Planning

Minutes HILLINGDON PLANNING COMMITTEE 04 June 2026 Meeting held at Committee Room 5 - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW Committee Members Present: Councillor Philip Corthorne (Chair), Councillor Darran Davies (Vice-Chair), Councillor James Bourke, Councillor John Garner, Councillor Daniel Singham, Councillor Ella Garelick, Councillor Jagjit Singh, Officers Present: Ed Laughton – Area Planning Service Manager Grace Liu – Area Planning Service Manager Chris Brady – Planning Team Leader Eoin Concannon – Planning Team Leader Michael Briginshaw – Deputy Team Leader Mike Kemp – Deputy Team Leader Sally Robbins – Senior Planning Officer Richard Michalski – Highways Engineer Natalie Fairclough – Legal Advisor Noor Alrashed – Legal Advisor Ryan Dell – Democratic Services Also Present: Councillor Sarah Hassoun 161. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) None. 162. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS COMING BEFORE THIS MEETING (Agenda Item 2) None. 163. TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3) RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 21 April 2026 be agreed as an accurate record. 164. MINUTES OF THE AGM (Agenda Item 4) RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 14 May 2026 be agreed as an accurate record. 165. MATTERS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OR URGENT (Agenda Item 5) None. 166. 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 6) It was confirmed that all items of business were marked Part I and would be considered in public. 167. LAND AT RUSHMOOR CLOSE - 39470/APP/2025/728 (Agenda Item 7) Erection of 2no. two -storey detached dwellinghouses with associated parking, landscaping and ancillary works (revised plans 12.03.26) Officers introduced the application. The lead petitioners attended and addressed the Committee, making the following points:  The petitioners thanked the Committee for the opportunity to address them Conservation area  The site was originally part of the rear garden of Brackenwood House and was now backland within Eastcote Conservation area  The character of this part of the conservation area was defined by openness, generous spacing between buildings and mature landscaping  Replacing this open land with two detached houses, driveways and parking would permanently erode those qualities  Once built upon, the openness of the site cannot be restored  Residents do not believe that the proposal preserves or enhances the chara cter and appearance of the conservation area as required by law Overdevelopment of the constrained site  This proposal appeared to be the result of trying to fit two houses onto a constrained plot rather than developing a site that was naturally capable of accommodating them  The wider Brackenwood landholding had not been incorporated into the scheme. Instead, two substantial detached dwellings were compressed into a limited area, creating pressure on layout, landscaping and a spacious block pattern that defines Rushmoor Close  The proposal eroded the generous spacing between properties as a key characteristic of both Rushmoor Close and the Eastcote conservation area  The application was out of character with the local area Unresolved ecology and biodiversity concerns  No ecological survey had been submitted and the officer's report stated that the Council cannot currently be satisfied that biodiversity interests would not be harmed  The site may support nesting birds, bats, invertebrates and small mammals. Planning permission should not be granted first with ecological impacts investigated later Parking, highway safety and emergency access  Rushmore Cross already suffered from significant parking pressure  The road was narrow and additional development would lead to increased vehicle movement and on-street parking  Additional parking would worsen manoeuvring difficulties for residents, deliveries and refuse vehicles  There were genuine concerns that emergency vehicles including fire engines and ambulances could be delayed or obstructed Limited public benefit does not outweigh the harm  The stated public benefit was the provision of two additional dwellings. Against that must be weighed the permanent loss of open land within a conservation area; harm to its spacious charac ter and appearance; unresolved ecological concerns; and increased parking and highway pressure  Residents submit that the harm clearly outweighed the very limited benefit Members asked about parking provision. Officers advised that this was to the London Plan standard which the Council had to abide by. There would be a single space per dwelling, and no over-provision. It was suggested that there would not be a strong case to refuse the application on parking provision. Members raised concerns about size a nd footprint, which appeared excessive and out of character. Members also asked about a condition that there would be sufficient space for emergency vehicles to enter. Officers confirmed that the turning head was unrestricted, and new crossing facilities would deter parking. Members asked how the low PTAL rating had been justified. Officers confirmed that they were bound by the regional standard for the scale of development, which was a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit. Members asked about preserving the c onservation area. Officers advised that amendments had been made to reduce the height and to be set in from the boundaries. The ridge line was in line with neighbouring p roperties. Building materials were also in line with the area. The Conservation Office r had been consulted and raised no objections. Overall, officers deemed it acceptable. There was sufficient amenity space at the rear of both properties and so the application met the standards in terms of policy. Members asked about the land supply. Offi cers advised that the five -year supply was not currently being met. There was a two -and-a-half-year supply as at the start of April. As such there would be a presumption in favour of the development unless it demonstrably outweighed the benefits. In this i nstance, officers had concluded that the scheme did not cause harm. Members asked about the reference to impact on locally listed buildings. Officers advised that the distance from the site meant that impact would be minimal. Members suggested and Lega l officers confirmed that in the event of appeal, any planning conditions could be reduced or lost entirely. Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved 168. 74 ST GEORGES DRIVE - 79535/APP/2026/11 (Agenda Item 8) Erection of single storey rear extension, alteration to the roof of the existing single storey garage, conversion of the main roof to habitable accommodation comprising of 2 x side dormers and hip-to-gable extension to the rear, demolition of existing chimney, and expansion of raised patio area to the rear of the property (Part Retrospective) Officers introduced the application. Note: the YouTube broadcast was paused for the next part of the meeting. The lead petitioner addressed the Committee and made the following points:  Policy DMHB 11 sought to safeguard neighbouring occupiers from unacceptable loss of privacy – this development introduced elevated windows and elevated patio  Policy DMHB 11 also r equired a development not to adversely impact neighbouring amenity – this development appeared materially higher than approved  Policy DMHD 1 required no unacceptable loss of outlook; no unacceptable visual intrusion; and a satisfactory relationship with neighbouring dwellings  The proposal would lead to overlooking of neighbouring properties into habitable rooms, private amenity areas and gardens  There were five properties in close proximity  The application property was unusual as it originally occupied a ma terially elevated position relative to neighbouring properties on Copthall Road West and a lower position relative to its neighbour on St George’s Drive, which had changed due to deposition of waste  The relationship was not that of properties on level ground but a complex angled site impacting five neighbouring properties that orig inally had a significant stepped down ground level between them  The property sat at an angle on the plot with the rear facing into the rear of homes on Copthall Road West – this w as not a straightforward back -to-back relationship  Ground levels had been materially altered during construction  The full length of the garden had been raised through the large deposition of unknown waste materials  The combined effect was materially different from the original small bungalow  The development had not been assessed in its true context and relied on permitted development rights, separation distances and fallback positions  A separation distance measured on a plan did not reflect the actual relat ionship experienced by neighbouring residents  The report did not reference surveyed original levels or existing levels  The report relied on previous approvals and fallback positions, whereas the real - world impact derived from the enlarged roof, dormers, hi p-to-gable extension, raised floor levels, patio, and altered garden levels  No daylight or sunlight assessment had been undertaken  The cumulative impact on residential amenity had not been adequately demonstrated to the Committee  The distance between 72 St George’s Drive and 85 Copthall Road West was 23 metres  The distance between the rear window of 85 Copthall Road West and 74 St George’s Drive was only 12 metres  The cumulative impact across all alterations resulted in a materially greater effect on neighbouring amenity than originally assessed  A site visit would allow Members to p roperly assess the site and understand the true relationships and impacts Members asked and the petitioner clarified that the rear window looked directly into neighbours’ homes. Members asked and the petitioner clarified that rubble/ waste material was deposited across the whole garden. The patio was not the original level. This could be observed via a site visit. Note: the YouTube broadcast was resumed at this point. The agent submitted a written representation, which was read out:  This statement is submitted on behalf of the applicant  This is a proportionate part -retrospective application that brings a small number of detailed matters into line with the substantial works already lawfully consented at the property. The applicant respectfully asks the Committee to grant permission, with conditions  The applicant publicly thanks the case officer for the constructive way in which the application has been considered, including the jo int site visit in February and the iterative refinements that followed  By way of context, two prior decisions of the Council, both made before any petition was registered, set what is already lawful at the property: a Lawful Development Certificate, granted last July, for the loft conversion, side dormers, hip-to-gable and a new gable end window; and a Prior Approval, also granted last July, for a single -storey rear extension extending four metres beyond the rear wall.  Refusal of the present application would not undo either of those decisions  The matters before the Committee are limited and discrete: an alteration to the existing garage roof; demolition of the existing chimney; expansion of the raised patio area, with a maximum step of 300 millimetres tied to the drawings; a 0.25 - metre increase in the maximum height of the rear extension so the new ridge line aligns with the existing rear roofline; and minor window adjustments to the lawful loft scheme  Each of these is addressed in detail in the written adde ndum already with Members. The case officer carried out a site visit in February. Following the visit, the front gable was removed from the proposal, the loft conversion was scaled back closer to the lawful baseline, and the patio was capped at 300 millime tres. The amendments were confirmed acceptable in April. There are no known objections from the statutory consultees engaged – Highways, Environmental Health and Drainage  The applicant respectfully draws Members' attention to one recent decision on this same street. Number 23 was approved in August 2024 for the remodelling of a bungalow into a two -storey dwellinghouse – a materially more substantial scheme than the matters now before the Committee. That decision is the subject of section 4.3.5 of the written addendum  Two final points on the petition. First, the opening sentence of Section 2 of the Supporting Statement contained a wording error: it referred to the "northern side" of the road where the property is in fact on the southern side, towards the northern end. The wording has been corrected. The submitted d rawings, location plan and both solar studies were prepared on the correct cardinal orientation throughout, and the error was confined to that single sentence of prose  Second, the remaining matters r aised in the petition – including