Planning

Meeting: Hillingdon Planning Committee Date: 11th March 2026 Time: 7:00pm Venue: Committee Room 5, Civic Centre ADDENDUM SHEET Item: 7 Location: Land at HPH2, HPH5, and Multistorey Car Park Amendments/Additional Information: Officer Comments: Amend S106 HoT viii to the following: Transport for London Contributions: Financial contributions to be calculated at the Reserved Matters stage, indicatively totalling the following amounts: a. A312 contribution up to £54,640. b. Bus Service Enhancement contribution up to £598,000. A proportional amount of each contribution, corresponding to the relevant phase, shall be paid prior to commencement of that phase. For clarity. Condition 36 (Landscape Plan) to be amended as follows: ...(ii)(d) Car Parking Layouts, including standard parking, disabled persons' parking and motorcycle parking (at a ratio of 0.2 parking spaces per residential unit , in accordance with London Plan requirements)... To ensure that car parking is allocated appropriately. Condition 50 (Parking Design & Management Plan) to be amended as follows: ... (ii) Ensure that parking spaces are allocated appropriately (with a preference for family units to be allocated car parking) , are leased and are not sold;... For clarity. The following Stage 1 comments from the Greater London Authority were mistakenly omitted from Table 4 Summary of Consultee Responses. These are copied below for information: Provided for completeness. These comments were considered and informed the Strategic Issues Summary Land use principles: The residential -led redevelopment of the site is supported in strategic land use terms, subject to the Council confirming that the resulting loss of office floorspace is acceptable. Affordable housing: 0% affordable housing, which is contrary to London Plan Policy H4 and is not supported; and the applicant’s FVA and the LPA’s independent review are being robustly scrutinised by GLA officers in order to maximise the delivery of affordable units. Early, mid and late stage viability reviews must be secured via the Section 106 agreement with any grant of permission. Urban design: A tall building is acceptable on balance given the emerging context; and overall, the proposed layout, scale and vision for open space and character is broadly supported; however, matters raised in relation to safety and quality of routes, building crowns and height variation should be addressed. Transport: An updated ATZ assessment which reviews all routes during darker hours should be undertaken; further information on the proposed pedestrian crossing on North Hyde Road and cycle movements around the site should be provided as requested; contribu tions toward bus service enhancements and TfL’s strategic Healthy Streets scheme should be secured in the s106 agreement; and, a delivery and servicing plan, construction logistics, travel plan and parking management plan should all be appropriately secured. Other issues on Environment, Sustainable infrastructure and Green infrastructure also require resolution prior to the Mayor’s decision making stage. Recommendation That Hillingdon Council be advised that the application does not comply with the Lo ndon Plan for the reasons set out in paragraph 65. Possible remedies set out in this report could address these deficiencies assessment of the planning application.

Minutes HILLINGDON PLANNING COMMITTEE 11 February 2026 Meeting held at Committee Room 5 - Civic Centre Committee Members Present: Councillors Henry Higgins (Chair) Adam Bennett (Vice-Chair) Roy Chamdal Elizabeth Garelick Raju Sansarpuri Ekta Gohil Shehryar Ahmad-Wallana Ward Councillors Present: Councillor Philip Corthorne Councillor Richard Mills Councillor Jan Sweeting LBH Officers Present: Chris Brady, Planning Team Leader Eoin Concannon, Planning Team Leader Natalie Fairclough, Legal Advisor Roz Johnson, Head of Development Management & Building Control Chris Lamb, Planning Officer Liz Penny, Democratic Services Officer Dr Alan Tilly, Transport Planning and Development Manager 124. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) Apologies were received from Councillor Keith Burrows with Councillor Shehryar Ahmad-Wallana substituting. 125. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS COMING BEFORE THIS MEETING (Agenda Item 2) There were no declarations of interest. 126. TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3) RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 14 January 2026 be agreed as an accurate record. 127. MATTERS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OR URGENT (Agenda Item 4) None. 128. 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. 129. 1 HIGH ROAD, EASTCOTE - 20101/APP/2025/72 (Agenda Item 6) Erection of outbuilding to rear of office building. Officers introduced the application noting that the proposal complied with all the relevant planning policies and was therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions specified within the report. A petition in objection to the application had been received but the lead petitioner was not in attendance. The agent for the application chose not to address the Committee Members. In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that two conditions had been proposed to ensure that, should independent office use or residential use be proposed in the future, a new planning application would be required. A question was raised by the Committee regarding parking, specifically whether the absence of additional employees - and therefore vehicle movements - could be enforced in perpetuity as part of the application. It was explained that parking standards were determined by floor space, at a ratio of one parking space per 50–100 square metres of office space. It was noted that, even with the additional outbuilding, the overall floor area would not exceed approximately 150 square metres, hence no more than three parking spaces would be required. It was confirmed that the site already provided three off-street parking spaces and that even the addition of another employee would not alter the parking requirement under the Council’s standards. Members sought clarification as to why the increase in office space was not expected to generate additional parking demand. It was reiterated that the assessment had been carried out strictly against the Council’s parking policies, which were based on floor space. The increased floor area would still comply with policy, and the existing parking provision already met the required standard. It was also clarified that, although the applicant had stated that no additional staff were proposed, the assessment had been based on land use rather than any particular operator. Therefore, even a future operator with different staffing patterns would still be bound by the same parking standards, which had been satisfied. Councillors asked whether granting approval could set a precedent for further commercial intensification in rear gardens within the locality. Officers confirmed that each application would have to be assessed on its own merits and that the approval of this proposal would not set a precedent. It was noted that other outbuildings already existed in the surrounding area, and it was considered that the proposal would not be out of character. Nevertheless, it was emphasised that all future applications would be judged individually. No further concerns were raised by the Committee. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed subject to the conditions set out in the report. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report. 130. 31 GREAT CENTRAL AVENUE, SOUTH RUISLIP - 43100/APP/2025/1424 (Agenda Item 7) Erection of a first-floor extension over existing building to create a two storey dwelling. Officers introduced the application, noting its relationship to neighbouring properties, compliance with design policies, and adherence to standards relating to character, amenity, daylight/sunlight, and parking. The application was recommended for approval. A petition in objection to the application had been received. A petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:  It was noted that the report had stat ed no significant harm would be caused to the character of the street, yet 130 neighbours - all from Great Central Avenue and adjoining roads - had signed a petition disagreeing with this, a figure higher than the incorrectly reported 101 signatures;  The petitioner acknowledged variation in house types on Great Central Avenue but noted that the proposal would create a six -bedroom property with potential for seven, which was not reflective of the typical two - or three-bedroom pattern on the road;  It was argu ed that comparisons to No. 18 were misleading because that property had only three bedrooms, unlike the scale of the proposal;  Concerns were raised that increasing bedroom numbers would likely lead to more occupants and more cars, worsening existing parkin g pressures in a permit-restricted street;  Although the report stated BRE standards would be met, the petitioner questioned whether “sufficient” daylight would be acceptable for gardens and homes, especially as daylight assessments had not been carried out on frequently used non -habitable areas such as hallways, staircases, and bathrooms;  It was highlighted that some windows, including those providing the only natural light to key internal areas, appeared not to have been properly assessed, leading to concerns about reduced light and increased risks when using stairs.  Existing drainage issues were referenced, including a recent blockage affecting multiple properties, suggesting that a six - or seven -bedroom dwelling could exacerbate the problem.  It was pointed out that No. 31 already had lawful permission for a roof alteration that would provide additional space without harming neighbours, unlike the current proposal;  It was argued that the report did not reflect the strength or scale of local concern, noting that 130 households had consistently sought updates for eight months;  It was stated that the proposal benefited only one household while negatively impacting many others and therefore the Committee was urged to refuse the application. The applicant was also in attendance and addressed the Committee highlighting the following key points:  The applicant clarified that the proposed extension was not intended for HMO use, resale, subdivision, or any commercial purpose;  It was explained that the extension was required solely to meet the needs of the applicant’s family, including two young children and a daughter with complex medical needs who was unable to climb stairs and required her own bedroom;  It was noted that additional family support frequently came fr om relatives abroad, and the existing layout with one small office and a single bathroom was inadequate for their circumstances;  It was stated that the applicant worked remotely as a senior software consultant and required a dedicated office space, which t he current property could not provide;  The applicant outlined that the six -bedroom layout would accommodate a bedroom for his daughter, a playroom for the twins, an office, a guest room, and a room for the applicant and his wife;  In response to concerns ab out the character of the street, the applicant referenced multiple nearby properties with four to five bedrooms or more and noted that several neighbouring homes had already undergone extensions;  The applicant referred to a professional daylight assessment which had concluded that BRE guidelines were met and that neighbouring properties had only non-habitable windows facing the site;  It was stated that the dwelling would remain a single -family home, with no significant increase in household water usage or d rainage impact, despite past drainage issues in the area;  It was confirmed that the household owned only two cars and had no capacity or intention to add a third, so parking demand would not increase;  Construction management would, according to the applica nt, be handled carefully, with deliveries scheduled outside peak hours and works limited to 8:30am–5:00pm;  It was noted that all relevant planning policies had been complied with and that the extension was necessary to support the applicant’s daughter’s me dical needs, the twins’ future need for separate rooms, and long-term family stability;  The applicant concluded by requesting approval of the application, noting that they may not have the financial means to pursue such works later in life. Councillors sought reassurance that the proposal was for a family home rather than an HMO and asked whether vehicle numbers would remain unchanged. The applicant confirmed that the property already had space for three cars but only two were owned, with no capacity or intention to add a third vehicle. Members asked which application the applicant intended to pursue, noting that a certificate of lawful development for the roof space had already been granted the previous July. The applicant explained that the lawful development option had originally been explored, but the resulting rooms would have been too small, leading them to pursue a full planning application to provide adequate space for their family’s needs. Ward Councillor Richard Mills was in attendance and addressed the Committee in support of petitioners. Key points highlighted included:  The Councillor confirmed that he was speaking in support of neighbouring residents who had opposed the application, referencing a petition with over 100 signatures, written objections, and his own Ward Members objections;  It was emphasised that residents did not oppose change in principle but believed the proposal to be disproportionate, harmful to local character, and dismissive of cumulative impacts required by planning policy;  Councillor Mills noted that although the report relied heavily on the street’s variation, such variation did not justify overdevelopment;  The proposal was described as turning a modest bungalow into a six - to seven-bedroom, two -storey dwelling, represen ting a major increase in scale, mass, and intensity on the plot;  It was argued that nearby two-storey homes were not comparable, as some had been entirely rebuilt or approved under different policies;  Councillor Mills highlighted that the increased ridge h eight—approximately eight metres—would sit directly beside neighbouring gardens and windows, causing an increased sense of enclosure and reduced outlook;  It was stated that compliance with minimum technical standards did not automatically equate to plannin g acceptability and that planning decisions should consider what was reasonable and fair to neighbouring residents;  Concerns were raised that the increase from two to six bedrooms provided no additional off-street parking in an area already affected by par king pressure and controls;  It was noted that increased visits from extended family, deliveries, and day-to-day comings and goings were foreseeable with a dwelling of this scale, regardless of its formal use class;  Reference to 18 Great Central Avenue as a comparable property was questioned because it was reportedly subject to ongoing planning enforcement;  It was concluded that, although the application might meet certain technical thresholds, the judgement on scale, intensity, character, and neighbour impa ct indicated that the proposal went too far;  The Committee was requested to refuse the application or, at minimum, defer it for meaningful reductions in scale to better reflect the character of Great Central Avenue and the expectations of neighbouring residents. Members enquired whether planning approval would be required, should the applicant later sell the property or seek to change its use to an HMO. It was confirmed that this was correct; Article 4 was in place and any such change of use would need new planning permission. Councillors sought clarity as to why the significant increase in size and bulk was considered appropriate and compatible with the established street scene. Officers noted that planning policy supported the creation of larger family homes and that, despite the scale of six bedrooms, the proposal remained a family dwelling. It was explained that the height and form would align with neighbouring two-storey properties, that the eaves height would be lower than that of No. 33, and that the ridgeline would reflect the character of the area. Officers found the proposal acceptable in design terms. Members requested the percentage reduction in daylight and sunlight to neighbouring gardens and side windows. It was explained that BRE guidance required at least half of a garden to receive two hours of sunlight on 21 March, and that No. 29 currently received 68% sunlight, which would fall only to 67%, representing a reduction of less than 1%. Regarding No. 33, officers confirmed that no reduction would occur, and therefore no basis for refusal existed on garden daylight grounds. In response to further questions from the Committee, it was clarified that side-facing windows serving non-habitable rooms were not afforded protection under policy, and since BRE and local standards applied only to habitable rooms, those requirements had been met. Officers therefore concluded that there were no grounds for refusal relating to daylight impacts on non-habitable side windows. Members noted that the proposed development fell within policy constraints and would be unlikely to be overturned at appeal. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed subject to the conditions set out in the report. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report. 131. 30-34 STATION ROAD, WEST DRAYTON - 31877/APP/2025/2771 (Agenda Item 8) Infilling of existing ATM aperture area, fenestration changes including the replacement of a bay window with an automatic sliding door and replacing existing single swing door with fixed shopfront glazing. It was explained that the two related applications (agenda items 8 and 9) would be introduced together for clarity. Officers also provided an update noting that additional petition signatures had been received after publication of the Committee report. It was outlined that the first application concerned alterations to the shopfront (agenda item 8), while the second related to the installation of plant equipment at the rear (agenda item 9), with both proposals assessed only within the limited scope of their described works since no change of use was involved. Officers advised that design impacts, noise assessments and planning history had been fully reviewed, confirmed that no increase in background noise or breach of policy would occur, and recommended approval of both applications. A petition had been received in objection to the application, and a petitioner was in attendance to address the Committee. Key points highlighted included:  The petitioner had lived directly behind 34 Station Road since 2006 and spoke on behalf of residents of West Drayton, particularly those on Ferrers Avenue adjoining the proposed site.  It was expressed tha t although no change of use class was proposed, the opening of a Tesco store was considered likely to alter the established character of Station Road and intensify activity in a manner uncharacteristic of the neighbourhood.  Concerns were raised that incre ased traffic, delivery vehicles, parking demand, noise, lighting, and extended operational hours would be experienced along Ferrers Avenue and would directly affect the daily access routes and living conditions.  It was highlighted that parking shortages a nd congestion were already experienced by residents, and fines had previously been issued due to the lack of available spaces.  It was argued that planning decisions should have considered not only economic factors but also the lived experience of long -standing residents, whose quality of life could be adversely affected.  The Committee was asked to consider whether the proposed development would genuinely enhance the area or instead undermine both the character of Station Road and the amenity of those who lived there. Councillors asked whether the resident had experienced any issues when the bank previously occupied the site that would not be experienced now. The resident confirmed that no such issues had occurred with the bank and noted that any problems would arise from increased Tesco-related traffic rather than from the former use. The agent for the application was also in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:  It was emphasised that the applications sought only fenestration changes and the installation of new plant equipment, and that they did not involve a change of use.  The agent clarified that a Tesco store could have opened on the site without planning permission, as the lawful use already fell within C lass E, the same use class as the former bank.  It was stated that many objections related to concerns about use rather than to the physical works, and such matters were not material considerations in this case.  It was noted that, even if use were relevan t, the site lay within a primary shopping area in a designated district centre, where retail activity was supported by local and national planning policy.  It was highlighted that officers had concluded the proposals were acceptable, would not harm local character or amenity, and would support the viability of the centre by preventing a sizeable unit from remaining vacant.  The agent added that, although the use was not in question, the development would also create employment opportunities.  It was explain ed that planning conditions could not lawfully be imposed on matters outside the scope of the applications, as such conditions would fail the required national policy tests.  The agent requested that both applications be approved in accordance with the officer recommendations. Members enquired whether the applicant had a plan for deliveries and whether any such information might reassure petitioners. The agent replied that he could not confirm specific delivery arrangements but stated that Tesco operated rigorous delivery plans, all of which would comply with existing highway restrictions; he added that the store would also require separate licensing and that statutory nuisance procedures would remain available to residents. Councillors raised questions about the size of delivery lorries and expressed concern about potential noise generated by the proposed AC units, particularly at midnight. It was explained that the noise impact assessment had been based on background measurement surveys, with plant noise tested against those levels, and that the submitted assessment demonstrated no harmful noise impact. When asked which hours the assessment had covered, the agent was unable to confirm, and officers clarified that the assessment measured background noise associated solely with the plant equipment, not with vehicle or pedestrian movements. Officers further explained that similar plant equipment already operated in the area, sometimes closer to residential properties, and that the submitted report had been reviewed by the Council’s noise specialist. It was confirmed that conditions had been imposed to ensure noise levels remained below background levels; any attempt to impose stricter conditions would likely be considered unreasonable and vulnerable to appeal. Members were reminded that delivery management fell outside the scope of planning control. Councillors asked what engagement had been undertaken with local residents, including those living above the premises. The agent responded that no engagement had been undertaken by the planning consultant but explained that Tesco ordinarily conducted community engagement once it began fitting out a store, using designated engagement managers. The Committee queried whether a noise assessment had been undertaken for flats located to the side of the building rather than only those at the front. In response, the agent confirmed that the assessment had been carried out against the nearest residential receptor but could not confirm the precise distance without the report. Officers cautioned against speculating on figures and reiterated that the technical report had been assessed in line with standard procedures, with no sound evidence available to contradict its conclusions. Ward Councillor Jan Sweeting was also in attendance and addressed the Committee highlighting the following points:  Councillor Sweeting supported the petitioners and many local residents who had submitted numerous objections to Members of the Planning Committee, Licensing Sub -Committee, Members of Parl iament, and local councillors regarding the applications affecting the building.  It was noted that although the application appeared to concern only minor alterations to the former Lloyds Bank building, the resulting occupation by a Tesco Express would, i n residents’ view, produce a major impact on the local area, adjacent businesses, nearby flats on Ferrers Avenue and Station Road, and the wider highways network.  The Councillor refuted the officers’ assertion that the development would not have a signifi cant impact, arguing that supermarket traffic would inevitably exceed that associated with a bank.  Concerns were presented about crime and antisocial behaviour, supported by information from the local police sergeant, who stated that Boots —located nearby—was already one of the highest -crime venues in the area, second only to the existing Tesco Metro on Station Road.  It was argued that approving the application would effectively position the store with the highest crime rate next to the store with the seco nd-highest in West Drayton, adjacent to a location where a murder had occurred in January 2022.  The Councillor concluded that, although the planning application appeared minor, its approval would have major long -term implications by altering the character of Station Road and negatively affecting local residents and businesses. The Chair asked Councillor Sweeting whether she had any concerns about the specific works proposed, namely the infilling of the ATM and the fenestration changes. The Councillor confirmed that these alterations were minor and did not raise concern but that she wished to highlight wider issues that had not been presented to the Licensing Sub-Committee. The Chair advised caution, noting that crime-related matters were outside the remit of the Planning Committee and emphasised the need to focus discussion strictly on the planning application. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report. 132. 30-34 STATION ROAD, WEST DRAYTON - 31877/APP/2025/2768 (Agenda Item 9) Installation of new plant solution and boundary treatment to rear of store. This application was considered in tandem with the previous application. A petition had been received in objection to the application, and a representative of the petitioners was in attendance to address the Committee. The Chair reminded the petitioner that discussion must remain limited to the plant equipment and associated noise, as the broader concerns relating to Tesco’s operations had already been addressed under the previous application. Key points highlighted included:  The petitioner acknowledged that the application related only to plant installation but argued that the officer report had taken an excessively narrow approach, stating that wider impacts such as highway safety, congestion and servicing - referenced in Local Plan policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and London Plan policy T4 - should have been considered because the plant facilitated the store’s operation.  The Chair intervened, stating that references to deliveries and operational matters were not relevant to this application and instructing the petitioner to confine comments to issues associated with the plant equipment.  The petitioner then raised concerns about potential air -quality impacts arising indirectly from the development, arguing that the plant installation was intrinsically linked to the operation of the retail business. The Ch air again clarified that such matters related to the previous item and were not material to the application under consideration.  The petitioner proceeded to address noise impacts, asserting that the submitted noise impact assessment did not accurately rep resent the likely disturbance from continuously operating plant equipment, particularly during night -time hours when background noise would be lower.  