 36969/P/91/3582 Rear Of Kingsend Court West End Road Ruislip Erection of advertisement hoarding Decision: 11-10-1991 Approved 36969/R/91/1454 Waitrose Supermarket, 9 Kingsend Ruislip Siting of 3 Durabank bottle banks Decision: 02-06-1992 Approve Deemed Hill. 36969/W/92/2069 Waitrose Car Park, Wood Lane Ruislip Installation of one can bank, one paper bank and one textile bank Decision: 25-03-1993 Approve Limited Time 36969/Z/93/3130 Rear Of Kingsend Court West End Road Ruislip Retention of two advertisement hoardings Decision: 15-12-1993 Approved Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 11 of 12 AAppendix 3: List of Relevant Planning Policies The following Local Plan Policies are considered relevant to the application:- Part 1 Policies: Part 2 Policies: DMHB 1 Heritage Assets DMHB 4 Conservation Areas DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP HC1 (2021) Heritage conservation and growth LPP T4 (2021) Assessing and mitigating transport impacts LPP T6 (2021) Car parking LPP T6.3 (2021) Retail parking NPPF4 -24 NPPF4 2024 - Decision making NPPF12 -24 NPPF12 2024 - Achieving well-designed places NPPF16 -24 NPPF16 2024 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 12 of 12

Meeting: Hillingdon Planning Committee Date: 14 January 2026 Time: 7:00pm Venue: Council Chamber, Civic Centre ADDENDUM SHEET Item: 8 Location: 82 to 84 High Street Amendments/Additional Information: Officer Comments: One additional consultation was carried out with the Land Contamination Officer post committee publication as the land is within an area of potential land contamination. This has been addressed within sections 7.77 and 7.78 of the published Committee report. The Contaminated Land Officer has initially advised that a land contamination informative may be required considering the site is identified to be on potentially contaminated land. Follow up comments on the wording of this informative are to be provided in due course and this would be added to the final decision. Officers are awaiting the official wording of the informative in their final comments which are due to be received by the 23/01/26 and this would satisfactorily address matters relating to land contamination. Item: 9 Location: 9 Kingsend Amendments/Additional Information: Officer Comments: Since publication of this report, there is an amendment to the wording of Condition 5. Condition 5 (Operational Management Plan) has been altered to the following wording: “Prior to the approved delivery hatch becoming operational, an Operational Management Plan for the use and monitoring of the delivery hatch shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Operational Management Plan shall thereafter be implemented in full and retained for the lifetime of the development. The Operational Management Plan shall include (but not be limited to) details of: a) How the delivery collection hatch will be operated by the store, including operation hours. The wording of Condition 5 has been amended since the publication of the report to ensure compliance with the statutory tests, in particular reasonableness. The condition continues to require an Operational Management Plan to control the use of the delivery hatch, and the amendment does not change the overall planning balance or recommendation. b) The collection procedure that delivery collection riders must follow in order to utilise the delivery hatch, which should include but not be limited to the parking of cycles within the designated parking space and not loitering in and around the site for long periods of time around collection of deliveries. c) The management and reporting procedure to be utilised by the store to identify riders who do not follow the collection procedure and, where possible, report them to the relevant delivery platform. d) Measures to discourage the improper use of pedestrian footpaths that run through the site by delivery drivers, such as clear site signage and advisory instructions to riders regarding approved access routes. e) The methods of communication that will be utilised between parties of interest, including the relevant delivery apps and riders, in order to communicate the site rules and facilitate the reporting of breaches to the delivery platform. f) A review and monitoring procedure, including how complaints relating to behaviour of delivery riders will be logged and raised with the relevant delivery platform. REASON To ensure the safe and convenient use of the site by all users, and to prevent detrimental harm to the amenities of the neighbouring properties to the site, in accordance with policies DMHB 11, DMT 1, DMT 2, DMT 5 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020).”