overlooking, the 45-degree relationship, and the change from bungalow to two storey – are addressed in detail in sections 4 and 5 of the written addendum. The officer's recommendation is consistent with the findings in tho se sections, and with the relevant Local Plan policies on residential design, character and neighbour amenity  The applicant offers the following six commitments and asks the Committee to attach them as conditions of any grant of permission: o Condition 1: th e first-floor bathroom window in the east elevation will be installed with obscured glazing, fixed shut below head height, in accordance with the approved drawings; o Condition 2: the patio step is capped at 300 millimetres, tied to the drawings; o Condition 3: no further side windows or doors without the Council's permission; o Condition 4: materials to match the existing house; o Condition 5: before the rear extension is occupied or the patio is used, the applicant will notify the Council and invi te a site visit to confirm the works match the approved drawings, with any material discrepancy to be the subject of a further application; o Condition 6: a drainage statement before the patio is in use  With those commitments in place, the applicant respectfully asks the C ommittee to grant permission and bring this matter to a conclusion A written representation had also been received from a Ward Councillor, which was read out:  The application you are considering has raised a significant level of neighbour objections. I ap preciate that this is a complex application with the number of permitted development elements within the overall scheme  I would urge you to pay particular attention to the proposed patio and ensure that it is built from the natural ground level. The petiti oners will have shown you photographs that the ground has been artificially raised before the patio has been constructed  The rear dormer is now proposed to have a second window and given the close relationship to other properties and the road angle this wi ll increase the opportunity for overlooking. I would request that this is refused  To fully consider the relationship and overlooking issues in respect of this application I would suggest you consider a site visit Members asked and it was confirmed that su bmission of additional information from petitioners was limited to five photos. Members asked for more clarity on the 45 -degree rule. Officers clarified that this applied to properties that were adjacent to each other. If a window that was adjacent to another property did not reach the 45 -degree line, then it would pass the daylight/ sunlight test. The distance from the windows of the neighbouring properties would be 10 metres. In terms of the garden, the requirem ent would be two hours of sunlight, and so it passed the daylight/ sunlight test. Officers noted that there would be a window on the rear elevation given available permitted development rights. Members queried the implications if planning permission were refused, noting that the report stated that corrections could be made by conditions if approved. Officers advised that there were two fall back positions: prior approval allowed for the single storey rear extension; and planning policy allowed for four metres depth and three metres height for th e extension. On the roof extensions, proposed dormers broadly aligned with approved development on the eastern side; and were slightly larger on the western side but set back. Officers acknowledged concerns but considered the impacts not significantly greater than already approved arrangements. Members asked about the impact of photographs demonstrating overlooking into neighbouring properties. Officers noted that the image had been taken from a first -floor window. A degree of mutual overlooking already ex isted and would remain under permitted development. Officers did not consider the overlooking significant enough to warrant refusal. Members asked about ensuring conditions had been met, and processes for if this were not the case. The Council did not rou tinely inspect all conditions and relied on public reporting. There was an active enforcement investigation already in place and if conditions were breached, enforcement action may follow. Members asked about rub ber material in the garden and potential co ntamination. Officers advised that there was no history of contamination on the site as it had historically been residential. A condition to test the site could be added if Members were minded to do so. Members asked about mutual overlooking, given the di stance of 9 -10 metres. Officers noted that typically a 20-metre separation was preferred. Officers further advised that a restriction on windows to be fixed shut could not be supported because it was a habitable room (bedroom), though a condition for partial glazing could be added. Members referenced a point in the Ward Councillor’s submission regarding the level of the patio. Officers confirmed that a condition already required a reduction to permitted development height (0.3m), and an additional screenin g condition to prevent overlooking to neighbouring gardens. Members queried concerns raised by petitioners regarding insufficient information (e.g. daylight/ sunlight assessments). Officers advised that the appli cation met local validation requirements, a nd daylight/ sunlight assessments were not required for developments of this type. The applicant’s stated commitments were reflected within proposed conditions. A follow -up inspection was anticipated given site history and ongoing enforcement case. Members acknowledged residents’ concerns but noted the risk of losing conditions if the application was refused and appealed and so supported approval subject to the strengthened conditions. Officers’ recommendations, subject to additional conditions were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved 169. LAND ADJACENT TO 7 WEPHAM CLOSE - 79199/APP/2025/3131 (Agenda Item 9) Erection of 5 new -build residential dwellings, with private amenity space, parking, refuge storage and cycle parking (amended drawings) Officers introduced the application. The lead petitioner addressed the Committee and made the following points:  The petitioner had lived in the road for 25 years  91 residents had signed the petition  One concern was vehicle access – construction vehicles, HGVs and refuse vehicles had trouble getting down the road. Refuse collections were made from the top of the road because the vehicles cannot get down the road  Parking was already at a premium. 