The petitioner questioned how continuous night -time noise would be mitigated and requested clarification on where comparable units existed locally and what noise assessments had accompanied those installations.  Officers reiterated that the noise report had been prepared by an appropriately qualified professional, assessed by the Council’s own noise consultan t, and conditioned to ensure plant noise remained below background levels.  The Chair again reminded the petitioner that only matters directly related to the plant equipment were relevant and emphasised that broader concerns about Tesco’s operations could not form part of the Committee’s determination.  The petitioner concluded by stating that although some matters fell outside the strict scope of the application, the plant installation would have a “vicarious effect” enabling the store to operate, which wa s why residents had raised such concerns and signed the petition. The agent for the application addressed the Committee Members highlighting the following points:  It was clarified that the proposal related to a Tesco Express, identified as a small-scale retail convenience store.  The shop floor area was confirmed as below 280 square metres to ensure compliance with Sunday Trading Act requirements.  The noise assessment had been reviewed during the meeting, and it was noted that the first-floor flatted property, located approximately 7–9 metres away, had been used as the reference point.  Appendix A (page 19) of the noise report indicated that the air-conditioning units would operate only during opening hours, anticipated to be between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., in line with typical Express-store operating times.  It was stated that the refrigeration plant equipment would run continuously, as expected for such systems.  Reference was made to previous site visits involving unauthorised plant installations that resulted in noise issues; however, it was emphasised that the proposed equipment comprised highly efficient and quiet models.  It was asserted that sufficient evidence had been submitted and that no adverse noise impact was anticipated. Members asked whether the proposed units were going to be connected to the building at ground level, explaining that the schematics were unclear. The agent replied that three units were connected at the boundary of the infill section and that one was positioned approximately one metre from the side elevation. He clarified that the units were located at the rear of the shops rather than at the front and referred to photographs that showed their position. Councillors asked about the proposed opening time of the premises, which was 6:00 a.m., and questioned whether the heat pumps would be switched on earlier so that they would be fully operational by opening time. The agent stated that he did not know the exact answer but understood that the units generally operated during store opening hours. Officers explained that a noise condition was being proposed. They stated that the condition restricted the maximum noise level regardless of opening hours or operational requirements. They added that different daytime and evening limits applied and that the evening limits were more restrictive. Members enquired whether operational time limits would be monitored and whether noise monitoring would take place periodically. It was confirmed that the condition was prescriptive but would not be actively monitored due to limited resources. It was explained that this approach was standard and that enforcement would rely on residents reporting noise concerns to planning enforcement or to the noise team through other legislation. The Committee then asked whether the condition was considered strong or whether it would be issued as an informative. Officers confirmed that a formal condition— Condition 4—had been drafted and would be enforceable, whereas an informative would not. Ward Councillor Jan Sweeting was also in attendance and spoke in support of petitioners asking the Committee to consider the planning reasons for refusing the application. Councillor Sweeting referred to Article 1.6 and disputed the assertion that the proposal would have no harmful impact on the highways network, stating that the existing network was already operating at capacity, with issues such as long queues and double parking. It was stated that the AC units and gas cooler system, although producing low-level noise, would emit continuous sound, including a noticeable hum at night. Councillor Sweeting noted that similar facilities had previously caused disturbance to neighbours, leading to enforcement action by the Council. It was further argued that the installation of the plant was essential for the supermarket’s operation, thereby establishing a direct link between the proposal and the impact on residential amenity and community well-being. Councillor Sweeting asserted that approving the application would prioritise developer rights over community rights. Members observed that the proposed noise condition appeared stringent, particularly the requirement for noise levels not to exceed 40 decibels between 11pm and 7am. It was noted that this level was comparable to a quiet library or a refrigerator hum. It was further noted that, as the proposal did not constitute a change of use, matters such as deliveries and parking could not be considered. Councillors observed that re-occupation of the vacant High Street unit would be beneficial in preventing decline, crime, and antisocial behaviour. Councillors considered the proposed conditions to be robust and noted that the Committee would require exceptionally strong grounds to overturn the officer recommendation. It was also recognised that any refusal might be overturned on appeal. Members enquired whether the new fencing and plant enclosure would reduce rear access or increase pressure on on-street parking. Officers responded that the location in question was not an area used for parking by the unit. It was explained that a sufficient amount of pay-and-display parking was located directly outside the premises. It was confirmed that parking was not a material planning consideration for this application, as the unit could be occupied by Tesco or another operator at any time. It was reiterated that the only matters under consideration were shopfront alterations and plant equipment, and no parking spaces were proposed for removal. Councillors questioned whether the shift from a financial services function to retail constituted a different use and whether the installation of refrigeration plant, which generated noise, might amount to a material change. They also asked whether the local authority had discretion to determine whether the change was permitted development or required planning permission. In response officers confirmed that the Council did not have discretion to determine whether development constituted permitted development. Reference was made to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, which set out what did and did not constitute development. It was explained that the former bank operated under Use Class E(c), and movement to retail within Use Class E(a) remained within the same overarching use class. As such, no change of use had occurred, and the proposal constituted permitted development. Officers stated that this legislative framework had been introduced to reduce vacancy in primary shopping areas. Consequently, the Council could not require planning permission for the change of occupier or use when both fell within Class E. Members sought further clarification as to whether the intensification associated with the new use constituted a material change. The Legal Advisor reiterated that movement within the same use class did not amount to a material change of use and therefore did not require planning permission. It was emphasised that this position was set out in law and not subject to local discretion. Members heard that legislative changes had been introduced to support declining High Streets and encourage commercial occupation to deter antisocial behaviour. No further concerns were raised. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed with six Members voting in favour and one abstention. RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report. 133. 11 ELLESMERE CLOSE, RUISLIP - 79635/APP/2025/2209 (Agenda Item 10) Erection of a single storey side and rear extension, following demolition of existing garage (AMENDED PLANS). Officers introduced the application highlighting the site context, existing and proposed plans and flood-risk mitigation. It was confirmed that the scale, design, neighbour impacts, and landscaping restoration were all policy-compliant. As the proposal met local planning guidance and included appropriate mitigation measures, officers recommended approval. Ward Councillor Philip Corthorne was in attendance to address the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:  Councillor Corthorne emphasised that he was speaking solely in his capacity as a ward councillor and thanked the Planning Committee for considering the application following his request for a call-in.  It was noted that long-standing concerns existed regarding the planning policy framework, which was viewed as failing to give adequate weight to increasing flood risk as a material planning consideration.  Councillor Corthorne highlighted that flooding in the cul -de-sac was not theoretical, noting that residents had experienced repeated incidents over several decades, with one property affected on four occasions, largely due to the local topography causing water to accumulate around numbers 10 and 11.  Reference was made to paragraph 7.43 of the report, where it had been stated that the proposed extension would not significantly increase flood risk, a conclusion the Councillor considered overly optimistic given the known flooding history.  Even accepting officers’ as sessment at face value, it was noted that the report still acknowledged an element of increased flood risk, which was considered particularly concerning in this location.  Councillor Corthorne urged Committee Members to rigorously question officers about the reliability and substance of the flood risk assessment, the meaning of sustainable drainage in this context, and the real -world effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures.  It was stated that residents should be given clear justification as to how ap proval would offer them reassurance, given their previous traumatic flooding experiences.  It was argued that a cited precedent (No. 12) was not directly comparable due to being located on higher ground and therefore should not be relied upon.  The Committ ee was requested to give serious consideration to the concerns raised and, if refusal was not deemed possible, to apply robust scrutiny to officers’ claims regarding flood risk and its management. Members asked whether the proposed flood-mitigation measures would ensure that the extension did not increase flood risk for neighbouring properties, given the site’s location within Flood Zone 3. In reply, officers stated that, although the footprint would extend slightly into the green area, the River Pinn was located over 20 metres away, and it was confirmed that the flood risk assessment had considered the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures. It was explained that mitigation had been incorporated through reduced extension size, the demolition of the garage, and the installation of soft landscaping during the first planting season, thereby increasing flood-storage capacity and aligning with Environment Agency guidance. Councillors queried the relevance of a planning inspector’s decision referenced in the report. In reply, it was clarified that previous appeal decisions, even those concerning other locations, were material considerations when considering a planning application. At the request of the Committee, it was agreed that, to manage the risk of flooding from surface water, additional surface-water details could be required by condition. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: 1. That the application be approved subject to the c onditions in the report; and 2. That the drafting of an additional condition in relation to managing the risk of flooding from surface water be delegated to the Planning Team Leader. The meeting, which commenced at 7.00 pm, closed at 9.07 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 – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Planning Committee Report Case Officer: Nicola Taplin 64326/APP/2025/3020 Date Application Valid: 4.12.25 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 13.03.26 Application Type: Householder Ward: West Drayton Applicant: Mr P Sodha Site Address: 4 Napier Close, West Drayton, UB7 9LB Proposal: Erection of single storey wrap around extension to side and rear and amendment to fenestration. 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 – 11th March 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 Householder planning permission is sought for the erection of single storey wrap around extension to side and rear, and amendments to fenestrations. 1.2 During the process of the application, a petition in objection to the development was received requiring the determina tion at planning committee. The main issues which shall be addressed within this committee report relate to the impact to neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light, overshadowing and overbearing impact, the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and existing property and parking impact. 1.3 The committee report seeks to provide a comprehensive assessment of the householder application and supporting documentation. All material planning considerations have been considered. 1.4 It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions (see Appendix 1) as it is considered that the development would not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, the character and appearance of the area or on the highway network. 1.5 The Committee Report seeks to provide a comprehensive assessment of the full application and supporting documentation. All material planning considerations have been considered. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application property comprises a two-storey end-terraced dwelling located on the south-western side of Napier Close in West Drayton. The property has been previously extended by way of a single st orey flat roofed rear extension and a secondary timber c anopy which appears to have been in place for more than 4 years. The property benefits from a flat and enclosed rear garden. 2.2 The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, made up similarly designed two storey dwellinghouses, both semi-detached and terraced. 2.3 The application site is not designated within a Conservation Area, nor an Area of Special Local Character. The site does not contain any Listed Buildings. The site does not lie within a Tree Preservation Area, Critical Drainage Area or a Surface Water Flood Zone. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application Property Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a single storey wrap around side and rear extension and amendments to fenestration. 3.2 The rear extension would measure 4.5 metres in depth, measured from the rear wall of the existing dwelling. The existing extension and structures to the rear of the property would be demolished. The side extension would occupy the space between the side of the dwelling and No.2 Napier Close and would extend up to the boundary of the adjacent property and is angled to respond to the geometry of the site. The extensions would measure 3 metres in height to the roof ridge and would feature a flat roof with facing brickwork to match the existing property. Figure 3: Proposed Plans (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4: Proposed Elevations 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. 5.2 It is noted that a lawful development certificate (64326/APP/2025/3019) was granted for the conversion of roof space to habitable use to include hip to gable extension, rear dormer and 2x roof lights. It should be noted that this application was determined in accordance with the General Permitted Development Order 2015 Schedule 2 Part 1 Classes B and C and it was assessed that planning permission would not be required for the scope of works proposed. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Five neighbouring properties, were consulted on 15th December 2025 which expired on 8th January 2026. 6.2 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response A petition of objection with 30 valid signatories has been submitted , 1. Overdevelopment of the plot which would be out of keeping with the locality, the rhythm of development in Napier Close and would create an unfortunate precedent. A full and detailed assessment of the visual impact is set out in paragraphs 7.4 to 7.8. 2. The extensions would result in an over dominant impact on neighbouring properties A full and detailed assessment of the visual impact is set out in paragraphs 7.9 to 7.12. 3. The proposal would result in a substandard private amenity space. A full and detailed assessment of the visual impact is set out in paragraphs 7.13 to 7.15. 4. The enlarged accommodation would result in increased car movements and exacerbate parking stress in Napier Close. A full and detailed assessment of the visual impact is set out in paragraphs 7.16 to 7.17. 9 individual letters of objection have been received from local residents. I. Concerns raised that the property is being occupied as an HMO. The applicant has confirmed in writing that the property is a C3 dwellinghouse occupied by family members and not an HMO. An officer site visit confirmed, on the balance of probability, that the property is in C3 use. II. The development will result in an intensification of use which would increased parking stress. A full and detailed assessment of the visual impact is set out in paragraphs 7.16 to 7.17. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press III. Overdevelopme nt of the site when in combination with the loft conversion The loft conversion is not included within this application and is permitted development as confirmed under application reference 64326/APP/2025/3019. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The site is located in the developed area of the Borough, where the extension and alteration of an existing residential prop erty is acceptable in principle subject to compliance with other relevant policies as set out in this report. Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.2 Policies D3 of the London Plan (2021), BE 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 – Strategic Policies (2012), DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 – Development Management Policies (2020) are all directly relevant to the proposal. These policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix, and in summary, seek to secure a high quality of design that enhances and contributes to the area. 7.3 The proposal includes the erection of a flat roofed single storey side/rear extension following the demolition of the existing rear extensions. The side extension would be set back from the front wall of the orig inal dwelling by 1m filling the space between the flank elevation and the side boundary and wrapping around the rear elevation at a projection of 4.5m. The flat roof would measure 3m in height and the extension would be constructed with matching materials. 7.4 The application property comprises a red brick and render, two storey, end terraced dwelling under a plain tiled hipped roof located on the western side of Napier Close in West Drayton. The property has been previously extended to the rear by way of a single storey flat roofed rear extension projecting 3m in depth with a secondary timber secondary extension.Historic imagery shows that the existing secondary structure to have been in place fo r over 4 years meaning it is exempt from enforcement action and would be considered lawful in planning terms. Both extensions have been built up the boundary with adjoining Number 6 Napier Close with a cumulative depth of approximately 5.5m as shown on the photograph below. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 5: Rear of application property 7.5 Although Policy DMHD 1 of the Local Plan Part Two discourages rear extensions exceeding 3.6m in depth, DMHB 11 requires development to be in keeping with the existing character. 7.6 The immediate character of the area comprises two storey semi-detached and terraced properties. Single storey side and rear extensions are commonplace within the immediate area, some of which exceed the recommended 3.6m maximum depth. Notably adjacent Number 2 Napier Close to the north has a large side/rear extension. The proposed single storey side extension would appear subordinate in scale , particularly when viewed from the street scene in Napier Close and would respect the architectural integrity of the host dwelling and locality. The proposed rear extension would also appear subordinate in scale, would replace an existing 5.5m deep rear extension and would not be out of keeping with similar developments within the surrounding area. Both extensions would be constructed from brick materials to match the appearance of the existing dwelling. 7.7 Several local residents have raised concerns about the cumulative scale of the development resulting from the loft conversion and proposed extensions. The loft conversion works are not shown on the submitted floorplans or elevations and are the subject of a recent certificate of lawf ul development confirming that the loft conversion can be built as permitted development. The cumulative scale of development at ground floor level whic h could be constructed under permitted development rights must also be considered . It should be noted that a rear extension of 3.6 metres in depth and a side extension measuring half the width of the dwelling and up to 3 metres in height could be constructed without a requirement to obtain planning permission . This would cover a not dissimilar footprint to that of the proposed works and represents a material fallback position. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.8 Taking into consideration the above, it is considered that the proposal would respect the character and appearance of the surrounding area in compliance with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies and Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 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 7.9 The adjoining property at Number 6 Nap ier Close has not been extended to the rear alongside the boundary with the application property. Number 6 has a set of patio doors at ground floor level closest th e boundary. The outlook to this set of patio doors is already compromised by the 5.5m deep extensions to the appl ication property which would be replaced by an extension of a lesser depth measuring 4.5m. Officers consider that the occupants of adjoining Number 6 Napier Close would not suffer increased loss of light or outlook resulting from the proposed 4.5m deep single storey rear extension. 7.10 Number 2 Napier Close is located to the north of the application property, is set forward of the application property and has been extended to the side and rear. Officers consider that in light of the separation and limited scale of the proposed extensions that there would not be an undue loss of amenity to occupants of this property by reason of outlook or loss of light. 7.11 Several local residents have expressed co ncerns that the property is being occupied as an HMO. The applicant has confirmed that the property is being occupied as a single private dwelling as existing and following the implementation of the extensions, would continue to operate as a single private dwelling. Officers have visited the site and ascertained that the front ground floor habitable room is currently being used as a bedroom. However, on the balance of probabilities, the property appeared to be in use as a single private dw elling. The Council adopted the Borough Wide Article 4 Direction on 12 December 2025 removing permitted development rights under Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 3, Class L therefore the use of the property for these purposes would require planning permission. Use of the property as a C4 HMO is not being proposed within the application and the acceptability of this use does not fall within the scope of what would be a material planning consideration, where considering the merits of the application under consideration, which relates solely to extensions to the dwelling. 7.12 On this basis it is considered that t he development would comply with policies DMHB 11 and DMHD 1 of the Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020). Outdoor Amenity Space 7.13 Policy D6 of The London Plan (2021) requires a minimum of five sq. m. of private outdoor space for one- to two-person dwellings and an extra one sq. m. for each additional occupant. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.14 Policy DMHD 1 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that planning applications relating to alterations and extensions of dwellings will be required to ensure that, vi) adequate garden space is retained, while Policy DMHB 18 states that developers should provide amenity space in accordance with Table 5.3 of the local plan. Table 5.3 requires developments to provide between 40 and 100 sq. m. of private outdoor amenity space, dependent on the number of bedrooms within the property. It should be well -located, well-designed, and usable for the private enjoyment of the occupier. 7.15 Following the redevelopment, the rear ga rden would retain 156 sq. m. of private amenity space for what would be a four bedroom dwelling. The proposed development would therefore comply with Policy D6 of The London Plan (2021) and Policies DMHD 1, DMHB 18, and Table 5.3 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Highways and Parking 7.16 Policy DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that development proposals must comply with the parking standards outlined in Appendix C Table 1 in order to facilitate sustainable development and address issues relating to congestion and amenity. Policy T6.1 of the London Plan sets parking standards for residential parking. 7.17 The front of the property is laid to grass and hardstanding and has a dropped kerb to facilitate off street parking for at 2 vehicles. The dwelling would be retained as a Class C3 residential dwelling, and it is not considered that there would be an increased demand in parking or result in additional parking stress or highway safety. The two parking spaces provided would be in line with the maximum parking standards for a four-bedroom dwelling in line with Policy T6.1 of the London Plan for a dwelling within PTAL 2 and would comply with Policy DMT 6 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 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 – 11th March 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 There is no additional floorspace proposed. 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 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 64326/APP/2025/3020 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 6 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 4NC/LP01; 4NC/HH01, 4NC/HH02 and 4NC/HH03. 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. HO5 N No additional windows or doors Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no additional windows, doors or other openings shall be constructed in the walls or roof slopes of the development hereby approved facing Number 2 or Number 6 Napier Close. REASON To prevent overlooking to adjoining properties in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 5. HO7 N No roof gardens Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 6 Access to the flat roof over the extension hereby approved shall be for maintenance or emergency purposes only and the flat roof shall not be used as a roof garden, terrace, balcony, patio or similar amenity area. REASON To prevent overlooking to adjoining properties in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). I Informatives 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. I25A T The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 The Party Wall Act 1996 requires a building owner to notify, and obtain formal agreement from, any adjoining owner, where the building owner purposes to: - carry out work to an existing party wall: - build on the boundary with a neighbouring property; - in some circumstances, carry out groundworks within 6 metres of an adjoining building. Notification and agreements under this Act are the responsibility of the building owner and are quite separate from Building Regulations, or Planning Controls. The Building Control Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 6 Service will assume that an applicant has obtained any necessary agreements with the adjoining owner, and nothing said or implied by the Council should be taken as removing the necessity for the building owner to comply fully with the Party Wall Act. Further information and advice is to be found in 'The Party Walls etc. Act - 1996 - Explanatory Booklet' published by the Department for Communities and Local Government. 3 3. I47 D Damage to Verge - For Council Roads: The Council will recover from the applicant the cost of highway and footway repairs, including damage to grass verges. Care should be taken during the building works hereby approved to ensure no damage occurs to the verge or footpaths during construction. Vehicles delivering materials to this development shall not override or cause damage to the public footway. Any damage will require to be made good to the satisfaction of the Council and at the applicant's expense. For further information and advice contact - Highways Maintenance Operations, Central Depot - Block K, Harlington Road Depot, 128 Harlington Road, Hillingdon, Middlesex, UB3 3EU (Tel: 01895 277524). For Private Roads: Care should be taken during the building works hereby approved to ensure no damage occurs to the verge of footpaths on private roads during construction. Vehicles delivering materials to this development shall not override or cause damage to a private road and where possible alternative routes should be taken to avoid private roads. The applicant may be required to make good any damage caused. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 6 AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History 64326/APP/2008/2849 4 Napier Close West Drayton Conversion of existing 3 bedroom dwelling to 2 x 1 bedroom flats, with associated parking and new vehicular crossover as well as new front access ramp Decision: 11-12-2008 Refused 64326/APP/2008/976 4 Napier Close West Drayton CONVERSION OF EXISTING 3-BEDROOM DWELLING TO ONE 2-BEDROOM AND ONE 1-BEDROOM FLATS, WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND NEW VEHICULAR CROSSOVER AS WELL AS NEW FRONT ACCESS RAMP. Decision: 15-05-2008 Refused 64326/APP/2025/3019 4 Napier Close West Drayton Conversion of roof space to habitable use to include hip to gable extension, rear dormer and 2x roof lights (Application for a Certificate of Lawful Development for a Proposed Development) Decision: 28-01-2026 Approved Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 6 AAppendix 3: List of Relevant Planning Policies The following Local Plan Policies are considered relevant to the application:- Part 1 Policies: PT1.BE1 (2012) Built Environment Part 2 Policies: DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 18 Private Outdoor Amenity Space DMHD 1 Alterations and Extensions to Residential Dwellings DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP D4 (2021) Delivering good design LPP D3 (2021) Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach LPP D6 (2021) Housing quality and standards Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 6