5x3-bedroom houses with only seven allocated spaces meant there would not be enough parking. Most households had two vehicles, some had more, some had none  There was concern o ver the proposed bin store. The petitioner’s professional experience of property management had highlighted that bin stores were rarely looked after; attracted vermin; and were used as a dumping ground for rubbish. Subsequently, refuse collection was not completed as the operatives cannot access the bins. Current refuse collection oper ations were commended. There had previously been a bin store on the estate, but this was closed 10 years ago  The proposed development would be out of character with the estate  Water pressure was another issue. Properties had to have pumps to make water flow correctly. Additional properties may lower the pressure further  Separation distances were unclear  Wepham Close was a tranquil, no -through area. This development would alter the environmental quality of the road and diminish residential amenity Members r equested clarification on the separation distances between properties. Officers advised that the proposed build was over one metre from the boundary of ownership. There was a significant separation distance between the proposed dwellings and adjacent neighbouring properties. Members asked about water pressure, and about electrical capacity in relation to charging points. Officers confirmed that these were not material planning considerations. Members asked about refuse collection arrangements an d site acc ess for waste vehicles. Officers confirmed that the Council had a statutory duty to collect waste. Where access was constrained, smaller refuse vehicles may be used, though operatives were experienced in manoeuvring in tight spaces. This issue would not justify refusal. Members suggested delegating authority for discussion regarding removal or redesign of the bin store. Officers advised that the scheme had undergone significant revisions, including a reduction from six to five units, and a reduct ion in hardstanding areas. The location of the bin store had been changed from the near the site entrance to a smaller store adjacent to #7. Waste Services had no objection to the current arrangement. Members noted that removing the bin store could lead to more gree n space. Officers advised that this would likely lead to individual bin storage in rear gardens, which was impractical due to distance; waste being left informally at collection points and obstruction at property frontages. Officers concluded tha t the curr ent arrangement represented the most appropriate and workable solution. Members queried the planning balance, particularly whether limited deficiencies were outweighed by overall benefits. Officers advised that while some units may not fully meet local st andards (e.g. garden space) planning judgement required balancing competing considerations. Members queried and officers confirmed that all environmental considerations (e.g. contamination, flooding, environmental health) had been assessed. No c oncerns had been identified through submitted documentation. Members referred to air quality and asked how much additional traffic the proposed five new units would generate. Officers advised that this would be low trip -generating. Peak morning and evening periods were the key assessment points. Daytime movement patterns were variable and less predictable. Based on industry recognised statistical evidence it was estimated that there would be two to three vehicle movements per peak hour. Officers’ recommen dations we re moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved 170. TECHNOLOGY HOUSE - 76417/APP/2025/1879 (Agenda Item 10) Change of use from mixed Class B8 (Storage and Distribution) and Class E (Commercial Business and Services) uses to mixed Class B8 (Storage and Distribution) and Class E (Commercial Business and Services) and Class F.1 (Learning and Non-Residential Institutions). Officers introduced the application and highlighted the adden dum which noted a revised transport assessment and revised ground floor plan. It was noted that the additional information did not resolve the relevant reasons for refusal set out in th e officer’s report. The Chair noted that during his term of office as Mayor, he had discussed this application with the applicant. The Chair confirmed that no pre -decisions had been made on the item. The lead petitioner addressed the Committee and made the following points:  The Committee were urged to approve this change of use application for Kingsborough  The Church had had an extraordinary and lasting impact on individuals, families and the wider community over the past 23 years  The Church had played a significant role in the lives of the petitioners, providing spiritual guidance, community support, friendship and opportunities for personal growth  This demonstrated the enduring generational impact of Kingsborough and its importance as a stable and positive influence  Kingsborough was not just a place of worship, but a plac e of guidance, stability, encouragement, and its transgenerational impact cannot be overestimated  The Church had been a place where practical and spiritual support meet. Through its food bank, it had responded to local needs, and had provided support for y outh activities, Bible teaching, marriage support, financial and debt guidance, well-being, initiatives and help with employment and CV preparations. These have helped improve lives and strengthen the fabric of the local community  Kingsborough had also dem onstrated that it is a responsible and constructive community partner. It has worked closely with the Council, collaborated with other churches and maintained positive engagement with the police  Regarding concerns about transportation, it was noted that attendance at church had been now supported by an agreement whereby many members travelled by car, public transport, car sharing or otherwise organised church transportation The applicant addressed the Committee and made the following points:  The applicant was speaking on behalf of their late father, who sadly passed away in May 2026  For almost 25 years, the applicant’s father had dedicated his life to serving the people of Hillingdon and the Kingsborough Centre was borne out of this  Kingsborough was an org anisation that had supported thousands of families across the borough through education, employment opportunities, childcare and practical assistance during times of crisis  The application site would provide support for residents facing employ ment challenges, language barriers, financial hardship and mental health difficulties with social media use and youth violence prevalent in London  This building would provide a safe and positive environment for young people  It will enable the applicant to address the c auses of poverty and social exclusion by tackling why families were struggling in Hillingdon  The Hillingdon Food Bank had distributed more than 126,000 food parcels since 2010, supporting over 75,000 people  During the COVID -19 pandemic alone, 17,000 food p arcels were distributed to adults and children in need  The nurseries had provided employment for more than 250 people and cared for over 1,500 children while maintaining affordable access for low income and single parent families  Six registered businesses had been started by church members within the borough, contributing to local economic growth and employment  These outcomes demonstrated a long -standing commitment to serving Hillingdon, partnering with the Council and delivering tangible benef its to local residents  The report had identified three areas of concern, highway and pedestrian access, flood risk and air quality contributions  The applicant was willing to cooperate fully with the requested air quality contribution  On access arrangements, the propose d route through the Shell petrol station was not intended to be the primary means of access. It was presented only as an additional option.  It was proposed that this could be vehicle access only, with a separate application for pedestrian access to follow at a later date  Primary access would be from the rear of the property, supported by a minibus service, on -site parking, and available parking at nearby Tesco. A survey had proven that there were over 200 spaces available for the general public in Tesco Car Park on Sunday mornings during service times with no time limit enforced  On flood risk, the building’s former use involved IT infrastructure and high voltage server facilities with 80 members of staff. There were no plans for provide childcare services f rom the site and so the level of flood risk was lower than its previous use. The significant reduction in electric equipment and staff occupancy further reduced potential risk  The applicant had comprehensive health and safety procedures, safeguarding measures and risk assessments that they could share  Despite responding to concerns raised and submitting further information, the application had been informed that the application would be rejected, and not to submit any further submissions Members passed on their condolences to the applicant. Members noted that the application was well supported, but the hazards remained. The submission from Highways was also noted. Members commended the Kingsborough for the important work they do but noted that these cannot be separated from planning policy issues. There were major objections on pedestrian safety grounds. Officers advised that the Local Planning Authority’s commentary had sought to remain consistent with previous feedback. It was empha sised that there w as a desire to avoid the charity incurring significant costs associated with submitting a full planning application and supporting documentation where the acceptability of the site itself was uncertain. Members were informed that, despite efforts to identi fy appropriate mitigation measures to enable a recommendation for approval, no such solution had been found. Officers reiterated that the feedback provided was intended to be constructive and to prevent unnecessary expense for the applicant. Officers’ rec ommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be refused 171. HAYES BRIDGE RETAIL PARK - 78343/APP/2025/2925 (Agenda Item 11) Proposed enabling works (site clearance and ground preparation). Officers introduced the application. Members asked about power to the site during development. Officers clarified that the proposals included a substation and low voltage transformer that would plug into the grid. Officers clarified t hat the demolition management and logistics plan set out a comprehensive list of mitigation measures including noise and dust. Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously approved. RESOLVED: That the application be approved 172. HAYES PARK WEST - 12853/APP/2025/2844 (Agenda Item 12) Partial demolition and redevelopment of the existing multi -storey car park to provide new homes (Use Class C3), landscaping, car and cycle parking, and other associated work. Officers introduced the application, noting the addendum which included updates to conditions and section 16 heads of terms. Members noted that there may be an unexploded World War 2 ordnance on the site and asked if an assessment had been carrie d out to confirm. Officers noted that there was a contaminated land condition, and that this was a previously developed site and so the presence of an unexploded ordnance was very unlikely. It was proposed that the contaminated land condition be reviewed and strengthened. Members asked about site entrances, and if it would be possible to ensure that the only entrance used for construction was on Park Lane. Officers advised that there was a construction management plan, which could be added to for clarity a round access management. Members asked about the viability assessment in relation to a ffordable housing levels. Officers advised that a comprehensive viability process had been undertaken including employing a third -party consultant. This resulted in the conclusion that 10 affordable units was the maximum viable provision for the site. Officers further noted that there was an early and late stage viability review, which may represent an opportunity to add further affordable units. Including amendments to conditions, officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved 173. LAND AT AUSTIN ROAD (HAYES TOWN CENTRE) - 76550/APP/2026/460 (Agenda Item 13) Submission of Reserved Matters Application (Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale) pursuant to Condition 1 of Application ref: 76550/APP/2025/2864 (Application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 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 dated 01 -05-2024. Section 73 application to vary Condition 3 of application reference 76550/APP/2021/4499 dated 28 -09-22 (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 (Use Class F2(b) floorspace); new pedestrian and vehicular access; associated amenity spac e, 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 landscaping; 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. Legal officers advised that this was a Council s cheme, which was to be treated as though it was any other application. It followed the same statutory framework and as such Members cannot be whipped into voting a particular way. Officers introduced the application. Members asked about scope for overflow parking. Officers advised that the surrounding area was subject to controlled parking zones, which was a clause in the Section 106 agreement within the original application. This removed resident access to parking permits within the CPZ. Therefore, offic ers were satisfied that there would be no overspill parking into surrounding streets. Members asked about asbestos. Officers advised that the original application was subject to a contaminated lands assessment required by condition. There was also a construction management plan. Members asked about the implication on daylight and sunlight. Officers advised that there was a direction within the NPPF that a flexible approach be applied. There was an emphasis on introducing as many units as possible. Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved 174. HAYDON SCHOOL - 9556/APP/2026/461 (Agenda Item 14) Construction of an Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) wit h perimeter fencing, hardstanding areas, storage container, floodlights and an access footpath (Amended Red Outline on Location Plan) Officers introduced the application. Members referenced a similar application at another school whereby floodlights had to be portable and asked if this had been considered in this application. Officers advised that the two applications were different in the distance to the boundary with residential properties. The current application had a 63M distance and so was very diff erent from the other mentioned application. Members asked about parking. It was noted that the facility would be open for community use and asked if this would include access to on -site parking. Officers confirmed community access to the car park which in cluded 143 spaces. An accumulation survey had identified that approximately half of the car park would be used at peak times. Therefore, there were no highways concerns. Members noted from the photos tha t the current playing fields were in use, and so increases in noise levels were not expected to be significant. It was noted that floodlights could enable use of the artificial pitch for longer hours. It was noted that Sport England had not objected. Members asked if there had been any consultation with parents or school staff. Officers advised that it was not a requirement on behalf of the Local Planning Authority for the application to carry out a consultation. Some residents had advised that they were not consulted. There would have been a site notice. Members also asked about microplastic particles and related health implications. Officers advised that there were containment measures as part of the plans. Officers also noted that some of this would be covered by separate legislation. Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved 175. ADDENDUM (Agenda Item 15) The meeting, which commenced at 7.00 pm, closed at 10.15 pm. These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of the resolutions please contact Ryan Dell on democratic@hillingdon.gov.uk. Circulation of these minutes is to Councillors, Officers, the Press and Members of the Public.

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Emilie Bateman 1787/APP/2025/1849 Date Application Valid: 07.07.25 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 08.06.26 Application Type: Full Ward: Northwood Applicant: Mr Andrew MacDougall Site Address: 44 Murray Road Proposal: Demolition of existing dwellinghouse, and erection of two storey building containing 5no. self -contained flats with associated landscaping, parking, cycle and bin storage Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 3 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Petition received) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. A) That the Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or any other legislation to secure the following: - Parking Permit Restriction: The applicant shall enter into a legal agreement to ensure that future o ccupiers of the residential units shall not be entitled to join any parking management scheme within an existing or future Controlled Parking Zone in the vicinity of the site. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwellinghouse and the erection of a two -storey building containing 5no. self- contained flats, with associated landscaping, parking, cycle storage and refuse storage at 44 Murray Road, Northwood. 1.2 The application is required to be determined at planning committee as a petition of objection has been received. The petit ion contains 50 signatures and the desired outcome of the petition is for th e application to be refused. The main concerns raised through consultation are summarised in Section 6 of this report. 1.3 The committee report seeks to provide a comprehensive assessment of the full planning application and supporting documentation. All material planning considerations have been considered. 1.4 The site is located within an established residential area and the proposal would provide a net increase of 4no. residential units. The inclusion of a three-bedroom unit would retain family-sized accommodation on the site. The scheme would also remain below the 10% threshold for flatted redevelopment under Policy DMH 4 and is therefore considered acceptable in principle. 1.5 The revised scheme is considered acceptable in respect of design, character and appearance, neighbouring amenity, highways, parking, trees, landscaping, drainage, ecology, biodiversity net gain and the quality of accommodation for future occupiers, subject to the recommended conditions. 1.6 The revised design is considered acceptable in terms of scale, siting, form and appearance. The building would sit between two -storey residential development and the three -storey flatted development at Lingfield Close,and would be appropriate in scale. The revised frontage treatment, retention of existing planting and architectural approach would ensure the development sits acceptably within Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the street scene. 