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Michael Briginshaw 79625/APP/2025/2128 Date Application Valid: 11.08.2025 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 31.03.2026 Application Type: Outline Ward: Pinkwell Applicant: Columbia Threadneedle Investments Site Address: Land at HPH2, HPH5, and Multistorey Car Park Hyde Park Hayes Proposal: Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved excluding access) for demolition of existing buildings (above basement level) and phased delivery of residential development (Class C3), flexible commercial / community floorspace, new public realm, landscaping, play space, car parking, cycle parking and associated works. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to section 106 legal agreement and conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 1 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Major application recommended for approval) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 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. S106 Legal Agreement Heads of Terms: It is recommended that delegated powers be given to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth to grant planning permission subject to the following: A) That the application be referred to the Mayor under Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008. B) 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. Affordable Housing: To secure provision of on-site affordable housing, using a cascade mechanism as follows: a. To use all reasonable endeavours over a defined period of time to secure grant funding (in accordance with relevant guidance) in order to maximise delivery of affordable housing, with a minimum of 10% of total units (calculated by habitable room) provided as affordable housing (with a preference for Social Rent tenure). b. Should the Council agree that all reasonable endeavours have been exhausted and grant funding has not been secured, the scheme shall revert to 100% private market (i.e. with no affordable housing). The obligation shall include review mechanisms. ii. Health Contribution: A financial cont ribution to be calculated at the Reserved Matters stage, indicatively totalling £942,489 (calculated on the basis of a 100% private market Scenario and subject to detailed scheme calculations) to fund enhanced or new health facilities within the London Borough of Hillingdon. A proportional amount of the contribution, corresponding to the relevant phase, shall be paid prior to commencement of that phase. iii. Air Quality Mitigation Contribution: A financial contribution to be calculated at the Reserved Matte rs stage, indicatively totalling £174,299 (subject to detailed scheme calculations). A proportional Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press amount of the contribution, corresponding to the relevant phase, shall be paid prior to commencement of that phase. iv. Carbon Offset Contribution: Carbon Offset Contribution: A financial contribution to be calculated at the Reserved Matters stage, indicatively totalling £367,217 (subject to detailed scheme calculations). The obligation shall include monitoring measures (be seen). A proportional amount of th e contribution, corresponding to the relevant phase, shall be paid prior to commencement of that phase. v. Public Open Space Contribution: A financial contribution to be calculated at the Reserved Matters stage, indicatively totalling £879,450, for the enhancement of existing public open space. A proportional amount of the contribution, corresponding to the relevant phase, shall be paid prior to commencement of that phase. Should the Council agree that a sufficient high quality open space for each phase is to be delivered, a contribution will not be required. All on site public open space should allow unfettered access in perpetuity. vi. Section 278 Agreement: A Section 278 agreement to deliver a crossing at North Hyde Road, prior to the occupation of Phase 1. vii. Hillingdon Council Active Travel Zo ne / Healthy Streets Contribution: Financial contributions to be calculated at the Reserved Matters stage, indicatively totalling £140,360. A proportional amount of the contribution, corresponding to the relevant phase, shall be paid prior to commencement of that phase. viii. Transport for London Contributions : Financial contributions to be calculated at the Reserved Matters st age, indicatively totalling the following amounts: a. A312 contribution up to £54,640. b. Bus Stop Enhancement contribution up to £598,000. A proportional amount of each contribution, corresponding to the relevant phase, shall be paid prior to commencement of that phase. ix. Residential Parking Permit Restrictions: Parking Permits restriction for residents and visitors (excluding Blue Badge holders). x. Employment and Construction Training Scheme: An Employment/ Construction Training Scheme secu red in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press xi. Project Management and Monitoring Fee: A Project Management and Monitoring Fee, equalling 5% of the total financial contributions to be paid under this agreement. C) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in prepar ing the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed. D) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreement and conditions of approval and agree any changes requested by the Greater London Authority. E) That, if the Legal Agreement has not been finalised within 6 months (or such other time frame as may be agreed by the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth ), delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth to refuse planning permission for the following reason: 'The applicant has failed to mitigate the impacts posed by the proposed development (in respect of Affordable Housing, Health, Air Quality, Carbon Emissions, Public Open Space, Active Travel, Highways Safety, Employment and Planning Obligations Monitoring). The scheme therefore conflicts with Policies DMCI 7 of th e Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020); the adopted Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2014); Policy DF1 of the London Plan (2021); and paragraphs 5 6-58 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).' F) That if the application is approved, that the permission is subject to the Conditions as set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 This application seeks Outline Planning Permission (with all matters reserved excluding access) for demolition of existi ng buildings (above basement level) and phased delivery of a residential development (Class C3), flexible commercial / community floorspace (368m2), new public realm, landscaping, play space, car parking, cycle parking and associated works. 1.2 More specifically, the development would demolish three buildings within the Hyde Park Hayes (HPH) estate, including HPH2, HPH5, and the multistorey car park (MSCP), and would redevelop these plots of land alongside the surface car park abutting North Hyde Road with residential blocks. HPH1 is outside the red line boundary of the site but is to be converted from office to mixed-use, including an office at ground level and residentia l units above (subject to Prior Approval application reference 67351/APP/2024/2746). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 1.3 As the application is in Outline with all matters reserved, the illustrative scheme for 650 units is proof of concept only . At its maximum, the development could comprise up to 673 units, subject to controls set out within the Design Code and Parameter Plans. The illustrative unit mix is proposed to be 44% 1- bed units, 41% 2-bed units and 15% 3-bed units. The housing mix ranges are proposed to be secured by Condition 6, including provision of at least 15% 3-bed family units. The residential blocks are propo sed in a mix of urban grains and typologies, ranging from 3, 6, 8, 10 and 11 stories in height, including denser urban residential blocks as well as some townhouses. 1.4 The proposed loss of the existing underutilised office use is accepted in principle. There are no objections to the physical loss of the existing office buildings either as they are no t considered to have significant architectural merit. Significantly, the provision of much needed residential units on sustainably located brownfield land within close proximity to Hayes Town Centre and only 500m (8 minute walk) of the Hayes and Harlington Station is supported. The proposed flexible commercial / community space will generate jobs on a site which is generally accepted as underutilised in its current form. It is noted that the new residents of the development will provide further bus iness for local traders and support the vitality and viability of Hayes Town Centre. This weighs significantly in favour of the development in the planning balance. 1.5 The proposal for 15% family housing (3-bedroom units) is a positive provision for a large strategic residential scheme and would contribute to meeting need within the borough. In terms of affordable housing, the scheme has been subject to viability testing by the Council's third-party consultants and the Greater London Authority (GLA). Following such assessment, it has been concluded that a 100% private market scheme generates a deficit but is within the range of deliverability. Despite this, the developer has agreed to enter into a S106 legal agreement which would obligate them to carry out all reasonable endeavours to secure grant funding and maximise affordable housing provision on-site. Should it be sufficiently evidenced , in agreement with the Council, that all reasonable endeavours have been exhausted and that no grant funding has been secured to realise affordable housing provision, the scheme would revert to 100% private market housing. Given the significant viability constraints on the proposed schem e, it is concluded that the proposed conditional cascade mechanism would realise the maximum amount of affordable housing possible, especially given the announcement of the GLA’s emergency measures for housebuilding which have been introduced to accelerate housebuilding, unlock stalled sites and provide housebuilders with more certainty by improving both the viability and deliverability of residential schemes. The conditional affordable housing cascade mechanism is proposed to be secured under S106 HoT (i) and includes viability review mechanisms to capture changes in viability over the lifetime of the multi- phase residential development. This is the reasonable and robust evidence based position which is considered, on the ba lance of probabilities, to realise sufficient public benefit by maximising the likelihood of affordable housing delivery. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 1.6 Parameter Plans and a Design Code support the Outline Planning application submission, establishing parameters and design rules that future Reserved Matters must follow. The Parameter Plans fix maximum building footprints, heights, land uses, basement extent, move ment routes and the layout of open space, SuDS, trees and front gardens. The Design Code complements this by setting the rules for delivering a coherent, landscape Ǧled and sustainable neighbourhood, covering massing, active frontages, pedestrianǦfocused streets, SuDS, biodiversity (10% BNG), urban greening (UGF 0.4), parking strategy and standards for play, refuse and cycle provision. Despite positive amendments being made as part of the application process, concerns were raised regarding the deliverability, quality and functionality of certain open spaces. Notwithstanding, the Parameter Plans and Design Code are considered to strike a reasonable balance against best Ǧpractice Design Code guidance documents, which emphasise that effective design codes should be simple, specific and proportionate. To address residual uncertainties and ensure high Ǧquality delivery, the applicant has agreed that a revised Design Code will be secured by Condition 22 , alongside further conditions requiring detailed materiality and landscape information at Reserved Matters stage. 1.7 Other matters which are considered to be planning policy conflicts include the delivery of a shortfall in amenity space provision, play space provision, and open space provision. However, these are considered to be minor conflicts with standards exhibited by the illustrative scheme, not a detailed scheme which would be submitted as part of the Reserved M atters stage of the planning application process. Conditions are proposed to maximise quantity and quality of these spaces, including a revised Design Code. 1.8 Significant weight is afforded to the Government’s Written Ministerial Statement on Planning Reform: Next Phase (18 November 2025), which confirms a national policy intention to “unleash development around rail stations” by providing a “default yes” to sui table, wellǦdesigned development within a reasonable walking distance of wellǦconnected railway and tram stations. The statement emphasises that development of the right quality a nd density in such locations represents a highly sustainable form of growth, maximising the use of existing public transport infrastructure, reducing car dependency, and supporting housing delivery and economic growth. The Ministerial Statem ent makes clear that this approach should apply consistently across all local authority areas and is intended to be embedded within the revised National Planning Policy Framework as a strengthened expression of the pres umption in favour of sustainable development. In this context, the application site’s proximity to a major rail station represents a material consideration of significant weight, and any assessment of the proposal must give due regard to the Government’s clear expectation that sustainably located development adjacent to stations should be supported unless demonstrable harm would clearly outweigh the substantial public benefits identified. 1.9 Planning obligations are proposed to secure affordable housing provisions, health contribution, an air quality contribut ion, carbon offset contribution, public open space contribution, highways works, active travel zone and healthy streets Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press contribution, TfL contribution, parking permit restrictions, and employment strategy and construction training. A project management and monitoring fee would also be secured to manage and monitor the planning obligations. 1.10 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Com pulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the reasons outlined above and within the main body of the report, the application is considered to broadly comply with the Development Plan. Where there are minor conflicts with the Development Plan, there are considered to be sufficient mitigating factors and benefits which outweigh such conflicts . Subject to the planning conditions and obligations recommended, the proposed development can mitigate the planning policy conflicts identified. Accordingly, the development is considered, on balance, to be acceptable with resp ect to design, heritage, residential amenity, environmental issues, transport, and sustainability. 1.11 The application is recommended for approval , subject to Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London, securing the planning conditions set out in Appendix 1 and a Section 106 legal agreement. 2 The Site and Locality Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2.1 The site is a large plot of land, measuring circa 2.36 hectares in area, and forms part of the wider Hyde Park Hayes co mmercial estate. The wider estate comprises three large office buildings called Hyde Park Hayes 1 (HPH1), Hyde Park Hayes 2 (HPH2) and Hyde Park Hayes 5 (HPH5), and sit alongside a multi- storey car park (MSCP). Please see Figure 2 below for a view of HPH2 and HPH5 as seen from Millington Road. Figure 2: Street View Image of the HPH2 (Background) and HPH5 (Foreground) 2.2 The HPH1 building does not form part of the application submission but is a material planning consideration and is subject to a Prior Approval application (ref. 67351/APP/2024/2746) to change the use of the building from offices to a mixed use, including an office at grou nd level and residential units above. The ground floor of this building is occupied by Apple on a short term lease and gives the tenant the right of access to 62 parking spaces, located in the surface level car park next to HPH1 and the MSCP. 2.3 The Hyde Park Hayes 3 (HPH3) building and Hyde Park Hayes 4 (HPH4) plot do not form part of the application either and sit on the western edge of the Hyde Park Hayes site. HPH3 is now occupied as residential flats having been granted Prior Approval in September 2021 under application reference 72360/APP/2021/1709 for the change of use from offices to 113 flats. HPH4 has been the subject of application references 76655/APP/2021/3039 and 76655/APP/2023/779 and has been granted permission in April 2022 and June Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2023 for the re-development of the site to provide a residential development comprising 131 units. The HPH4 permissions have now lapsed. 2.4 Residential properties are located to the north of the site along Keith Road and North Hyde Road, south along Dawley Road and west along Bourne Avenue, Waltham Avenue, and Guinness Close. The Yodel warehouse is also located to the north and has been the subject of two planning applications (refs. 27189/APP/2020/2181 and 27189/APP/2021/2782), granting permission for 150 residential units and 376 no. Shared -Living units. The Premier Inn hotel is also located to the north-east of the site and has consent under application reference 78950/APP/2024/2084 for alterations to the hotel, resulting in an increase in hotel rooms from 150 to 159 and reduction in restaurant space. 2.5 The City Circle UK coach storage site, Selco Builders warehouse site and Hayes Asda Superstore is located to the east of the site. Further commercial uses are located to the south, including Nippo n Express, Attewell Ltd and Geiger UK. Further outside of the Hyde Park Hayes site, a roundabout intersecting Dawley Road, North Hyde Road and Bourne Avenue is located to the west. Millington Road runs through the site, connecting the roundabout on the west to Station Road to the east. North Hyde Road also bounds the site to the north. 2.6 The Hyde Park Hayes site is an edge-of-centre location with urban and suburban characteristics, noting that Hayes Town Centre is designated circa 400m to the north -east of the application site. The si te also sits just outside the Hayes Housing Zone. 2.7 According to the Council's GIS, the site is subject to potentially contaminated land. The site also forms part of the Council's declared Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area and Hayes Air Quality Focus Area, where air quality conditions exceed the EU annual mean li mit value for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), have high human exposure and current planned measures are insufficient to resolve the poor air quality issues. The site has a good Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 4, abutting land to the east which has a PTAL rating of 5, benefitting from the improved transport connections at Hayes & Harlington Crossrail station. 2.8 A Strategic Industrial Location is located circa 200m to the north of the site, alongside the designated Botwell: Thorn EMI Conservation Area, Old Vinyl Factory, Grade II Listed Enterprise House, Locally Listed 'His Master's Voice' building and Locally Listed Thorn/EMI Building. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal Figure 3. Illustrative Masterplan CGI (sourced from D&A (Dated July 2025)) 3.1 The application seeks Outline Planning Permission (with all matters reserved excluding access) for demolition of existing buildings (above basement level) and phased delivery of residential development (Class C3), flexible commercial / community floorspace, new public realm, landscaping, play space, car parking, cycle parking and associated works. The illustrative scheme proposes the construction of 8 blocks and 2 rows of townhouses up to 11 storeys to provide 650 units, with circa 368m2 of flexible commercial / community floorspace (including E(a) retail, E(b) food and drink, E(e) medical or health services, E(f) nursery, E(g)(i) offices, F.2(a) shop with essential goods, F.2(b) hall or meeting place for local community). Whilst the illustrative scheme proposes 650 units, as all matters are reserved, the Outline Pl anning application technically proposes up to 673 units. Please see Figure 3 fo r the CGI of the illustrative masterplan and see Table 1 for a breakdown of the 650 unit scenario. Table 1. Illustrative Scheme Unit Mix Unit Type Total Units % of Total Units Studio 4 44.0% 1 Bed 2 Person 282 2 Bed 3 Person 62 40.6% 2 Bed 4 Person 202 3 Bed 5 Person 100 15.4% Total Units 650 100% 3.2 The illustrative scheme development comprises five main residential blocks (including more sub-blocks), including Blocks A1 and A2 within the northern Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press section of the site abutting North Hyde Road, Block B within the centre of Hyde Park Hayes, Block C to the south -western corner of the site and Block D to the south-eastern corner of the site. The rang e in block heights is summarised in Table 2 below. Table 2. Illustrative Scheme Proposed blocks by Use and Height Block Max Heigh (Storeys) Use and Quantity A1 11 88 units and 368m2 of flexible commercial / community floorspace A2 8 66 B1 8 82 B2 11 58 B3 6 37 C 10 120 D1 8 72 D2 10 121 Townhouses 3 6 3.3 Three communal public spaces are proposed, named the Gateway, Social Heart and the Nurture Garden. The Gateway space would provide access through the northern part of the site from North Hyde Road, a space which is envisaged to be activated by the flexible commercial / community units proposed at the ground level of Blocks A1 and A2. The Social Heart connects to this space, sitting between Block A, Block B and HPH1. This space would provide amenity space with a more residential focus, being set further within the site and away from the active Gateway space. The Nurture Gard en is set even further within the site, between Block B, Block C, Block D and HPH1. Again, the function of this space is envisaged to be more residential in nature. All spaces would be publicly accessible but would invariably provide benefit to future residents in the form of amenity provision. Please see Figure 4 for the proposed illustrative site plan. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4. Illustrative Masterplan Level 00 (sourced from drawing ref. A12440-TPB-ZZ-L00-DR-A-041001-S2-P08) 3.4 Parameter Plans and a Design Code support the Outline Planning application submission, establishing parameters an d design rules that future Reserved Matters must follow. Accordingly, t he Illustrative Masterplan has been synthesized down into a set of Parame ter Plans and a Design Code. The Parameter Plans cover a number of material considerations and are listed below: x Parameter Plan 1 - Building Zones x Parameter Plan 2 - Access and Movement x Parameter Plan 3 - Hard and Soft Landscape x Parameter Plan 4 - Building Heights x Parameter Plan 5 - Land Use x Parameter Plan 6 - Trees x Parameter Plan 7 - 3D Max Building Heights x Parameter Plan 8 - Basement Zones Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3.5 During the application process, amended Parameter Plans, Design Code and illustrative scheme plans were submitted in response to feedback from the Council. The updated Parameter Plans refined the scheme, including minor shifts to the building zones to improve layout and movement, enhancements to pedestrian priority and traffic calming through revised access arrangements, increased landscape and open Ǧspace provision (particularly around Block B) and a reduction in massing to the northern end of Block B1. Additional Class E floorspace is now focused at the gateway to strengthen activation, while tree retention has improved through repositioning of Blocks A2 and D. Corresponding updates to the Illustrative Masterpla n reflect these changes, including an adjusted residential mix, enhanced ground Ǧfloor uses, and reconfigured cycle storage. 3.6 Please note that larger versions of the plans can be found in the Committee Plan Pack. 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning histo ry related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. As the site compromises a significant part of the Hyde Park Hayes site, relevant planning history for the si te is also summarised below, including history relating to HPH2 and HPH5 which form part of the application site, and HPH1 and HPH4 which directly adjoin the site. Application Site History 4.2 HPH2 (formerly Safeway House, 6 Millington Road) was granted consent under planning permission ref. 40652/87/1562, dated 16-12-1987, for: Redevelopment of site involving the erection of a three storey building for use an office with part industrial and stora ge use (Use Class B8) together with associated car parking facilities, landscaped areas and a new electricity substation at Unit 2 and 4 Westlands Industrial Estate, Millington Road, Hayes. 4.3 HPH5 was granted consent under planning permission ref. 45753/APP/2012/2029, dated 05-07-2013, for: Erection of five storey building to pr ovide 13,880sq.m of Class B1(a) Office floorspace, provision of car parking spaces at surface and basement level, associated landscaping and ancillary works. Adjoining Hyde Park Hayes Site History 4.4 HPH1 has been granted Prior Approval to change of use of the offices to residential under permission ref. 67351/APP/2024/2746, dated 11 -04-2025, described as follows: Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Change of use from offices (Use Class E) to residential (Use Class C3) to create 75no. self-contained flats under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). 4.5 HPH4 has been the subject of permissi on references 76655/APP/2021/3039 dated 07 -04-2022, 76655/APP/2023/779 dated 26-06- 2023, and 76655/APP/2024/1152 dated 04 -10-2024, which permitted the re- development of the site to provide a residential development comprising 131 units. These permissions have now lapsed. 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 697 no. letters were sent to neighbouring properties, a site notice was displayed to the front of the site and an advert was posted in the local paper. The neighbour consultation process expired on 24 th September 2025 and a total of six comments were received. One comment in support and three comments in objection to the application were received from members of the public. Two additional comments were also received and were considered to fall under the ‘neutral’ category as neither in support nor in objection to the application. 6.2 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 3 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 4 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 3. Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response A total of three comments in objection to the development were received from neighbouring residents. 1. The development will cause congestion and highways safety issues. All comments in objection are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Please refer to the Transport section starting paragraph 7.134 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2. The development will overshadow neighbouring residents and impact on quality of life. Please refer to the sections of this report starting at paragraphs 7.34 (Tall Building ), 7.41 (Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area ), 7.53 (Residential Quality) and 7.59 (Residential Amenity). 3. The development will cause air pollution. Please refer to the Air Quality section starting paragraph 7.108 of this report. 4. The development will increase pressure on infrastructure. Whilst the development would increase pressure on infrastructure, any permission granted would ensure that acceptable details are secured by condition to avoid significant harm. The proposal is also liable to the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 obligations which contribute to the maintenance and improvement of infrastructure. One comment in support of the development was received from a resident. 1. The development could improve the local area and create useful public space. All comments in support are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Two neutral comments were received from residents. 1. The development should incorporate and celebrate the site’s rich aviation heritage. All neutral comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Design Code rule DC 1.18 states that a visual marker must be provided at the centre or entrance of the gateway such as a piece of public artwork or sculpture. This should reference the Fairey Aviation Company. The theme should be carried through to the Social Heart and Nurture Garden. 2. The proposed commercial unit should be occupied by a local hospitality business which should be supported to ensure that the space does not remain empty. The commercial space is proposed to be flexible to increase the likelihood of occupation. Uses include E(a) retail, E(b) food and drink, E(e) medical or health services, E(f) nursery, E(g)(i) offices, F.2(a) shop with essential goods, F.2(b) hall or meetin g place for local community. Table 4. Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response External Consultation Affinity Water: No objection, provided the developer: x Implements robust pollution prevention during construction x Incorporates strong water Ǧefficiency measures x Coordinates early on required water infrastructure connections or diversions The Affinity Water comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Cadent Gas Ltd: No objection. The Cadent Gas Ltd comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS): The desk-based assessment should be enhanced with a specialist assessment of Palaeolithic potential and consideration of the consequent impact of the proposed development in order to determine if mitigation measures would be justified, and what form they m ight take. The RPS Response (para 13) suggests that ‘appropriate planning conditions’ to control foundation design could avoid or minimise potential impacts. Since such condition would have to be pre -commencement it would have to be agreed by the applicant and to be acceptable would have to allow for a range of potential mitigation scenarios. No objection subject to a condition. The GLAAS comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Condition 30 is proposed to be secured. Hayes Town Partnership: 1) Principle The proposal to demolish the underused office buildings at Hyde Park Hayes and replace them with housing is supported in principle, provided the applicant demonstrates (1) genuine efforts to market the offices for continued employment use, and (2) a clear comparison of the carbon impact of refurbishment versus redevelopment. The development must address Hayes’ pressing local needs, particularly around housing, social infrastructure, and heritage. 2) Housing The most urgent needs locally are for: x Genuinely affordable homes The Hayes Town Partnership comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. 1) Please see paragraphs starting at 7.1 for consideration of the Principle of Development. 2) Please see paragraphs starting at 7.2 0 and 7.26 for consideration of the Unit Mix and Affordable Housing. 3) The potential provision of on site GP practice is not something that can definitively be secured at this stage of the planning Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press x Larger family-sized homes The applicant must ensure these priorities shape the scheme from the outset, especially given the absence of a confirmed development partner. 3) Social Infrastructure Rapid growth driven by the Elizabeth Line has not been matched by expanded community services —especially GP provision, worsened by the recent cancellation of the Old Vinyl Factory surgery. The site offers a key opportunity to include a purposeǦbuilt GP practice, potentially funded through the Community Infrastructure Levy. This would help integrate the development with the wider community rather than creating another isolated enclave. 4) Heritage The site’s history as the home of Fairey Aviation, one of Britain’s major aircraft innovators, is a significant cultural asset that is not adequately reflected in the current proposals. Opportunities exist to celebrate this legacy through: - Public art and sculptures - Historic naming of streets and buildings - Interpretation boards and walking routes - Heritage displays during construction Recognising this history would strengthen community identity and support local educational initiatives. 5) Environment, Public Realm, and Landscaping Retention of existing mature trees, especially around site boundaries and North Hyde Road, is essential to maintaining visual quality and providing natural screening. Proposed communal spaces provide opportunities to embed heritage interpretation. 6) Play Space and Open Space process with no guarantee over take-up from a healthcare provider (which in the case of Hillingdon has been secured previously without any agreement to enter into a lease and occupy). Flexible commercial / community space has been secured on site and can be used for healthcare purposes should proposals develop towards such provision at the R eserved Matters stage of the application process. Please do note that a significant sum is proposed to be secured via S106 HoT ii and would be for the purposes of primary care provision in and around Hayes. 4) This is addressed by the Design Code. Rule DC 1.18 states that a visual marker must be provided at the centre or entrance of the gateway such as a piece of public artwork or sculpture. This should reference the Fairey Aviation Company. The theme should be carried through to the Social Heart and Nurture Garden. 5) Amended Parameter Plans have been secured through the application process in order to secure the retention of more of the existing mature tree planting. The quality of public realm and landscaping is secured through the Design Code and Parameter Plans which are discussed in more detail Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Good-quality, sunlit play spaces are supported. Safe routes for walking and cycling to Pinkwell Park and Lake Farm Country Park are needed due to their distance. 7) Transport A pedestrian crossing near Keith Road is welcomed, and improvements to a nearby piece of open land are possible. Strict control of resident parking in surrounding streets is essential. 8) Cycling The travel plan overestimates the practicality of cycling locally: the network is fragmented and Bournes Bridge remains dangerous. Developer funding should prioritise infrastructure improvements rather than large volumes of unused cycle parking. 9) Retail On-site retail should be limited to avoid undermining Hayes Town Centre and to ensure the development supports existing local businesses. in paragraphs starting at 7.30. 6) A financial contribution towards Active Travel Zone and Healthy Streets improvements is proposed to be secured under S106 HoT vii. 7) A parking permit restriction for residents and visitors is proposed under S106 HoT ix. 8) An acceptable final and detailed Travel Plan is proposed to be secured under Condition 49. A financial contribution towards active travel, healthy streets and bus service improvements is also proposed to be secured under S106 HoT viii. 9) The small scale flexible commercial / community space is proposed to activate North Hyde Road and the proposed Gateway space. Given that the site is already a town centre use in a non -town centre location, the proposal is considered to reduce the vitality and viability impact of the site on Hayes Town Centre. Health and Safety Executive (Planning Gateway One): No objection subject to a condition for a satisfactory fire statement. The Health and Safety Executive comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. A final comprehensive Fire Statement is proposed to be secured by Condition 51. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Heathrow Airport Safeguarding: No objection subject to conditions to control: 1. Height Restriction 2. Radar Mitigation 3. Bird Hazard Management 4. Glint and Glare Review 5. Landscaping Controls The Heathrow Airport Safeguarding comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. The following Conditions are proposed to be secured: Condition 10 - Height Limitation on Buildings and Structures Condition 33 - Radar Mitigation Scheme Condition 36 - Landscape Scheme Condition 40 - Bird Hazard Management Plan Condition 45 - Glint & Glare Assessment London Fire Brigade: No response received. n/a Metropolitan Police (Secured by Design): No response received. Whilst Officers have not received detailed comments from Secured by Design Officers, C ondition 52 is proposed to secure appropriate accreditation. Officers are also satisfied that the Reserved Matters application would ensure the scheme would be acceptable from Secure by Design perspective given the design rules secured as part of the Design Code. Metropolitan Police (Estate Strategy & Engagement): The Metropolitan Police (Estate Strategy & Engagement) comments are noted and taken into Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) requested Section 106 contributions to mitigate the policing impacts of new residential development. While Secured by Design measures are encouraged, they cannot lawfully reduce policing deployment, nor do they remove the need for additional police infrastructure required as a direct result of population growth (e.g., officer equipment, vehicles, premises). The proposed development will generate measurable increases in crime, callǦhandling, patrol demand and use of police systems, which cannot be absorbed within existing overstretched resources, particularly given the MPS’s current capital funding constraints and budget shortfalls from 2023/24 onwards. National policy, including NPPF paragraphs 92, 97 and 130, alongside London Plan Policy S1, provides explicit support for ensuring safe, resilient, well Ǧpoliced communities. The MPS concludes that without a police contribution the development would place unacceptable pressure on loc al policing capacity, undermining community safety, and therefore the requested S106 funding is necessary, lawful, and essential to make the development acceptable in planning terms. consideration as part of the planning assessment. The request in this specific instance is not proposed to be secured for the following reasons: 1) Funding responsibility: The provision of police infrastructure is not the responsibility of individual developers. The demand for policing and associated equipment arises from the wider population of Hayes and existing communities, including future residents, who contribute to policing services through general taxation, rather than development specific channels. 2) Existing strategic context: There is currently no adopted MPS estates strategy that the Council can rely upon to evidence a defined policing infrastructure requirement specific to this location or this development. 3) Policy prioritisation: Local Plan Policy DF1 requires that contributions be prioritised towards critical infrastructure such as transport and health. Given the financial viability constraints affecting the scheme, only infrastructure that is essential, evidenced, and compliant with statutory tests can be sought. 4) Regulation 122 tests: The requests fail to meet the three legal tests set out in Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. At the time of the assessment, within the current Planning Policy Framework, the MPS contribution is not considered to meet the CIL tests. This does not mean it will not under future Dev elopment Plan Frameworks. Ministry of Defence (MOD): No objection. The MOD comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. National Air Traffic Services (NATS): NATS has reviewed the proposed development and anticipates that it will interfere with the H10 radar at Heathrow Airport due to the buildings’ height, scale, and direct line of sight to the radar. This would cause radar reflections, generating false aircra ft targets that increase air traffic controller workload and compromise aviation safety. As a result, NATS requires strict safeguarding conditions to be attached to any planning permission. No objection subject to conditions for the following: 1. Radar Mitigation Scheme (RMS) 2. Construction Height Control The NATS comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Conditions 10 and 33 are proposed to be secured. Network Rail: No objection in principle but notes the following: Ground Levels: Developers must consult Network Rail before altering ground levels, and no excavations should occur close to railway embankments, bridges, or retaining structures to avoid compromising rail infrastructure stability. The Network Rail comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Noise and Vibration: Given the site's proximity to the railway, the applicant must assess noise and vibration impacts in accordance with the NPPF. Railway operations may change without notic e—including increased train frequency, nightǦtime running, freight movements, and overnight maintenance with idling engines. Future residents should therefore be fully informed of both existing and potential future railway noise and vibration. Lighting: Any lighting from the development must be designed so it does not interfere with railway signalling or train drivers’ visibility. Lighting colour, intensity, and placement must avoid creating confusion with signal aspects. National Health Service (NHS) Property Services: No objection subject to a financial contribution being secured towards additional primary care infrastructure to support the new population associated with this development. The NHS comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Following discussion with both the NHS and Applicant Team, a financial contribution has been agreed and is secured under S106 HoT ii. Thames Water: Thames Water raises several essential requirements that must be resolved before the development can be occupied or construction involving piling can begin. No objection subject to conditions relating to the following: x Foul Water Capacity x Piling Method Statement The Thames Water comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Conditions 31 (Piling Method Statement) and 47 (Thames Water Condition) are proposed to be secured. Transport for London (TfL) (Dated October 2025): While supportive of the site’s potential and its good public transport accessibility (PTAL 4), The TfL comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press TfL identifies several areas requiring further assessment, mitigation, or contribution. TfL requests the following to be secured through conditions or S106 obligations: 1. Updated ATZ assessment 2. Revisions to the pedestrian, cycling and public realm strategy 3. Revised trip generation analysis 4. Financial contributions for buses and Healthy Streets 5. Delivery & Servicing Plan, Parking Design & Management Plan, CLP, and Travel Plan Transport for London (TfL) (Dated December 2025): Further information was submitted in response to TfL. The TfL response is summarised below. 1) Active Travel & Healthy Streets: The updated ATZ assessment is noted but could better assess wayfinding and nightǦtime safety. TfL supports securing contributions to improve walking and cycling routes and stresses that the proposed pedestrian crossing must not affect bus operations and must also serve cyclists. 2) Public Realm & Connectivity: TfL supports improvements along Millington Road (South) and expects these to be secured through S106. A cycle network plan should be included at outline stage to secure clear principles for site Ǧwide cycle connectivity. 3) Parking: Given strong public transport accessibility, TfL maintains the site should be carǦfree. A Parking Management Plan must confirm removal of the 112 existing commercial spaces once leases expire. Each point is addressed in turn: 1) The updated ATZ is accepted on the basis that the application is for Outline Planning Permission only, with Reserved Matters to follow once the final detailed scheme is confirmed. Financial contributions towards active travel, healthy streets, bus stop enhancements and A312 enhancements have been agreed and secured under S106 HoTs viii . 2) As Millington Road is a private road within the red line boundary of the application site within the Applicant’s ownership, the Millington Road improvements are to be secured as a Reserved Matter supported by approval of details reserved by Condition 36 (Landscape Scheme). A S106 legal obligation is not required where a condition is possible. 3. The requested Parking Design and Management Plan is proposed to be secured by Condition 50. 4. Contributions towards bus service enhancements and the A312 Healthy Streets scheme are proposed to be secured under S106 HoT viii. 5. The following Conditions are proposed to be secured: Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4) Trip Generation & Mitigation: Despite further TRICS data, TfL still requires mitigation under London Plan Policy T4. Contributions requested are for bus service enhancements and the A312 Healthy Streets scheme. 5) Servicing, Logistics & Travel Planning: TfL supports conditions securing a Construction Logistics Plan, Delivery & Servicing Plan, and a Travel Plan, with postǦoccupation review recommended. Condition 28 - Demolition Management, Logistics Plan and Environmental Management Plan Condition 48 - Delivery, Servicing and Waste Management Plan Condition 49 - Travel Plans Transport for London Infrastructure Protection (Safeguarding): No comment confirmed. The Transport for London Infrastructure Protection (Safeguarding) comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Internal Consultation Planning Policy Officer: Principle: The proposed development includes the loss of approximately 22,745sqm of office floorspace. The site is not located within a designated town centre or any other protected area for office uses as defined in the Local Plan. The applicant has provi ded a justification for the loss of office space, citing limited demand for office use in this location, as well as a lack of identified need for large- format office floorplans. Given the site's location and the evidence submitted, there is no in principle policy objection to the proposed loss of office floorspace in this location. Housing Size Mix: The proposed residential element includes 16% family sized homes (3+ bedrooms). This is broadly consistent with previously approved schemes, which also delivered 16.4% and above. Previous proposals with less than 10% were not supported, highlighting the importance of maintaining a suitable housing mix. The Planning Policy Officer comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Following amendments to the Outline Planning application, it should be noted that the minimum level of family -sized homes is in fact 15%. This level of provision is still considered positively within the planning balance. Access Officer: Any subsequent Reserved Matters application is required to provide 10% of dwellings to The Access Officer comments are noted and taken into consideration as Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press have been designed to meet the standards for Category 3 M4(3) Wheelchair Accessible or Wheelchair Adaptable dwellings and all remaining units would need to be designed to the standards for Category 2 M4(2) dwellings, as set out in Approved Document M to the Building Regulations (2010) 2015. All such provisions should include the highest standard of inclusive design, ensuring accessibility for older and disabled people, to the public realm, car parking, and within the bounds of recreational and amenity spaces part of the planning assessment. Condition 13 is a proposed to ensure that 10% of the residential units would be designed to the standards for Category 3 M4(3) dwellings, as set out in Approved Document M to the Building Regulations (2010) 2015 ( or as amended). Urban Design Officer: While most of the proposed changes are welcomed and supported in principle, the concerns raised by officers and the Design Review Panel regarding the size, quality and functionality of the proposed open space remain unresolved. The revisions do not fully address these issues, and the quality and usability of the public realm continue to be a concern. Several elements of the updated proposals appear aspirational, raising doubts about their feasibility. The amenity provision would remain fragmented rather than a larger open space which is more likely to be successful. While the design evolution is noted and partially supported, the proposal falls short in resolving the urban design concerns identified. Limited changes have been made to the Design Code, and significant concerns remain. The parameter plans fix building footprints and heights to deliver a high density scheme, without sufficient evidence that the spaces between buildings can deliver a high quality public realm. The public realm is expected to accommodate multiple functions, open space, play, SuDS, servicing, BNG and UGF , without tested layouts demonstrating that these elements can successfully coexist. Inconsistencies in the tree information further undermine confidence that the streets will meet required public realm standards. In addition, some Design Code clauses duplicate The Urban Design Officer comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Please refer to paragraphs starting at 7.30 to 7.90 of the report for consideration of the design and amenity provisions. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the parameter plans. Overall, the Design Code lacks the certainty needed to secure quality outcomes and defers critical design decisions, resulting in an approach that appears aspirational rather than demonstrably deliverable. Daylight and Sunlight Consultant (Third Party): The submitted DSO assessment is well structured, follows BRE guidance, and its overall conclusions are broadly reasonable. There is no fundamental objection to the scheme on daylight and sunlight grounds at this stage. The Council’s consultant identified some points of clarification which were resolved in part. The remaining matters were agreed to be resolved at the Reserved Matters stage of the planning application process in the event of an approval. The Daylight and Sunlight Consultant comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. It is noted that paragraph 130, part c) of the NPPF (2024) is also emphasised and states that when considering applications for housing, authorities should take a flexible approach in applying policies or guidance relating to daylight and sunlight, where they would otherwise inhibit making efficient use of a site (as long as the resulting scheme would provide acceptable living standards). It is also noted that the scheme is in Outline and as such, any application for Reserved Matters will need to be supported by a detailed final Daylight and Sunlight Assessment (please refer to Condition 23). The detail submitted for the Outline stage of the application process is considered to be sufficient and acceptable. Wind and Microclimate Consultant (Third Party): The wind study is generally well structured and follows recognised methodology and bestǦpractice guidance. Its overall conclusions The Wind and Microclimate Consultant comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press are considered reasonable, and there is no fundamental objection in principle. The Council’s consultant identified some points of clarification which were resolved in part. The remaining matters were agreed to be resolved at the Reserved Matters stage of the planning application process in the event of an approval. Chapter 12 of the NPPF (Achieving well-designed places) requires developments to provide safe, inclusive and attractive environments, but it also directs decision Ǧmakers to take a balanced view of design quality in context. Wind impacts should be weighed against the totality of benefits , minor or localised exceedances can be acceptable where the scheme achieves wider policy aims. This aligns with the BRE’s approach to daylight/sunlight —i.e., guidance is intended to inform, not control, design outcomes. It is also noted that the scheme is in Outline and as such, any application for Reserved Matters will need to be supported by a detailed final Wind and Microclimate Assessment (please refer to Condition 24). The detail submitted for the Outline stage of the application process is considered to be sufficient and acceptable. Highways Authority: Subject to planning conditions and S106 obligations, no highway objection is raised. Conditions and S106 obligations requested include: x Delivery & Servicing Plan and Construction Logistics Plan (preǦcommencement) x Parking Design & Management Plan (preǦoccupation) The Highways Authority comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. The following Conditions are proposed to be secured: Condition 20 - Parking spaces leased and not sold Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press x Travel Plan (pre Ǧoccupation) x S106 Healthy Streets contribution (£140,360) x Cycle parking details (pre Ǧoccupation) x All car parking spaces to be leased, not sold x Permit Ǧfree obligation for future residents x Road Safety Audit for the proposed pedestrian crossing x Motorcycle parking at 5% of car parking provision Condition 28 - Demolition Management, Logistics Plan and Environmental Management Plan Condition 34 - North Hyde Road Pedestrian Crossing (Road Safety Audit) Condition 36 - Landscape Scheme (including parking provisions) Condition 48 - Delivery, Servicing and Waste Management Plan Condition 49 - Travel Plans Condition 50 - Parking Design and Management Plan The following S106 obligations are also proposed to be secured: vi. Section 278 Highways Agreement for North Hyde Road crossing vii. Hillingdon Council Active Travel Zone / Healthy Streets Contribution viii. Transport for London Contributions ix. Residential Parking Permit Restrictions Air Quality Officer: No objection is raised subject to: x Securing the £174,299 S106 air quality contribution. The Air Quality Officer comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. The following Conditions are proposed to be secured:

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Planning Committee Report Case Officer: Mike Kemp 76551/APP/2025/2861 Date Application Valid: 13-11-25 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 20-03-26 Application Type: Section 73 Ward: Wood End Applicant: London Borough of Hillingdon Council Site Address: Land at Avondale Drive, Hayes, UB3 3PP Proposal: Application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary Conditions 3 (Approved Plans); 4 (Approved Supporting Plans/Documents); 5 (Development Scope); 6 (Mix of Units); 7 (Phasing); 9 (Residential Density); 10 (Development Height); and 15 (Landscaping) of planning permission 76551/APP/2021/4502 dated 28.09.2022. (Hybrid planning application seeking OUTLINE permission (with all matters reserved) for residential floorspace (Class C3) including demolition of all existing buildings and structures; erection of new buildings; new pedestrian and vehicular acc esses; associated amenity space, open space, landscaping; car and cycle parking spaces; plant, refuse storage, servicing area and other works incidental to the proposed development; and FULL planning permission for Block A comprising 30 residential units (Class C3); new pedestrian access; associated amenity space and landscaping; cycle parking, refuse storage, and other associated infrastructure) to increase the number of homes, remove the existing parking court and increase podium size, revise the height strategy, removal of vehicle access and increase separation distances to create a new public square. 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 – 11th March 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. Section 106 Legal Agreement Heads of Terms: The amendments to the planning permission would require a deed of variation to be made to the original legal agreement accompanying planning application reference 76551/APP/2021/4502. It is recommended that delegated powers be given to the Di rector of Planning and Sustainable Growth to grant planning permission subject to the following: 1. That the application be referred back to the Greater London Authority. 2. That should the Mayor not issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the Local Planning Au thority for the purposes of determining the application, delegated powers be given to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth to approve this application subject to: A) That the Council agree a deed of variation to the legal agreement accompanying planning permission 76551/APP/2021/4502 with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or any other legislation to secure the following variations to the original legal agreement: x Provision of affordable housing – increased to 54% by habitable room. x Healthy streets contribution to be increased to £94,581 to account for increase in dwellings proposed. x An uplift in the Active Travel Zone contribution to £152,400 x Public open space contribution to be reduced to £71,860 to account for proportional increase in public open space provision on site. x Children’s play space contribution to be decreased to £55,000 to account for proportionate increase in on site play provision. x Air Quality contribution of £135,989 to account for increase in forecast trip generation in event that parking management measures are not implemented and a financial contribution of £6,363 should parking management measures be introduced. 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. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press C) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed wording of the heads of terms, the proposed Legal Agreement and conditions of approval. D) That, if the Legal Agreement has not been finalised within 6 months (or such other time frame as may be agreed by the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth), delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth to refuse planning permission for the following reason: The applicant has failed to mitigate the impacts posed by the proposed development (in respect of affordable housing, air quality and sustainable travel). The scheme therefore conflicts with Policies DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020); the adopted Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2014); Policy DF1 of the Lon don Plan (2021); and paragraphs 56-58 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).' E) That if the application is approved, that the permission is subject to the Conditions as set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Permission is sought under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act to vary Conditions 3 (Approved Plans); 4 (Approved Supporting Plans/Documents); 5 (Development Scope); 6 (Mix of Units); 7 (Phasing); (9 (Residential Density); 10 (Development Height); and 15 (Landscaping) of planning permission 76551/APP/2021/4502 . The original planning permission, which this application seeks to vary, relates to the demolition of all existing buildings on the site and the redevelopment of the site to provide 240 units, the majority of which (210 units) were approved in outline. The detailed part of the planning permission (Phase 1A) contains a total of 30 dwellings and has recently been completed. An increase of 56 dwellings is proposed, including an uplift of up to 33 affordable homes which would be facilitated through changes to the approved parameter plans, allowing for changes to the development height, massing and the location of development. The amendments include alterations to the landscaping, public open spa ce and access arrangements. 1.2 The provision of 56 additional dwellings, inc luding the provision of 33 additional affordable homes would represent a significant public benefit and would be achieved through making a more effective use of a previously developed site, which would align fully with the provisio ns of Paragraphs 124 and 125 of the NPPF; Policy H1 of the London Plan; and Policy DMHB17 of the Local Plan Part 2. The development would provide an acceptable quantum of affordable housing accounting in accordance with the provisions of Policy H8 of the Local Plan and provide an appropriate mix of units, including an increased number of larger family sized homes. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 1.3 The development is in outline, and the detailed design of the development would be assessed at reserved matters stage. Whilst the planning application is made in outline, the accompanying parameter pl ans would secure a development which responds appropriately to the townscape character and is of an appropriate scale and density notwithstanding the increase in the quantum of development proposed. The submitted landscaping param eter plan sets out an appropriate strategy for the provision of an appropriately d esigned public realm. It is considered that the increased quantum of development, density and scale would not have a significantly greater impact on existing residents in amenity terms compared with the consented scheme, whilst amenity provision for future occupiers has been enhanced through amendments to the site layout. 1.4 A total of 74 car parking spaces is proposed within the outline area of the site including 8 blue badge spaces. 68 car parking spaces were proposed in the outline area of the consented scheme. The proposed parking provision would equate to a ratio of 0.25 spaces per unit, compared with 0.28 parking spaces per unit which was previously consented. It is considered that the increase in parking within the site and surroundings and corresponding vehicle movements would not have a severe impact on the surrounding road network. A clause contained in the Section 106 agreement include s funding towards the implementation of a parking management scheme. Increased financial contributions are sought towards Active Travel Zone improvements and the Healthy Streets improvement ( A312 corridor (including the Bulls Bridge Junction)). 1.5 The variations sought to the approved plans and Conditions 3 (Approved Plans); 4 (Approved Supporting Plans/Documents); 5 (Development Scope); 6 (Mix of Units); 7 (Phasing); 9 (Residential Densit y); 10 (Development Height); and 15 (Landscaping) of planning permission 76551/APP/2021/4502 are therefore considered acceptable and would be consistent with the overarching aims of the National Planning Policy Framework, The London Plan, and Hillingdon Local Plan. 1.6 The planning application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the conditions contained in Appendix 1; the Section 106 Heads of Terms detailed above, and Stage II referral to the Greater London Authority. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The site is approximately 1.04 hectares and accommodates the existing Avondale Drive Estate. The estate consists of three 13-storey blocks of flats, each containing 48 flats (total 144 homes). All existing dwellings are two-bedroom flats. The blocks were constructed in the late 1960's using a large panel system. 2.2 The Estate is bound by Avondale Drive to the south and Abbotswood Way to the east. Pedestrian access is provided onto Abbotswood Way from the estate. Both pedestrian and vehicular access is provided onto Avondale Drive to the south. Minet Junior School is located directly to the west, directly to the north of the estate is Hitherboom Park, which forms part of a Site of Nature Conservation Importance Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press (Borough Grade 1). To the south of the estate is low rise, predominately 2 and 3 storey traditional housing. 2.3 Beyond Abbotswood Way to the east is the A321, the River Crane and then Minet Country Park. The A312 connects to the A40 and the M4, both of which provide access to the M25. Pedestrian and cycle access is provided to Minet Country Park (0.1 miles from the site) via an underpass which passes under the A321. The estate is approximately 0.4 miles due north-east of Hayes Town Centre. 2.4 Hybrid planning permission was granted in September 2022 for a comprehensive redevelopment of the site (76551/APP/2021/4502) which included the demolition of all existing buildings on the site. Phase 1A of the approved development, which benefits from fully planning permission and adjoins Minet Junior School and has recently been completed and occupied since September 2025. Phase 1A contains a total of 30 dwellings. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Aerial Image of Application Site Figure 3: View of Phase 1A of develop ment in foreground with Glenister House and Fitzgerald House to rear Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4: View from Avondale Drive of Glenister House, Fitzgerald House and Wellings House Figure 5: View of Wellings House and parking court from Avondale Drive Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 6: Existing play area, parking co urt and rear of Glenister House and Fitzgerald House Figure 7: View of Site from Hitherbroom Park to north east Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 8: South east corner of Site adjoing Abbotswood Way 3 Proposal 3.1 Permission is sought under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act to vary Conditions 3 (Approved Plans); 4 (Approved Supporting Plans/Documents); 5 (Development Scope); 6 (Mix of Units); 7 (Phasing); 9 (Residential Density); 10 (Development Height); and 15 (Landscaping) of planning permission 76551/APP/2021/4502 . The planning permission relates to the following development: 3.2 “Hybrid planning application seeking OUTLINE permission (with all matters reserved) for residential floorspace (Class C3) including demolition of all existing buildings and structures; erection of new buildings; new pedestrian and vehicular accesses; associated amenity space, open space, landscaping; car and cycle parking spaces; plant, refuse storage, servicing area and other works incidental to the proposed development; and FULL planning permission for Block A comprising 30 residential units (Class C3); new pedestrian access; associated amenity space and landscaping; cycle parking, refuse storage, and other associated infrastructure.” 3.3 The amendments are sought to the planning permission relate to the outline phases of the development (Phase 1B and 2) and may be summarised as follows: Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3.4 x An increase of 56 dwellings to be delivered, including an uplift of up to 33 affordable homes. x Removal of the existing parking courts and an increase in the size of the private podium garden spaces. x A revised height strategy to establish a lower- level frontage along Avondale Drive and to mitigate the impact of overshadowing on Hitherbroom Park. x Removal of vehicle access consented in Phase 1B to facilitate the provision of additional public realm and provision of play space. x Increase in separation between Phases 1B and 2 to create a new public square to include the relocation of play space. 3.5 For the outline part of the development, which is the element of the permission to which the proposed changes relate, all matters are reserved th ese matters are appearance, means of access, landscaping, layout and scale. The approved application included parameter plans for: 3.6 x Development Zones x Building Heights x Access and Movement x Hard and Soft Landscaping 3.7 The submitted Section 73 application seeks amendments to each of the approved parameter plans. It would be a requirement that future reserved matters development within the outline area of the site aligns with the approved parameter plans. 3.8 The application originally included the submission of the Design Code for the development, on the basis that the development be carried out in accordance with the submitted document, rather than there being a requirement to submit a Design Code for approval by way of planning condition. This element of the proposals has since been withdrawn. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 9: Parameter Plan 1 Development Zones Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 10: Parameter Plan 2 Building Heights Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 11: Parameter Plan 3 Access and Movement Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 12: Parameter Plan 4 Hard and Soft Landscaping 4 Relevant Planning History A list of the relevant planning histo ry related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4.1 As noted, the application seeks to vary Conditions 3 (Approved Plans); 4 (Approved Supporting Plans/Documents); 5 (Development Scope); 6 (Mix of Units); 7 (Phasing); 9 (Residential Density); 10 (Development Height); and 15 (Landscaping) of planning permission 76551/APP/2021/4502. 4.2 As noted, Phase 1 of the development approved under this permission has been discharged and all relevant planning condi tions that require the submission of details prior to the commencement of this detailed phase of the planning permission have been discharged. 4.3 Non-material amendments have been granted to the original planning permission under Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to allow as follows: 4.4 x 76551/APP/2025/2311 - Amendment sought to the wording of Condition 41 to allow for demolition and enabli ng works to take place within the outline area of the site prior to an Urban Greening Factor Assessment being approved. x 76551/APP/2025/1255 - Amendments to the wording of Conditions 31 (Fire Statement); 35 (Whole life Carbon Assessment); and 36 (Circular Economy Post Completion Report) to allow the submission of details 3 months following first occupation of the development. x 76551/APP/2024/2652 – Minor design alterations to the external substation building in connection to minor changes to the doors and introduction of a new opening to the west elevation with a louvred panel for ventilation together with minor al terations to the internal layout and staircore. x 76551/APP/2022/3661 – Amendments to Phase 1A of the development to include various non-material amendments to the design of the building and internal layouts. 4.5 It should be noted that a reserved matters application reference 76551/APP/2025/3242 has been submitted which sets out the detailed approach to the design and all other matters. This application is currently under consideration, and a recommendation will be presented to committee members in due course. 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 331 separate neighbouring properties were consulted directly regarding the proposed development. 11 site notices were posted surrounding the site. The application was advertised in the West London Gazette newspaper. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 6.2 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses re ceived are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response A total of 4 public comments have been received in objection to the planning application. 1. Object to demolition due to potential risk of property damage arising from demolition. Details needed relating to the removal of asbestos. Potential property damage arising from demolition would be a civil rather than planning matter. A Construction Management and Logistics Plan will be secured by planning condition as per the original permission. 2. Concerns regarding noise, dust and parking associated with construction activity. A Construction Management and Logistics Plan will be secured by planning condition as per the original permission which will provide adequate mitigation to safeguard the amenity of surrounding residents. 3. Concern regarding overlooking of existing properties from the new dwellings. Matters relating to overlooking are addressed in paragraphs 7.52 to 7.70 of the report below. 4. Resident safety and inadequate lighting during the construction works including the erection of hoardings. The erection of site hoardings are considered necessary on the basis of site security and safety. 5. Health risks from demolition and asbestos exposure. A Construction Management Plan has been approved, which includes appropriate details relating to managing risks resulting from demolition and management of asbestos disposal. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 6. Failure to engage with local residents during construction process. A Construction Management and Logistics Plan will be secured by planning condition, this includes details of stakeholder engagement and communications with local residents. 7. Existing residents will need to be re-housed. Existing residents will be offered replacement homes within the development. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Airport Safeguarding - Heathrow No objection subject to conditions limiting the maximum height of buildings or structures to 71m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD); submission of a bird hazard management plan; and Glint and Glare Assessment. Officers note that the AOD limit has been set a lower level (67 metres) . There is already a requirement to submit a Bird Hazard Management Plan prior the commencement of superstructure works in the outline area of the site. The suggested glint and glare assessment has been included in the recommended list of planning conditions. Ministry of Defence Safeguarding No objection. Comments are noted. NAT’s (National Air Traffic Services) No safety objections. Comments are noted. Thames Water No objection regarding foul water network capacity or surface water drainage capacity. Require submission of foundation/piling layout plan by condition. Comments are noted. A relevant condition was attached to the original permission and remains applicable. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Greater London Authority (GLA) A stage 1 response was received on 2nd February 2026. The response raises the following matters in summary: x Land use principles: The principle of estate regeneration is established by the extant consent, and the provision of 56 additional homes (33 affordable) would optimise the redevelopment of this site and is supported in land use terms. x Affordable housing: The proposal delivers 150 affordable housing units (54.2% by habitable room), comprising 100% social rent. The applicant’s viability assessment has been robustly interrogated by GLA officers and the findings are accepted. Review mechanisms will be required in line with the extant consent. x Fire safety: The applicant should clarify the provision of two staircases to residential buildings over 18 metres prior to Stage 2. x Transport: The scheme seeks to provide 6 additional car parking spaces, which would remain compliant with the London Plan. An additional contribution of £43,581 towards the A312 Healthy Streets scheme to reflect the additional residential accommodation should be secured prior to Stage 2. The support expressed towards the increase in the density of development and quantum of dwellings proposed is noted. The applicant has confirmed that all buildings over 18 metres would be provided with two stair cores. The applicant has agreed to the request increase in the Healthy Streets contribution. Transport for London (TfL) x Further information is needed on the proposed pedestrian route which connects to the adjoining park; x An increase in the contribution towards the A312 Healthy Streets scheme should be secured; x Cycle parking provision, a delivery and servicing plan and construction logistics plan should be secured through condition. x Request that an updated Active Travel Zone Assessment is carried out. Comments are noted. Information on the pedestrian link will be secured in the reserved matters application. The requirement to provide cycle parking and the submission of a Delivery and Servicing Plan and Construction Logistics Plan would be secured by condition, whilst an Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press increase in the contribution towards the A312 Healthy Streets scheme is proposed to be secured through a deed of variation to the Section 106 agreement. Agreement has been reached to secure an increase in the ATZ contribution required by the applicants. Access Officer Any approval to increase the number of homes must ensure compliance with London Plan Policy D7, to require all new homes, as a minimum, to meet the technical requirements of Building Regulations M4(2). A further 10% should meet the standards of M4(3), to ensure a proportion of new housing is built to a wheelchair home standard. Any approval to allow the reduction of car parking, should ensure that all wheelchair standard homes do not suffer a loss of an allocated parking spot. Comments are noted. The detailed design of the housing would be determined under subsequent reserved matters applications. There is a conditional requirement as per the original permission for the requested provision of accessible homes to be met. Noise Officer No comments Noted. Matters relating to noise impacts are addressed in paragraphs 7.89 to 7.92 of the report. Waste Strategy Officer Refuse storage areas must be no more than 10m from collection point on road. For blocks this side. Recommend designing bin store space large enough to house the following bins split equally between refuse and recycling. 6 x1100 and 2x food waste wheelie bins for Blocks and C. 8 bins plus FW for Block D, 16 bins for Block E and 17 bins for Block F. Comments are noted. The detailed design and layout of the refuse storage would be determined under subsequent reserved matters applications. Economic Development No objection subject to an Employment/Construction Training Scheme secured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD via a S106 Agreement. An Employment/ Construction Training Scheme has been secured in the S106 Agreement. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Air Quality Officer The proposed development is not air quality neutral and is not air quality positive and therefore further appropriate mitigation is required. The level of mitigation required from the proposed development for traffic emissions is £151,099. Once all deductions were applied, the remaining value of mitigation due is £135,989. Flat rate deductions applied are as follow: Travel Plan (10%), Green Sust ainable Measures (0%), contribution to long term LBH strategic long-term strategies (this reduction is left to the discretion of the planning officer in this instance given the % of affordable housing being provided) (0%), totalling a reduction of £15,110. Therefore, a section 106 agreement with the LAP of £135,989 is to be paid for Hillingdon to deliver its air quality local action plan and or implement specific measures on/along the road network affected by the proposal that reduce vehicle emissions and or reduce human exposure to pollution levels, in association with the operation of the proposed development. A second scenario has been agreed, whereby a reduced financial contribution would be payable upon implementation of a controlled parking management scheme. It is proposed that the deed of variation includes provision for two scenarios, whereby a higher contribution would be payable were a CPZ to not be implemented and a lower contribution in circumstances where a CPZ is implemented. Local Lead Flood Authority (Metis) The applicant has confirmed that the scheme will incorporate green roofs and raingardens. There are no objections subject to the proposed drainage strategy, subject to details of infiltration testing being provided at detailed design stage. Comments are noted. Metropolitan Police No response received. No objections were raised by the Police in relation to the original planning application. A condition was attached to the original planning Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press permission requiring that security details are provided prior to the commencement of each residential phase of the development, as well as a requirement to achieve Secured by Design Gold Accreditation. London Fire Brigade No response received. Fire safety matters have been reviewed by HSE and the GLA and are assessed to be acceptable . A condition is attached to the permission requiring the submission of the principles of a fire statement and a comprehensive fire statement at different stages of the development. Highways Authority No objections raised in relation to the proposed amendments to the submitted plans and variations to the conditions proposed by the applicants. The Highway Authority require that the s.106 obligation upon the developer to fund the provision of a Parking Management Scheme is retained and that the Active Travel Zone contribution is increased from £120,000 to £152,400 to reflect the 27% increase in unit numbers. The comments are noted and highways impacts are assessed in greater depth in paragraphs 7.76 to 7.92 of the report below. The proportionate increase in the Active Travel Zone contribution is included in the matters to be secured within the deed of variation to the Section 106 Agreement. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Content with the fire safety design to the extent it affects land use planning considerations. Noted Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development Provision of Housing 7.1 Policy H1 (Housing Growth) of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Plan 1 - Strategic Policies (2012) requires that the borough meets and exceed its minimum strategic dwelling requirement in accordance with other Local Plan policies. The Borough's target was increased as part of the London Plan. 7.2 The proposed development will deliver a mix of units and will specifically contribute to the delivery of housing within the borough. The NPPF encourages the effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. An important component of this is to ensure that as much use as possible of previously developed or 'brownfield' land is made. 7.3 Policy GG4 (Delivering the homes Londoners need) of the London Plan (2021) states that to create a housing market that works better for all Londoners. 7.4 The site is located within the Hayes Opportunity Area and Hayes Housing Zone, London Plan Policy SD1 - Opportunity Areas is applicable. The London Plan sets indicative targets for the Hayes area to delivery 4,000 additional homes and 1,000 additional jobs. 7.5 London Plan Policy SD10 - Strategic and loca l regeneration is also relevant in that it provides support for regenerat ion initiatives that tackle inequalities including environmental, economic and social barriers that affect the lives of our communities. The provision of new homes which meet modern space and building standards, together with the improved layout of the estate will significantly improving living conditions for return and new residents. 7.6 London Plan (2021) 'Policy H8; Loss of existing housing and estate regeneration' relates specifically to proposals for housing estate regeneration and requires that existing housing should be replaced by new housing at existing or higher densities with at least the equivalent level of overall floorspace. 7.9 Planning permission has been granted for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site consisting of 144 homes. The original planning permission included the provision of 240 homes , which equates to a net increase of 96 dwellings compared to the existing provision on site. The proposals as amended would provide an additional 56 dwellings above the previously consented quantum of units and would equate to a net increase of 152 units, compared to the number of dwellings currently provided on site within the three blocks of flats. 7.10 Paragraph 124 of the NPPF 2024 sets ou t that planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Paragraph 125 of the NPPF states that decisions should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and othe r identified needs, proposals for which should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land. 7.11 Policy H1 of the London Plan states that Boroughs should optimise the potential for housing delivery on all suitable and available brownfield sites through their Development Plans and planning decisions. The Policy states that this is particularly the case on sites with existing or planned public transport access levels (PTALs) 3 -6 or which are located within 800m distance of a station or town centre boundary. Policy D3 of the London Plan similarly promotes the need to make best use of the land following a design- led approach that optimises the capacity of sites, including site allocations. 7.12 Policy DMHB 17 of the Local Plan states that all new residential development should take account of the Residential Density Matrix contained in Table 5.2. In accordance with the area typology set out in Table 5.2, the site would fall within a suburban non-town centre area. The proposed housing typology would consist of mainly flats and therefore in line wi th Policy DMHB 17 a typical density of development may be expected to provide between 35 to 100 units per hectare and 105 to 300 habitable rooms per hectare. The consented proposals would provide 240 homes to replace the existing 144 units on the estate, resulting in an uplift of 96 units. In density terms, this equates to 214 units per hectare. The present concentration of dwellings on the site equates to a density of 138 units per hectare. 7.13 The revised proposals which form the pr esent application would provide 296 dwellings, which equate s to 285 dwellings per hectare. As with the consented scheme, the revised proposals would sign ificantly exceed the guideline density requirements set out under Policy DMHB 17 of the Local Plan. 7.14 The site lies within the Hayes Opportunity Area, which is a focus area for housing growth as set out within the London Plan. All the site lies within 800 metres of the boundary of Hayes Town Centre which extends up to The Birchway. Whilst the site is site is more distant fr om Hayes and Harlington Station which is approximately 1.8km from the site, the site would be within a location whereby higher density residential development would be acceptable and would align generally with the provisions of Policy H1 of the London Plan. 7.15 The appropriateness of the density of development is further assessed in design terms within the design section of this report, however the principle of increasing the density of development and the overall number of dwellings that would be provided is considered acceptable and aligns with the aims of Paragraphs 124 and 125 of the NPPF; Policy H1 of the London Plan; and Policy DMHB17 of the Local Plan Part 2 . The policies set out emphasis on the requirement to make effective use of previously developed la nd in the interests of delivering new Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press homes. The provision of an addit ional 56 dwellings, which would include 33 affordable homes would deliver significant additional public benefits that must be afforded weight. The impact of variations sought and wider compliance with the Local Plan; London Plan; and NPPF as a whole, including the implications in terms of design and transport, amongst other relevant matters are considered in the relevant sections of the report below. 7.16 In summary however it is considered th at the revised proposals represent an efficient and appropriate re-use of previously developed land, and the principle of the proposed development is therefore acceptable. The principle of residential development on this site has been previously established under the hybrid planning permission and the provision of additional homes, above the number of dwellings previously consented is acceptable in line with the Local Plan, London Plan and NPPF, subject to all wider implications assessed below. Housing Mix 7.17 Policy H10 of the London Plan (2021) states that schemes should generally consist of a range of unit sizes. Policy DMH 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that the Council will require the provision of a mix of housing units of different sizes in schemes of residential development to reflect the Council's latest information on housing need. Paragraph 4.6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states th at the Council's current information on housing need indicates a substantial borough -wide requirement for larger affordable and private market units, particularly three-bedroom properties. Applicants proposing residential schemes will be required to demonstrate that this need has been taken into account. 7.18 Condition 6 of planning permission 76551/APP/2021/4502 placed the following restriction on the mix of dwelling size s to be delivered within subsequent reserved matters applications, which were as follows: x One bedroom units - 37% x Two bedroom units - 47% x Three and four bedroom units - 16% 7.19 Revisions are sought to Condition 6 of planning permission 76551/APP/2021/4502 to alter the proposed mix of dwellings to include additional flexibility around the size of the dwellings to be delivered within the outline parts of the site under future reserved matters applications. It is proposed that Condition 6 would be revised to ensure that the following mix of housing sizes are provided within the outline phase of the development: x One bedroom homes – 32-36% x Two bedroom homes – 42-46% x Three and four bedroom homes – 20 to 24% Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.20 The additional flexibility sought is considered reasonable and the proposed revisions to Condition 6 would secure a higher percentage of larger three- and four-bedroom homes (20% at the lowest end of the scale). The revised mix better aligns with Policy H10 of the London Plan and Policy DMH 2 of the Local Plan Part 2. Furthermore, the introduction of a broader scope in terms of unit sizes to be delivered within the outline area is considered a reasonable change given the scale of the development . The presen t wording of the condition is particularly restrictive, and further flexibility is consider ed appropriate to enable further design development of later phases of the scheme, whilst providing a quantum of family sized homes that at the lower end would marginally exceed the minimum 18% of three - and four- bedroom homes previously permitted. The change sought to the wording of Condition 6 is therefore accepted and the revised wording is included in the list of conditions attached as an appendix to this report. Affordable Housing 7.21 Policy H2 of Hillingdon Council 's Local Plan Part 1 Strategic Policies (2012) states that housing provision is expected to include a range of housing to meet the needs of all types of households, and the Council will seek to maximise the delivery of affordable housing from all sites. For sites with a capacity of ten or more units, the Council will seek to ensure that the affordable housing mix reflects housing needs in the borough, particularly the need for larger family units. 7.22 Policy DMH 7 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020) states that developments with a capacity to provide ten or more units will be required to maximise the delivery of on- site affordable housing. Subject to viability and if appropriate in all circumstances, a minimum of 35 per cent of all new homes on sites of ten or more units should be delivered as affordable housing, with the tenure split 70 per cent Social or Affordable Rent and 30 per cent Intermediate. 7.23 Policy H5 of The London Plan (2021) sets out the minimum requirements relating to the provision of affordable housing, however as set out within the policy separate provisions are applicable to es tate regeneration schemes on public sector land, which is applicable to the proposed development. 7.24 The requirements relating to estate regeneration are set out under Policy H8 of the London Plan 2021 , which specifies that the loss of existing housing should be replaced by new housing at existing or higher densities with at least the equivalent level of overall floorspace. Affordable housing that is replacing social rent housing must be provided as social rent housing where it is facilitating a right of return for existing tenants. W here affordable housing that is replacing social rent housing is not facilitating a right of return, it may be provided as either social rent or London Affordable Rent housing. Replacement affordable housing should be integrated into the development to ensure mixed and inclusive communities. All development proposals that include the demolition and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press replacement of affordable housing are required to follow the Viability Tested Route and should seek to provide an uplift in affordable housing in addition to the replacement affordable housing floorspace. 7.25 The original planning permission proposed a net increase in overall affordable floorspace, albeit with a reduced number of affordable homes (117), since a higher number of larger homes (3 and 4 bedrooms) were proposed than are currently located on the site . In total the affordable housing provision within the consented scheme equated to 52.5% by floor area (54.6% by habitable room and 48.8% by dwellings) of the entire scheme. The Section 106 agreement accompanying the original planning application set an ‘a ffordable housing minimum’ figure defining the quantum of affordable housing (by floorspace) to be provided within the development, which was set at 52.5% by floor area. 7.26 In total 150 affordable homes are proposed under the current application (including Phase 1A), compared with 117 affordable homes that were previously proposed and increase in 33 affordable homes in total. All 87 of the affordable homes proposed within the original application were secured as social rented tenure. It is similarly proposed u nder the current application that the 150 affordable homes would be socially rented. Within the revised scheme, the affordable housing floor space to be delivered within the development , as a percentage of the overall floorspace would be increased marginally to 53%. The increase in dwellings and residential floorspace proposed would deliver an uplift of 3,204 sqm of affordable floorspace, compared with the provision within the estate at present and 2,199 sqm compared with the quantum of affordable floorspace proposed under the original hybrid permission. A ffordable housing would equate to 50% of the dwellings proposed and 54% by habitable room. Under all metrics, the development would equate to an uplift in affordable housing compared with the existing provision within the estate and previously consented provision. 7.27 The Mayor's Affordable Housing and Viability SPG and Policy H8 of the London Plan set out that as well as ensuring no net loss of affordable homes, all development proposals that include the demolition and replacement of affordable housing are required to follow the Viability Tested Route and should seek to provide an uplift in affordable housing in addition to the replacement affordable housing floorspace. Therefore, all such estate regeneration schemes must go through the Viability Tested Route to demonstrate they have maximised the delivery of any additional affordable housing. 7.28 The applicant submitted a financial viability assessment at the time of the previous application which was scrutinised by an independently appointed viability consultant on behalf of the Council. The FVA concluded that the proposed development would result in a viability deficit ( a deficit of minus £10,439,311 against the viability benchmark ). The FVA concluded that the proposals were showing the maximum level of Affordable Housing on the site and that were more affordable homes to be provided a larger deficit would result. As noted above, the quantum of affordable housing in terms of floorspace and unit numbers would be increased under the revised application. An updated FVA Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press has been provided by the applicants which concludes that the development would likely result in a deficit of £23,841,100 which would equate to a substantial viability gap, which would increase further were further affordable homes to be provided. The updated FVA has been reviewed by the GLA and has been found to be robust in its conclusions. On this basis the proposed provision of affordable housing is considered acceptable and as noted is an increase on the previously proposed quantum of affordable housing, which must be considered a significant public benefit. 7.29 Given the increase in affordable housing proposed, a deed of variation to the Section 106 agreement accompanying the planning application is required. Accounting for the increase in units and floorspace proposed, a variation is required to the Affordable Housing Targ et Tenure Split definition as defined within the Section 106 agreement acco mpanying the original planning application, to increase the minimum number of social rented housing units from 87 to 120. 7.30 The quantum of affordable housing proposed would be in accordance with the aims of the NPPF (2024), Policies H5 and H6 of The London Plan (2021), Policy H2 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part 1 Strategic Policies (2012), and DMH 7 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020). The policy compliant provision of affordable housing and split of affordable tenure homes must be secured within the accompanying Section 106 agreement should planning permission be granted to en sure the adequate provision of affordable homes under subsequent reserved matters planning applications. Development Phasing 7.31 Condition 7 of the planning permission requires that development is carried out in accordance with Phasing Plan (AVD-PRP-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A- 20060 Rev P1) which was submitted at the time of the original planning application. Accounting for the timescales of the construction project and other associated actions required rel ating to existing occupiers, this programme has been altered. The Phasing Plan submitted with the S73 application (ref: AVD-PRP-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A- 20060 Rev P1) identifies the three phases; phase 1a (completed), phase 1b and phase 2. As per the phasing timetable, Phase 1b will start in Q1 Spring 2027, and Phase 2 will follow in Q2 Summer 2027 with completion sch eduled for Phase 2 in Autumn 202 9 and Phase 1B in Winter 2030. The timescales and spatial are considered acceptable in achieving an appropriately ordered, comprehensive and timely completion of the proposed works. Design, Density and Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.32 Paragraph 135 of the NPPF (2024) stat es 'Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.' 7.33 Policies D1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) require development proposals to be of high quality and to enhance the local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness. 7.34 Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies (2012) Policy BE1 states 'The Council will require all new development to improve and maintain the quality of the built environment in order to create successful and sustainable neighbourhoods, where people enjoy living and working and that serve the long- term needs of all residents. All new developments should achieve a high quality of design in all new buildings, alterations, extensions and the public realm which enhances the local distinctiveness of the area, contributes to community cohesion and a sense of place.' 7.35 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states: 'A ll development, including extensions, alterations and new buildings will be required to be designed to the highest standards and, incorporate principles of good design inclu ding: i) harmonising with the local context by taking into account the su rrounding scale of development, height, mass and bulk of adjacent structures; building plot sizes and widths, plot coverage and established street patterns; building lines and setbacks, rooflines, streetscape rhythm, for example, gaps between structures and other streetscape elements, such as degree of enclosure; architectural composition and quality of detailing; local topo graphy, views both from and to the site; and impact on neighbouring open spaces and their environment.' 7.36 Policy DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) re -emphasises the need for new development to be well integrated with the surrounding area and provides design criteria as to how this would be achieved. 7.37 Policy DMHB 10 of the Local Plan Part 2 sets out Policy relating to high buildings and structures. It should be noted that the Policy does not set out a specific definition of height that constitutes a high building. Policy D9 of the London Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press sets out that Development Plans should define what is considered a tall building for specific localities, the height of which will vary between and within different parts of London but should not be less th an 6 storeys or 18 metres measured from ground to the floor level of the uppermost storey. Policy DMHB 10 sets out a series of location and design -based criteria which must be satisfied with regard to the provision of high buildings. Policy DMHB 10 requires that development be of a height, form, massing and footprint proportionate to its location and sensitive to adjacent buildings and the wider townscape context. Consideration should be given to its integration with the local stre et network, its relationship with public and private open spaces and its impact on local views. 7.38 Amendments are sought to the approved parameter plan relating to the distribution of building heights across the outline phases of the site, as well as the development zones on which future buildings would be sited. The height of the various parts of the buildings as shown on the parameter plan varied between five storeys and ten storeys (33 metres or 66 metres AOD), with the highest parts of the development being concentrated in the northeastern corner of the site adjoining Avondale Drive and Abbotswood Wa y. Building heights were limited under Condition 10 of the planning permission to a maximum height of 67 metres AOD. The site is not located within an area which has been designated as suitable for a tall building in locational terms in line with Local Plan Policy DMHB 10, however accounting for the wider appropriateness of the design approach and wider public benefits of the development, the development height, scale and massing was considered to be acceptable , as assessed under the original planning application. The application was informed by a Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (TVIA) which included an assessment of the visual impact of the indicative scale and massing of the development, based upon the submitted parameter plans. A revised TVIA has been submitted in support of the Section 73 application under consideration; this includes an assessment of the impact of the development in relation to six of the twelve previously selected viewpoints, scoping out views where the development is unlikely to appear prominent, as informed by the previous TVIA. 7.39 Phase 2 of the site consists of a single development zone. Previously it was indicated that this would comprise a central section of up to 5 storeys ( 16.7 metres) and two side sections each of 7 storeys ( 23 metres). The indicative massing corresponding to these height parameters showed a layout of three buildings within this part of the site consisting of a pair of seven storey buildings located either side of a five-storey building. The central and westernmost of the buildings were connected by a row of th ree storey townhouses , set behind a garden at ground floor level. A podium garden was provided at first floor between the proposed five storey building and th e westernmost seven storey building. This development zone was staggered in relation to Avondale Drive, thereby providing a setback to the street. 7.40 The revised building height parameter plan for this part of the site proposes a maximum height parameter of six storeys across this part of the site. The six- storey parameter zone would sit behind a narrow rectangular zone adjoining the street, where the maximum permitted height would be up to two storeys. The Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press applicants design and access statement indicates how this would appear in design terms. It should be noted that this is similarly reflected in the reserved matters application currently under consid eration, which relates to the detailed design approach ( 76551/APP/2025/3242). The plans accompanying the reserved matters application include a row of two storey townhouses, which would face Avondale Drive with a row of three six storey buildings located to the rear, sited perpendicular to Avondale Drive. The six storey buildings would each be separated by landscaped private courtyards at first floor level serving as private amenity space for each of the houses/apartments within this phase of the development. The landscaping at first floor level would sit above ground floor podium parking provided for residents. 7.41 The specific detail relating to the design of the buildings will be determined under the reserved matters application. However, providing two storey townhouses at ground floor level would be a positive design principle that would provide activation along this part of the frontage to Avondale Drive and an appropriate sense of scale along the street which also relates to the lower height and scale of development opposite . A n area of open space/landscaping set back is retained to the street. The scale of development within this part of the site would relate appropriately to Phase 1 A of the development , which is five storeys in height. With the two-storey development along the frontage providing some variation in the massing along Avondale Dr ive, accounting for the relatively limited set back position of the five-storey part of the Phase 1A block. The visual imagery prepared by the applicants alongside the views provided within the TVIA, which correspond with the heigh t parameter plans indicate that the development would sit comfortably within the context of the surrounding development. 7.42 The approved height parameter plans for Phase 1B of the development consisted of three different height parameters of 10 storeys (33 metres); 8 storeys ( 26.8 metres); and 5 storeys (16.7 metres). This provided some variation in the heights of the buildings that would be provided in this part of the site, which would have the implication of breaking up the volume of what is a relatively densely developed part of the site, comprising the tallest part of the development. Within the approved height parameter pl an, the tallest part of the development at 10 storeys was located within the north east corner of the site, to the south of Hitherbroom Park. Within the amended proposals subject of this application, two parcels of this developme nt plot would consist of 10 storeys, namely the south western parcel of the site immediately adjoining Avondale Drive the north eastern parcel which faces Abbotswood Way. 7.43 A greater proportion of this development plot would be 10 storeys in height, however the reconfiguration of the height is considered appropriate as the taller elements would be broken up by areas of lower height at seven storeys (26.2 metres) and 8 storeys (29.43 metres). In terms of the height distribution, it is considered that the siting of the 10-storey element of the building on the corner of Avondale Drive would be appropriate in terms of how this would relate indicatively to the Phase 2 development zone and the remaining parts of the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Phase 1B development zone. It should also be noted that Wellings House which sits in a similar position is 12 storeys in height. 7.44 Wider views towards the site are primarily from the east from Minet Country Park where the existing towers on the site sit prominently. Given the additional extent of development proposed compared with the existing towers and the greater volume of development proposed there would be a discernible impact upon these views. It is considered however that the revised proposals would not have a substantially greater visual impact, compared with the consented scheme. It could reasonably be argued that scope of impact is reduced given the greater variance in the height of the development zones, compared with the consented scheme which notably lacked variance , resulting in a greater concentration of taller elements , resulting in concentrated volume in key views. In views from Avondale Drive to the south of the site, the visual impact of the scale and height of the revised scheme is considered to not be greater than the originally consented scheme. As shown within the indicative plans the inclusion of a development zone with a lower height of 10.45 metres which would incorporate townhouses would provide a scale of development which relates appropriately to the street scene and surrounding context, including the lower two-storey scale of housing opposite. 7.45 Whilst Phase 1B of the development inclu des taller elements in two areas, as assessed above, it is considered that the height is proportionate and sensitive to the existing context and would integrate appropriately in principle with the adjoining street scene in Avondale Drive and Abbotswood Road,

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Planning Committee Report Case Officer: Mike Kemp 76550/APP/2025/2864 Date Application Valid: 13-11-25 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 20-03-26 Application Type: Section 73 Ward: Hayes Town Applicant: London Borough of Hillingdon Council Site Address: Land at Austin Road, Hayes, UB3 3DW Proposal: Section 73 application to vary Conditions 3 (Approved Plans); 4 (Supporting Plans/Documen ts); 5 (Land Uses and Development Scope); 6 (Housing Mix); 7 (Phasing Plan) 9 (Residential Density); 10 (Building Heights); 19 (Landscaping); 22 (Parking Allocation and Management) and 50 (Wind Effects Assessment) of application reference 76550/APP/2023/2931 dated 01 -05-2024. Section 73 application to vary Condition 3 of application reference 7655 0/APP/2021/4499 dated 28 -09-22 (Hybrid planning application se eking OUTLINE permission (with all matters reserved) for residential floorspace (Class C3) including demolition of all existing buildings and structures; erection of new buildings; provision of a community centre (Use Class F2(b) floorspace); new pedestrian and vehicular access; associated am enity space, open space, landscaping; car and cycle parking spaces; plant, refuse storage, servicing area and other works incidental to the proposed development; and FULL planning permission for Blocks A and B comprising 80 residential units (Class C3); new pedestrian and vehicular access; associated amenity space and la ndscaping; car and cycle parking; refuse storage, servicing area, and other associated infrastructure to include temporary highways and landscaping works) to increase the parapet height by 50cm in the Detailed First Phase. Variation to increase the number of homes, to join blocks in phases 2 and 3, a reduction of parking to create green spaces, amendment to scale of street and relocation of community facility. 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 – 11th March 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. Section 106 Legal Agreement Heads of Terms: It is recommended that delegated powers be given to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth to grant planning permission subject to the following: 1. That the application be referred back to the Greater London Authority. 2. That should the Mayor not issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the Local Planning Au thority for the purposes of determining the application, delegated powers be given to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth to approve this application subject to: A) That the Council agree a deed of variation to the legal agreement accompanying planning permission 76550/APP/2021/4499 and the subsequent deed of variation secured under planning permission 76550/APP/2023/2931 with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or any other legislation to secure the following variations to the original legal agreement: x Provision of affordable housing – increased to 53% by floorspace. x Healthy streets contribution to be increased to £190,833. x An uplift in the Active Travel Zone contribution to £86,335 to account for a 12.4% increase in unit numbers. x Healthcare (HUDU) supplementary contribution of £101,447. x Contribution towards canal side improvement works increased to £70,380 to account for a 12.4% increase in unit numbers. B) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in preparation of the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed. C) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed wording of the heads of terms, the proposed Legal Agreement and conditions of approval. D) That, if the Legal Agreement has not been finalised within 6 months (or such other time frame as may be agreed by the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth), delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press and Sustainable Growth to refuse planning permission for the following reason: The applicant has failed to mitigate the impacts posed by the proposed development (in respect of affordable housing, health, Highways safety, sustainable travel and public access). The scheme therefore conflicts with Policies DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Loca l Plan: Part 2 (2020); the adopted Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2014); Policy DF1 of the London Plan (2021); and paragraphs 56 -58 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).' E) That if the application is approved, that the permission is subject to the Conditions as set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Permission is sought under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act to vary Conditions 3 (Approved Plans); 4 (Supporting Plans/Documents); 5 (Land Uses and Development Scope); 6 (Housing Mix); 7 (Phasing Plan); 9 (Residential Density); 10 (Building Heights); 19 (Landscaping); 22 (Parking Allocation and Management); and 50 (Wind Effects Assessment) of application reference 76550/APP/2023/2931. The original planning permission, which this application seeks to vary, relates to the demolition of all existing buildings on the site and the redevelopment of the site to provide up to 420 units within the outline part of the site, with 80 dwellings having been permitted within the detailed element of the permission are close to completion and would be provided in Phase 1 of the development. 1.2 A series of amendments are proposed to the parameter plans accompanying the application. Specifically, the proposals within this application would facilitate the provision of 62 additional homes , including 31 additional affordable homes. The proposals also include several changes to the layout of amenity areas, public open space, landscaping and access arrangements, as well as a reduction in on street and off -street parking. Changes are proposed to the scale and height of development across the site, including the provision of 2- 3 storey mews houses either side of Austin Road. It is proposed that the community facility would be increased in size and delivered at an earlier phase in the development. 1.3 The provision of an additional 62 homes, including 31 additional affordable homes would represent a significant public benefit and would be achieved through making a more effective use of a previously developed and sustainable town centre site, which would align fully with the provisio ns of Paragraphs 124 and 125 of the NPPF; Policy H1 of the London Plan; and Policy DMHB17 of the Local Plan Part 2. The development would provide an acceptable quantum of affordable housing accounting in accordance with the provisio ns of Policy H8 of the Local Plan and provide an appropriate mix of units, including an increased number of larger family sized homes. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 1.4 The development is in outline, and the detailed design of the development would be assessed at reserved matters stage. Whilst the planning application is made in outline, the accompanying parameter pl ans would secure the provision of a development which responds appropriately to the townscape character and is of an appropriate scale and density, notwithstanding the increase in the quantum of development proposed. The submitted landscaping parameter plan sets out an appropriate strategy for the provision of an appropriately designed public realm. It is considered that the increased quantum of development, density and scale would not have a significantly greater impact on existing residents in amenity terms compared with the consented scheme, whilst amenity provision for future occupiers has been enhanced through amendments to the site layout. 1.5 A total of 82 residential car parking spaces are proposed within the outline area of the site. The proposed parking provision would equate to a ratio of 0.15 spaces per unit, compared with 0.23 parking spaces per unit which was previously consented. It is considered that th e increase in parking within the site and surroundings and corresponding vehicle movements would not have a severe impact on the surrounding road network. A clause contained in the Section 106 agreement included funding towards the implementation of a parking management scheme. Increased financial contributions are sought towards Active Travel Zone improvements and the Healthy Streets improvement (A312 corridor (including the Bulls Bridge Junction)). 1.6 The variations sought to the approved plans and Conditions 3 (Approved Plans); 4 (Supporting Plans/Documents); 5 (Land Uses and Development Scope); 6 (Housing Mix); 7 (Phasing Plan); 9 (Residential Density); 10 (Building Heights); 19 (Landscaping); 22 (Parking Allocation and Management); and 50 (Wind Effects Assessment) are therefore considered acceptable and would be consistent with the overarching aims of the National Planning Policy Framework, The London Plan, and Hillingdon Local Plan. 1.7 On balance, the proposal is acceptable and would be consistent with the overarching aims of the National Planning Policy Framework, The London Plan, and Hillingdon Local Plan. 1.8 The planning application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the conditions contained in Appendix 1; the Section 106 Heads of Terms detailed above, and Stage II referral to the Greater London Authority. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The site is approximately 2.3 hectares and accommodates the Hayes Town Centre Estate which has a series of medium rise blocks of flats and maisonettes/duplexes at a height of 3 -4 storeys together with a high- rise tower, Skeffington Court, of 15 storeys. The existing estate was built in the 1970's and contains 260 homes with a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2.2 The western and southern parts of the estate are located within Hayes Town Centre boundary, which has a district -wide role as a focal point for convenience goods and services as well as public transp ort links. The site is bordered to the north by Pump Lane beyond which is four storey hotel and a residential area characterised mostly by low density traditional housing. 2.3 To the east are two storey semi-detached dwellings along Little Road, and further afield are commercial and light industrial/warehouse units. Crown Close forms the western boundary which houses a range of commercial uses, including a multi- storey car park, a public house and retail outlets. The estate is bordered to the south by the Grand Union Canal beyond which is a series of nine storey residential blocks. 2.4 Vehicular access is provided off Pump Lane via Austin Road which runs along the eastern boundary. Car parking for existing residents is provided within closed car parking areas located at the ground floor of the existing residential blocks and surface car parking in the southern part of the estate. Currently, there are approximately 225 parking spaces on-site. 2.5 Pedestrian connections between the site and its surroundings are limited to the primary access off Pump Lane to the north, a central east -west underpass that runs through the site, and a raised east-west walkway at the southern end, along Western View. Int ernally within the site, pedestrian movement is north- south orientated along the boundaries and via a semi-private raised walkway which runs through the centre of the estate and is gated at both ends. 2.6 Hayes & Harlington train station is approxim ately 0.3 miles to the south. The site is situated approximately 0.4 miles north west of the A312, which connects to the A40 and the M4, both of which provide access to the M25. 2.7 There are no local or statutory listed buildings within the site. However, there are a number of heritage assets within close proximity, this includes Silverdale Road Warehouse (locally listed and formerly a chair factory built in 1907) to the east and the Old Crown Public House (Grade II list ed building) to the west. Slightly further afield is Benlow Works, a four storey Grad e II listed Victorian industrial building, which is located to the east of the site along Silverdale Road and the Parish Church of St Anselm, a Grade II listed building to the west, beyond Station Road. 2.8 Further to the south east and west ther e are two Conservation Areas, Botwell Nestles and Botwell Thorn, which sit beyond the canal. 2.9 Phase 1 of the development which fell within the detailed element of planning permission 76550/APP/2021/4499 is substantially complet e. This phase of the development provides 80 homes, 50% of which would be socially rented within a building of between 2 and 8 storeys located on the corners of Crown Close and Austin Road with the north elevation facing Pump Lane. The facades of the building feature white brick, with secondary green glazed brick and prominent projecting metal balconies which are green and orange in colour. The building features a central podium which provides private amenity space at first floor level Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press for future occupiers, with parking provide d below this at ground floor level. A temporary publicly accessible play space has been constructed to the east of the building adjoining Austin Road. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Aerial Image of Application Site Figure 3: View of site from Station Road to south west Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4: Existing Maisonette Blocks on southern edge of site facing the Grand Union Canal Figure 5: View of Silverdale Road from southern edge of site Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 6: View from Crown Close to West of Site (existing Housing to rear of trees) on left hand side of image Figure 7: View of Austin Road looking south from Pump Lane. Existing homes at Little Lane to the left of the image and Phase 1 of the approved development and temporary play space is on the right hand side Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 8: View of lower section of Skeffington Court and existing open space from Silverdale Road 3 Proposal 3.1 Permission is sought to vary conditions 3 (Approved Plans); 4 (Supporting Plans/Documents); 5 (Land Uses and Development Scope); 6 (Housing Mix); 7 (Phasing Plan) 9 (Residential Density); 10 (Building Heights); 19 (Landscaping); 22 (Parking Allocation and Management) and 50 (Wind Effects Assessment) of planning permission 76550/APP/2023/29 31 under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 3.2 The proposals involve a series of changes to the plans relating to the outline phase of the development first consented under hybrid planning permission 76550/APP/2021/4499 which can be summarised as follows: x Increase in the number of homes by 62 units, to include 31 additional affordable homes. Change to mix in dwelling size to provide additional family sized homes (as controlled by Conditions 5, 6 and 9 and Schedule 1 of the S106 Agreement). x Changes to the design and layout of the development blocks in Phases 2 and 3, including amendments to the layout and size of amenity spaces and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press podium parking (as controlled by parameter plans 1, 2, 4 and 5 listed under condition 3) x A reduction of on street and off-street parking and amendments to landscaping and green spaces (as controlled by parameter plans 4 and 5 listed under condition 3) x Amendments to scale and form of development facing Austin Road with 2- 3 storey houses proposed on both sides of Austin Road to create a mews style streetscape (as controlled by parameter plan 3 listed under condition 3 and condition 10) x Relocation of the community facility (and increase in size) to allow the use to be brought forward at an early phase and therefore avoiding the need for a temporary facility (as controlled by parameter plan 1 listed under condition 3 and condition 5) 3.3 For the outline part of the development, which is the element of the permission to which the proposed changes relate, all matters are reserved these matters are appearance, means of access, landscaping, layout and scale. The approved application included parameter plans for: 3.4 x Land Uses x Development Zones x Building Heights x Access and Movement x Hard and Soft Landscaping 3.5 The submitted Section 73 application seeks amendments to each of the approved parameter plans. It would be a requir ement that future reserved matters development within the outline area of the site aligns with the approved parameter plans. A Design Code was submitted for approval; which would set parameters for future reserved matters applications, however this element of the application has since been withdrawn and is no longer being considered under the current proposals. 3.6 Following consultation with Heathrow Airport a revised Height Parameter Plan was submitted to limit development to the following heights: • Development Zone 1: 58.55m AOD (including plant) • Development Zone 2 and 3: 67.9m AOD (including plant) • Development Zone 4: 71.88m AOD (including plant) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 9: Parameter Plan 1 Land Uses Figure 10: Parameter Plan 2 Development Zones Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 11: Parameter Plan 3 Building Heights Figure 12: Parameter Plan 4 Access and Movement Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 13: Parameter Plan 5 Hard and Soft Landscaping 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning histo ry related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 Hybrid planning permission was granted in September 2022 under application reference 76550/APP/2021/4499 for the following development , which this application seeks to vary: Hybrid planning application seeking OUTLINE permission (with all matters reserved) for residential floorspace (Class C3) including demolition of all existing buildings and structures; erection of new buildings; provision of a community centre (up to 140sq.m of Use Class F2(b) floorspace); new pedestrian and vehicular access; associated amenity space, open space, landscaping; car and cycle parking spaces; plant, refuse stor age, servicing area and other works incidental to the proposed development; and FULL planning permission for Blocks A and B comprising 80 residential units (Class C3); new pedestrian and vehicular access; associated amenity space and landscaping; car and cycle parking; refuse storage, servicing area, and other associated infrastructure to include temporary highways and landscaping works. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4.3 A Section 73 application to vary Condition 3 of application reference 76550/APP/2021/4499 to increase the parapet height by 50cm in the Detailed First Phase was later granted in May 2024. 4.4 Separate to the original permission and subsequent variation, a number of permissions have been granted for non -material amendments to the planning permission under the provisions of Section 96a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, these are as follows: x 76550/APP/2022/3662 - Amendment of ground floor height by +200mm. - Internal alterations to the ground floor layout to improve ventilation, structural integrity, and obstruction free use. - Minor re-organisation of dwelling layout s to improve the internal arrangement. - Minor adjustments to the spacing of balconies, fenestration, and facade detailing. - Amendment to the core arrangement, lift size and window specification to meet building regulations. - Increasing roof build to accommodate the required depth of structure and falls for rainwater collection, and reduction in parapet height. x 76550/APP/2025/2740 to remove reference wi thin the description of development to the specific square metre floorspace relevant to the proposed community centre x 76550/APP/2025/2431 to amend the wording of Condition 11 (Play Space for Children), Condition 12 (Permanent Access Arrangements) and Condition 19 (Permanent Landscaping). x 76550/APP/2025/2006 to amend the tenure of 10no. Residential Units' Tenure (From Returning Leaseholder to Social Rent). x 76550/APP/2025/1256 to amend the wording of Conditions 45 (GLA's whole life carbon assessment) and 46 (Circular Economy Statement Report). 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 813 separate neighbouring properties were consulted directly regarding the proposed development. 19 site notices were posted surrounding the site. The application was advertised in the West London Gazette newspaper. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 6.2 Following the serving of Certificate C by the applicants in relation to a section of the site whereby the ownership is not known, the application was readvertised by direct notification, press advertisement and by site notice on 10 th February 2026 for a period of 21 days. It is noted that the expiry date for th e consultation is the 3rd March, the date of which this report is published. Any comments received after the expiry of the consultation will be recorded in an addendum to this report. 6.3 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses re ceived 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 1 letter of objection has been received in relation to the planning application. 1. The development would result in increased traffic generation and would place strain on public transport. The matters raised are addressed in paragraphs 7.90 to 7.115 of this report which relates to transport and highways impacts. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Airport Safeguarding - Heathrow Initial objection raised as a building height of up to 75 metres Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) has the potential to impact upon the safeguarded airspace associated with Heathrow’s third runway expansion proposals. Have advised that the height parameters within the development should not exceed the following: Development Zone 1: 58.55m AOD (including plant) Development Zone 2/ 3: 67.9m AOD (including plant) Development Zone 4: 71.88m AOD (including plant) The concerns expressed by Heathrow have been considered carefully by officers and revisions have been sought to the height parameter plan s accordingly to ensure that the plans correspond with the height limitations advised by Heathrow. Transport for London – Underground Infrastructure Protection No comments to make. Noted Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Ministry of Defence Safeguarding No objection Noted NAT’s (National Air Traffic Services) No objection Noted Thames Water No objection regarding foul water network capacity or surface water drainage capacity. Require submission of foundation/piling layout plan by condition. Comments are noted. A relevant condition was attached to the original permission and remains applicable. Greater London Authority (GLA) Land use principles: The principle of estate regeneration is established by the extant consent, and the provision of 62 additional homes (31 affordable) and up to 210 sq.m. of additional community floorspace would optimise the redevelopment of this site and is supported in land use terms. Affordable housing: The proposal delivers 271 affordable housing units (54% by habitable room) across the masterplan area, comprising 100% social rent. The applicant’s viability assessment has been robustly interrogated by GLA officers. Review mechanisms will be required in line with the extant consent. Transport: An additional contribution of £46,833 towards the A312 Healthy Streets scheme to reflect the additional residential accommodation should be secured prior to Stage 2. The proposed reduction of car parking is welcomed. The comments raised by the GLA are duly noted and the suggested increase in the Healthy Streets contribution would be secured through a deed of variation to the S106 agreement. Transport for London (TfL) An updated ATZ assessment should be undertaken; Appropriate design and management measures should be implemented on Silverdale Road; A proportionate increase in the contribution to the A312 Healthy Streets scheme should be secured; Comments are noted. The requirement to provide cycle parking and the submission of a Delivery and Servicing Plan and Construction Logistics Plan would be secured by Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press A Delivery Servicing Plan, Construction Logistics Plan and Travel Plan should be re-secured. condition, whilst an increase in the contribution towards the A312 Healthy Streets scheme is proposed to be secured through a deed of variation to the Section 106 agreement. Agreement has been reached to secure an increase in the ATZ contribution required by the applicants. Highways No objections raised in relation to the proposed amendments to the submitted plans and variations to the conditions proposed by the applicants. The proposed increase in units would be accompanied with a decrease in the number of car parking spaces proposed, this would fall from 84no. on -plot and 29no. on-street, total of 113no. as approved under planning reference 76550/APP/2023/2931 to 48no. on -plot and 12no. on-street total 60no. This reduction car parking spaces accordance with the London Plan (2021) Policy T2 Healthy Streets which requires that development proposal should “ reduce the dominance of vehicles on London’s streets”. The Highway Authority require that the s.106 obligation upon the developer to fund the provision of a Parking Management Scheme is retained and that the Active Travel Zone contribution is increased from £76,861 to £86,335 to reflect the 12.4% increase in unit numbers. Comments are noted. The increased ATZ contribution is set out within the S106 Heads of Terms as highlighted above in this report. Access Officer Any approval to increase the number of homes must ensure compliance with London Plan Policy D7, to require all new homes, as a minimum, to meet the technical requirements of Building Regulations M4(2). A further 10% should meet the standards of M4(3), to ensure a proportion of new housing is built to a wheelchair home standard. Comments are noted. The detailed design of the housing would be determined under subsequent reserved matters applications. There is a conditional requirement as per the original permission for the requested provision Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Any approval to allow the reduction of car parking, should ensure that all wheelchair standard homes do not suffer a loss of an allocated parking spot. of accessible homes to be met. Noise Officer No comments to make Noted. Matters relating to noise impacts are addressed in Paragraphs 7.116 to 7.119 of the report. Waste Strategy Officer Refuse servicing plans look appropriate but cannot find mention of numbers of bins present. For Phase 3, officers would recommend up to 52 1100L bins split between refuse and recycling; and for phase 4, officers would recommend 46. It will be important to design bin rooms with space to rotate bins if necessary. The requested details would be set out within the reserved matters application as this relates to detailed design. Economic Development No objection subject to an Employment/Construction Training Scheme secured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD via a S106 Agreement. These matters are presently secured within the S106 agreement and no further variations are required . NHS – Healthy Urban Development Unit No comments to add. Have advised that the Council calculate the additional healthcare contributions using the relevant HUDU methodology. Officers have calculated a relative increased HUDU contribution accordingly , the increased figure is stated in the Heads of Terms section of the report. Local Lead Flood Authority (Metis) No objection to the drainage strategy in principle. Comments noted. Metropolitan Police No response received. No objections were raised by the Police in relation to the original planning application. A condition was attached to the original planning permission requiring that security details are provided prior to the commencement Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press of each residential phase of the development, as well as a requirement to achieve Secured by Design Gold Accreditation. London Fire Brigade No response received. Fire safety matters have been reviewed by HSE and the GLA and are assessed to be acceptable. A condition is attached to the permission requiring the submission of the principles of a fire statement and a comprehensive fire statement at different stages of the development. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) HSE is content with the fire safety design to the extent it affects land use planning considerations. Comments are noted. Urban Design Officer These changes optimise the site’s density while delivering benefits, which include: x Reduced building heights along Austin Road, allowing increased daylight to the central podium garden and creating a mews-style street character; x The consolidation of Phases 2 and 3 removes the internal road between them, increasing amenity space within the block and reducing the need for on-street car parking; x Canal-edge buildings have been set back to enhance the public realm along Western View and rotated to improve sky views from the canal; x Retention of additional trees across the site; x Introduction of inset balconies along the canal-edge perimeter block; x Improved overshadowing conditions for the main square; Comments are noted and are discussed further within the design section of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press x Creation of active frontages along Austin Road. In summary, the minor amendments proposed for approval are broadly supported, as they further optimise the site and deliver benefits to the overall urban design. Canal and Rivers Trust The Trust consider that the S106 Canalside Improvement contribution of £60,000 previously secured, with the addition of an appropriate uplift to account for index linking since the figure was provided (in addition to future index linking provision) for towpath improvements should be secured as part of any approval. In addition, the Trust recommend that conditions are required to address the matters listed below, as per the previous approved scheme for the site: - Demolition and Construction Risk Assessment and Method Statement - Drainage details - Hard and Soft Landscaping details, including habitat enhancements, footpaths, towpath linkages etc and maintenance/management regimes and responsibilities. - Canalside/public realm improvements - Tree Protection - Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) - External lighting details - Demolition, Construction and Environmental Management Plan The financial contribution as requested would continue to be secured through the accompanying S106 agreement and would be increased, accounting for the additional dwellings proposed . The requested conditions are attached to the application. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development Provision of Housing 7.1 Policy H1 of the Local Plan states that the Council will meet and exceed its minimum strategic dwelling requirement in accordance with other Local Plan policies. 7.2 The proposed development will deliver a mix of units and will specifically contribute to the delivery of housing within the borough. The NPPF encourages Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. An important component of this is to ensure that as much use as possible of previously developed or 'brownfield' land is made. 7.3 Policy GG4 (Delivering the homes Londoners need) of the London Plan (2021) states that to create a housing market that works better for all Londoners. 7.4 Policy H1 (Housing Growth) of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Plan 1 - Strategic Policies (2012) requires that the borough meets and exceed its minimum strategic dwelling requirement in accordance with other Local Plan policies. The Borough's target was increased as part of the London Plan. 7.5 The site is located within the Hayes Opportunity Area and Hayes Housing Zone, London Plan Policy SD1 - Opportunity Areas is applicable. The London Plan sets indicative targets for the Hayes area to delivery 4,000 additional homes and 1,000 additional jobs. 7.6 London Plan Policy SD10 - Strategic and loca l regeneration is also relevant in that it provides support for regenerat ion initiatives that tackle inequalities including environmental, economic and social barriers that affect the lives of our communities. The provision of new homes which meet modern space and building standards, together with the improved layout of the estate will significantly improving living conditions for return and new residents. 7.7 London Plan (2021) 'Policy H8; Loss of existing housing and estate regeneration' relates specifically to proposals for housing estate regeneration and requires that existing housing should be replaced by new housing at existing or higher densities with at least the equivalent level of overall floorspace. 7.8 Planning permission has been granted for the demolition of the 260 homes located on the site . The original consent (and subsequent variation) permitted up to 420 units within the outline part of the site, with 80 dwellings having been permitted within the detailed element of the permission which has been completed and provided in Phase 1. It is proposed that an additional 62 units would be delivered within the outline phase of the development which would be achieved through various changes to approved parameter plans, notably through changes to height and distribution of building heights and changes to the layout of the various development. The design impact of these changes, as well as the impact associated with these amendments on other areas of material planning relevance are discussed in the relevant sections of this report below. 7.9 Paragraph 124 of the NPPF 2024 sets ou t that planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Paragraph 125 of the NPPF states that decisions should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press approved unless substantial harm would be caused, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land. 7.10 Policy H1 of the London Plan states that Boroughs should optimise the potential for housing delivery on all suitable and available brownfield sites through their Development Plans and planning decisi ons. The Policy states that this is particularly the case on sites with existing or planned public transport access levels (PTALs) 3 -6 or which are located within 800m distance of a station or town centre boundary. 7.11 The site forms a parcel of the Site Allocation under Policy SA 23 of the Local Plan: Silverdale Road/Western View (Site C). The site allocation policy specifies that Site C should provide 400 homes (g ross) in accordance with the London Plan density range f or urban locations. The site policy notably pre- dates the planning application on the site which pr ovides for a higher number of homes (500 homes). The principle of providing additional dwellings on a Town Centre brownfield site which benefits from a high level of public transport accessibility given its proximity to Hayes and Harlington Station and lies within proximity to a range of local services and facilities is supported in principle given the developments alignment with the above referenced policies, which aim to optimise the density of developme nt deliverable on sites where appropriate. Given that the remaining allocated parts of Site Allocation SA 23 are expected to be redeveloped at a later time, consideration is given to the impact of the development on these remaining parcels (Sites A and B) and the degree to which the proposals on Site C relate to ensure that development on the remaining parcels is not inhibited. These matters are considered further in the amenity section of the report . Planning permission was granted for redevelopment of parts of Sites A and B in April 2019 under planning permission 71374/APP/2016/4027 which would have consisted of the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide a podium at ground level and buildings ranging from four storeys to n ine storeys, comprising 122 residential units (Use Class C3) and 230 sq.m of flexible commercial space (Use Classes A1, A3, B1, D1 or D2), together with associated car parking, vehicular access, landscaping, infrastructure works and the extension of Shackles Dock. This permission was not implemented and has since expired. 7.12 Policy DMHB 17 of the Local Plan states that all new residential development should take account of the Residential Den sity Matrix contained in Table 5.2. The majority of the site would fa ll within Hayes Town Centre, and it is therefore appropriate to consider the density against the indicative densities for development in Hayes Town Centres as set out in Table 5.2 (Policy DMHB 17). The proposed housing typology would consist of mainly flats and therefore in line with Policy DMHB 17 a typical density of development may be expected to provide between 150 to 250 units per hectare and 450 to 750 habitable rooms per hectare. The proposals would equate to a density of 225 dwellings per hectare, which would align with the guideline density target set out under Policy DMHB 17 for development within Hayes Town Centre. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.13 The design implications and broader impact associated with the increase in 62 units is assessed in the relevant sections of this report below, however it is considered that the proposal s represent an efficient and appropriate re- use of previously developed land, and th e principle of the proposed development is therefore acceptable. The principle of residential development on this site has been previously established un der the previously consent ed hybrid planning application. The provision of additional homes, above the number of dwellings previously consented is acceptable in principle in line with the Local Plan, London Plan and NPPF, subject to all wider implications which are assessed further below. Housing Mix 7.14 Policy H10 of the London Plan (2021) states that schemes should generally consist of a range of unit sizes. Policy DMH 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that the Council will require the provision of a mix of housing units of different sizes in schemes of residential development to reflect the Council's latest information on housing need. Paragraph 4.6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states th at the Council's current information on housing need indicates a substantial borough -wide requirement for larger affordable and private market units, particularly three-bedroom properties. Applicants proposing residential schemes will be required to demonstrate that this need has been taken into account. 7.15 Condition 6 of planning permission 76550/APP/2021/4499 placed the following restriction on the mix of dwelling sizes to be delivered within subsequent reserved matters applications, which were as follows: x One bedroom units - 37% x Two bedroom units - 45% x Three and four bedroom units - 18% 7.16 The above referenced mix of dwellings pr ovided a marginally lower number of family sized dwellings than would be typically sought (20%), however the mix of units was considered acceptable on balance accounting for the urban context of the site and the need to make provision for those residents seeking to return. The application seeks to provide a revised mix of dwelling sizes which incorporate an indicative range, as opposed to the fixed percentages listed under the original permission. The range in unit sizes sought is as follows: x One bedroom units 30-34% x Two bedroom units 46-50% x Three and four bedroom units 19-23% Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.17 The above referenced changes to the mix of dwelling sizes as controlled under Condition 6 are considered acceptable, given that the number of family sized homes (units comprising 3 or more bedrooms) would be 1% to 5% higher than the previously consented minimum of 18%. The revised mix represents a more balanced mix of units, which better aligns with Policy H10 of the London Plan and Policy DMH 2 of the Local Plan Part 2. Furthermore, the introduction of a broader scope in terms of unit sizes is considered a reasonable change given the scale of the development and phased delivery of the scheme . The present wording of the condition and the lack of ability to deviate is particularly restrictive and further flexibility is considered appropriate to enable design development and greater design flexibility in the later phases of the scheme, whilst achieving a minimum level of family sized homes which at the lower end would marginally exceed the minimum 18% of three- and four-bedroom homes permitted under the original application. The wording of Condition 6 is therefore revised to reflect to the above-mentioned revised mix of dwellings; the amended wording is included in the list of conditions attached as an appendix to this report. Affordable Housing 7.18 Policy H2 of Hillingdon Council 's Local Plan Part 1 Strategic Policies (2012) states that housing provision is expected to include a range of housing to meet the needs of all types of households, and the Council will seek to maximise the delivery of affordable housing from all sites. For sites with a capacity of ten or more units, the Council will seek to ensure that the affordable housing mix reflects housing needs in the borough, particularly the need for larger family units. 7.19 Policy DMH 7 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020) states that developments with a capacity to provide ten or more units will be required to maximise the delivery of on- site affordable housing. Subject to viability and if appropriate in all circumstances, a minimum of 35 per cent of all new homes on sites of ten or more units should be delivered as affordable housing, with the tenure split 70 per cent Social or Affordable Rent and 30 per cent Intermediate. 7.20 Policy H5 of The London Plan (2021) sets out the minimum requirements relating to the provision of affordable housing, however as set out within the policy separate provisions are applicable to es tate regeneration schemes on public sector land, which is applicable to the proposed development. 7.21 The policy position relating to the delivery of affordable housing in estate regeneration schemes is set out under Policy H8 of the London Plan 2021. The policy sets out that the loss of existing housing should be replaced by new housing at existing or higher densities with at least the equivalent level of overall floorspace. Affordable housing that is re placing social rent housing must be provided as social rent housing where it is facilitating a right of return for existing tenants. Where affordable housing that is replacing social rent housing is not facilitating a right of return, it may be provided as either social rent or London Affordable Rent housing. Replacement affordable housing should be integrated Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press into the development to ensure mixed and inclusive communities. All development proposals that include the demolition and replacement of affordable housing are required to follow the Viability Tested Route and should seek to provide an uplift in affordable housing in addition to the replacement affordable housing floorspace 7.22 Pre-existing affordable homes on the site (prior to the demolition carried out to facilitate Phase 1) consisted of the following tenure mix: x Affordable/social rent: 199 units; 12 ,177 sq.m; 715 habitable rooms x Private leasehold: 61 units; 4,057 sq.m; 232 habitable rooms 7.23 The original planning application proposed a net increase in overall affordable floorspace of 5,686 sq m which equates to a net gain of 40 units with 91 habitable rooms, compared with what was at the time the existing provision on the estate. The original consent equates to a total affordable housing provision of 51.7% by floor space (53% by habitable room and 47.8% by dwellings) of the entire scheme. The Section 106 agreement accompanying the original permission required that a minimum of 159 socially rented dwellings must be provided within the outline area of the site , in addition to 40 affordable homes (all socially rented tenure) in Phase 1, as well as a requirement to deliver a minimum of 51.7% affordable housing provision by floorspace across the detailed and outline parts of the permission. Of the 199 affordable housing units proposed within the original application, 159 were secured as socially rented tenure , with 40 units secured as London Affordable Rent. 7.24 The Mayor's Affordable Housing and Viability SPG and Policy H8 of the London Plan set out that as well as ensuring no net loss of affordable homes, all development proposals that include the demolition and replacement of affordable housing are required to follow the Viability Tested Route and should seek to provide an uplift in affordable housing in addition to the replacement affordable housing floorspace. Therefore, all such estate regeneration schemes must go through the Viability Tested Route to demonstrate they have maximised the delivery of any additional affordable housing. 7.25 In total 210 affordable homes are proposed under this application. It is proposed under the current application that all affordable homes would be socially rented. The proposal to no longer provide London Affordable Rent is considered acceptable in policy terms as units within this tenure would now be provided as socially rented housing . It is proposed that the affordable floor space to be delivered within the development, as a percentage of the overall floorspace would be increased marginally to 52.2%. Given the overall increase of dwellings and residential floorspace proposed within the Section 73 application, the proposals would provide 20,473sqm of affordable housing floorspace, compared with 12,177 sqm of affordable housing floorspace in the estate prior to the commencement of development (and 17,863 sqm in the 2022 hybrid permission). This equates to an uplift of 8,296 sqm from the original estate (and 2,610 sqm from the 2022 hybrid permission. Affordable housing would equate to Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 48% of the dwellings proposed, 54% by habitable room; and 52% by floorspace. Under each metric the development would equate to an uplift in affordable housing compared with the existing provision within the estate and previously consented provision. Given the increase in affordable housing proposed, a deed of variation to the Section 106 agreement accompanying the planning application is required. 7.26 The applicant submitted a financial viability assessment at the time of the previous application which was scrutinised by an independently appointed viability consultant on behalf of the Council. The FVA concluded that the proposed development would result in a viability deficit ( a deficit of minus £21,754,940 against the viability benchmark ). The FVA concluded that the proposals were showing the maximum level of Affordable Housing on the site and that were more affordable homes to be provided a larger deficit would result. As noted above, the quantum of affordable housing in terms of floorspace and unit numbers would be increased under the revised application. An updated FVA has been provided by the applicants which concludes that the development would likely result in a deficit of minus £41,178,438 which would equate to a substantial viability gap, which would in crease further were further affordable homes to be provided. The updated FVA has been reviewed by the GLA and has been found to be robust in its conc lusions. On this basis the proposed provision of affordable ho using is considered acceptable and as noted would be an increase on the previously proposed quantum of affordable ho mes, which must be considered a significant public benefit. 7.27 Accounting for the increase in units and floorspace proposed, a deed of variation is required to the Affordable Housing Target Tenure Split definition as defined within the Section 106 agreement acco mpanying the original planning application, to increase the minimum number of affordable housing units from 199 to 210 and to remove reference to London Affordable Rented Housing which would no longer be provided. 7.28 The proposed split of affordable housing would be in accordance with the aims of the NPPF (2024), Policies H5 and H6 of The London Plan (2021), Policy H2 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part 1 Strategic Policies (2012), and DMH 7 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020). The policy compliant provision of affordable housing and split of affordable tenure homes must be secured within the accompanying Section 106 agreement should planning permission be granted to ensure the adequate provision of affordable homes under subsequent reserved matters planning applications. Provision of Community Space 7.29 London Plan Policy GG1 reinforces the above at a regional level, recognising that in building strong and inclusive communities, development must "provide access to good quality community spaces, services, amenities and infrastructure that accommodate, encourage and strengthen communities, increasing active participation and social integration, and addressing social isolation". Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.30 Policy DMCI 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) also seeks to retain existing community facilities only permitting the loss of existing provision if it can be demonstrated that the specific use is no longer required. This includes confirming that it will not lead to a shortfall in provision and / or the facility is no longer appropriate, and any replacement / relocated provision offers a level of accessibility and standard of provision at least equal to that of the existing facility. 7.31 115 sq.m. of community floorspace is currently provided on the ground floor of Skeffington Court which would be demolished . The consented proposals included the provision of 140 sq.m. of a new, purpose-built community space to be delivered within the outline phase of the planning permission specifically under Phase 4. The present application seeks to provide a larger community space of up to 350sqm within Phase 3 of the development. The space provided would be substantially larger than the 140sqm of floorspace previously permitted and larger than the existing on- site community space (up to 115sqm). Delivery of the community space within Phase 3 of the development, as proposed would ensure that the space is provided at an earlier time, which would greatly benefit future residents of Phases 1, 2 and 3, as well as local users of the space. 7.32 The provision of the replacement comm unity space is referenced within the description of development under pla nning permission 76550/APP/2021/4499 as the provision of ‘up to 140sq.m of Use Class F2(b) floorspace’ . The specific wording of ‘ up to 140sqm’ of community floorspace was removed from the description of development under non -material amendment application reference 76550/APP/2025/2740 as this places an upper limit on the amount of community floorspace that could be provided within the development, which the current application seeks to increase. The restriction on the upper limit of community floorspace is similarly re ferenced under Condition 5 of the planning permission therefore the present application seeks to vary Condition 5 to allow for up to 350sqm of community space to be provided. The intention of Condition 5 is to restrict the overall quantum of development to ensure align with the approved parameter plans and to restrict any deviation from the approved plans which may in turn have wider material pl anning implications such as on the amenity of approved and existing uses, or in transport terms. The wider implications associated with the provision of a larger community space is assessed in the relevant sections of the report. 7.33 The provision of a larger community space at an earlier time would have demonstrable public benefits for existing and future residents and constitutes a notable public benefit. The principle of increasing the community space on the site is considered to align fu lly with the provisions of Policy GG1 of the London Plan and Policy DMCI 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2; both of which seek to promote the retention of, and enhancement of community facilities. Phasing Plan 7.34 Condition 7 of the planning permission requires that no applications for Reserved Matters approval shall be submitted and no development within the Outline Area Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press shall be commenced (except for demolition, ground and enabling work) until a Phasing Plan setting out the delivery of the phases across the Outline Area of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority 7.35 The application seeks to vary Condition 7 to condition that development is carried out in accordance with a phasing plan submitted under the Section 73 application reference HTC-PRP-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-20058 Rev P02. The Phasing Plan identifies the following timescales for commencement of construction and completion: 7.36 The timescales and spatial are considered acceptable in achieving an appropriately ordered, comprehensive and timely completion of the proposed works and the revised wording of Condition 7 as suggested is considered acceptable. Design, Density and Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.37 Paragraph 135 of the NPPF (2024) stat es 'Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.' Hillingdon Planning Committee – 11th March 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.38 Policies D1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) require development proposals to be of high quality and to enhance the local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness. 7.39 Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies (2012) Policy BE1 states 'The Council will require all new development to improve and maintain the quality of the built environment in order to create successful and sustainable neighbourhoods, where people enjoy living and working and that serve the long- term needs of all residents. All new developments should achieve a high quality of design in all new buildings, alterations, extensions and the public realm which enhances the local distinctiveness of the area, contributes to community cohesion and a sense of place.' 7.40 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states: 'A ll development, including extensions, alterations and new buildings will be required to be designed to the highest standards and, incorporate principles of good design inclu ding: i) harmonising with the local context by taking into account the su rrounding scale of development, height, mass and bulk of adjacent structures; building plot sizes and widths, plot coverage and established street patterns; building lines and setbacks, rooflines, streetscape rhythm, for example, gaps between structures and other streetscape elements, such as degree of enclosure; architectural composition and quality of detailing; local topo graphy, views both from and to the site; and impact on neighbouring open spaces and their environment.' 7.41 Policy DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) re -emphasises the need for new development to be well integrated with the surrounding area and provides design criteria as to how this would be achieved. 7.42 The