1.7 It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions (Appendix 1), as the development would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, would not harm neighbouring amenity or highway safety, and would deliver additional family housing. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site is located on the western side of Murray Road and comprises a single-storey detached bungalow with a pitched roof, finished in brick and roof tiles. An outbuilding is also located within the rear garden of the property. The site is accessed from Murray Road via an existing vehicular access, which also serves No. 42 Murray Road to the rear. 2.2 The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and comprises a varied mix of single -storey bungalows, two-storey dwellings and three- storey flatted developments. Buildings within the locality are gen erally finished in brick, render, pebble dash, or a combination of these materials. Properties are typically set back from the highway, allowing space for front gardens, landscaping and/or off -street parking. Trees and soft landscaping are a common feature within the street scene and contribute positively to the leafy suburban character of the area. 2.3 The application site has a Public Transpo rt Accessibility Level of 2, indicating a relatively low level of public transport accessibility. There are no designated or non -designated heritage assets within the site, and the site is not subject to any specific constraints. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: 3D Birdseye View of the applic ation site (application site marked with red X) Figure 3: Street View Images of the Application Site Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing single- storey dwellinghouse and the erection of a two -storey building with habitable accommodation in the roof containing 5no. self- contained residential flats, together with associated landscaping , car parking, cycle parking and refuse storage. 3.2 The proposal has been revised during the course of the application. The amendments include changes to the siting, design and external appearance of the building, the relocation of balcony provision, changes to the front landscaping arrangement, and revised locations/details for cycle and refuse storage. Updated daylight, sunlight and overshadowing information has also been submitted following clarification of the internal layout of No. 42 Murray Road and the revised siting of the proposed building. 3.3 The housing mix proposed under the scheme comprise 1 x three bedroom, 3 x two bedroom and 1 x one bedroom flats which all served by private balcony areas with a further area of communal garden space to the rear of the site. Figure 4: Proposed Site Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 5: Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations Please note – larger version of plans and elevations can be found in the Committee Plan Pack. 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 The relevant planning history for the site comprises application ref. 1787/APP/2023/202, which sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings and their replacement with an up to 2.5 -storey building comprising 5no. self -contained fl ats, with associated parking, cycle and bin storage and landscaping. This application was withdrawn on 16th May 2023. 4.3 The current application seeks to respond to concerns raised during the consideration of the previous scheme, including the relationship of the development with neighbouring properties, the overall design and appearance of the building, the treatment of the site frontage, and the arrangement of parking, cycle storage, refuse storage and landsca ping. The current proposal has been amended during the course of the application to further address these matters. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 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 Letters were sent to neighbouring properties on 16th July 2025. 6.2 During the process of the application, revised drawings were received and neighbours were re -consulted twice. The consultation period expired 3 rd of July 2026. 6.3 A petition has been received in objection to the application containing 50 signatures. 6.4 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response A petition of 50 signatures has been received in objection to the application requesting refusal. I. Concerns regarding the principle of replacing the existing bungalow with 5no. flats The principle of development, including the loss of the existing dwelling and provision of additional housing, is assessed at paragraphs 7.1 –7.5 of this report. II. Overdevelopment The scale, layout, density and design of the proposal are assessed at paragraphs 7.6 –7.18. The development is not considered to represent overdevelopment of the site. III. Impact on the character of Murray Road The impact on the character and appearance of the area, including the relationship with the established street scene Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press and urban grain of Murray Road, is assessed at paragraphs 7.6 –7.18. IV. Loss of garden/green space The impact on landscaping, trees, ecology and biodiversity is assessed at paragraphs 7.56 –7.68. V. Increased traffic and parking pressure Highway, parking and traffic impacts are assessed at paragraphs 7.39 –7.49. The Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal. VI. Impact on neighbouring amenity Residential amenity impacts, including privacy, outlook, daylight, sunlight and overbearing impacts, are assessed at paragraphs 7.19 –7.30. VII. Construction disturbance Construction impacts are temporary in nature. A Construction Management Plan is recommended by condition to control matters such as working hours, vehicle routing, dust suppression and site management during construction. VIII. Lack of solar panels/heat pumps Sustainability measures and energy efficiency are assessed at paragraphs 7.79 –7.81. The proposal has been assessed against the relevant planning policy requirements. IX. Failure on compliance with Policy DMH 4. Compliance with Policy DMH 4, including the concentration of flatted development on Murray Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Road, is assessed at paragraphs 7.1–7.5. X. Inaccuracies in the information submitted The application has been assessed on the basis of the submitted plans and supporting information, together with amended plans and additional technical information submitted during the course of the application. Any material matters relevant to the determin ation of the application have been considered within this report. XI. Noise/disturbance from visitors The site would remain in residential use. Noise impacts associated with normal residential occupation are considered at paragraphs 7.50 –7.52 and are not considered to result in unacceptable harm. XII. Subsistence concerns from excavation Subsidence, foundation design and structural matters are primarily matters addressed through the Building Regulations regime and are not determinative planning considerations . Multiple letters of objection have been received from 7 households. I. Principle of flatted redevelopment and loss of existing family dwelling. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.1–7.5 of this report. II. Concerns regarding future occupation, subletting/temporary accommodation. Concerns regarding potential future temporary accommodation or HMO- style occupation are noted. A condition is recommended restricting Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the use of the approved units to self-contained residential dwellings within Use Class C3. III. Compliance with Policy DMH 4 and existing concentration of flats on Murray Road. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.1 –7.5 of this report. IV. Impact on character and appearance of Murray Road. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.6–7.18 of this report. V. Height, scale, bulk and alleged overdevelopment. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.6–7.17 of this report. VI. Loss of garden land, greenery and wildlife habitat. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.56–7.68 of this report. VII. Amenity impacts (Overlooking, privacy, outlook, daylight/sunlight and overbearing) This is discussed at paragraphs 7.19–7.30 of this report. VIII. Disturbance from construction activity, including noise, dust, pollution which impact on nearby residents health and traffic disruption. Disturbance arising from construction works, such as noise, dust, and traffic, is not a material planning consideration in itself as it is temporary in nature. However, to minimise impacts, a Construction Management Plan would be secured by condition (see Condition 4) requiring details of working hours, vehicle routing, site set-up and mitigation measures. The development would also be required to ensure that suitable netting and hoarding is in place to minimise any excess dust from the ongoing works. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press An informative would also be added to remind the applicant of their obligations under environmental health legislation regarding construction noise and site practices. IX. Accuracy of the daylight/sunlight assessment and amenity impact on Nos. 40, 40B, 42 Murray Road and Lingfield Close. Updated daylight, sunlight and overshadowing information has been submitted during the course of the application, including assessment of Nos. 40, 40B, 42 Murray Road and Lingfield Close. This included further assessment of the ground floor habitable room at No. 42 Murray Road. The submitted assessment concludes that the relevant BRE guidance would be met. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.19 –7.30 of this report. X. Impact on the shared access serving No. 42 Murray Road. The existing shared access serving No. 42 Murray Road would be retained and would continue to provide access to that property. The Highway Authority has reviewed the proposed access and parking arrangements and has raised no objection. Vehicles would be able to enter and leave the site in a forward gear, and the additional vehicle movements associated with the development are not considered to result in unacceptable harm to highway safety or the operation of the shared Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press access. The proposal also includes resurfacing of the shared driveway with permeable block paving, which would improve the existing surface treatment. Any private rights of access, ownership or maintenance obligations are civil matters between the relevant parties and are not determinative of the planning application. XI. Parking pressure, traffic generation, congestion and highway safety. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.39–7.49 of this report. The Highway Authority has reviewed the proposal and has raised no objection, subject to conditions. XII. Adequacy and location of cycle storage and bin storage. Cycle storage is discussed at paragraph 7.44 of this report. Refuse and recycling storage is discussed at paragraphs 7.76 –7.78 of this report. XIII. Quality of accommodation, including Flat 5 ceiling heights. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.31–7.38 of this report. IV. Adequacy and usability of private and communal amenity space. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.35–7.38 of this report. XV. Impact on trees, hedges and landscaping which contribute to ecology, wildlife and BNG This is discussed at paragraphs 7.56–7.68 of this report. VI. Drainage, flood risk and utility capacity. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.69–7.75 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press VII. Sustainability, including lack of solar panels or heat pumps which help with decarbonisation This is discussed at paragraphs 7.79–7.81 of this report. VIII. Subsidence, foundations and structural damage. These are primarily Building Regulations and civil matters. IX. Site notice, neighbour notification and re- consultation concerns. The application has been publicised in accordance with statutory requirements and the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement. Neighbours were re -consulted following receipt of revised plans and additional supporting information. XX. Human rights, rights to light, private nuisance and legal access rights. Human Rights are considered at paragraph 8.1. Rights to light, easements, private nuisance and legal access rights are primarily civil matters. XI. Impact on property values. This is not a material planning consideration. XII. Concern that a similar previous application was refused/withdrawn. The relevant planning history is set out in Section 4. The previous application was withdrawn and was not refused. This application has been assessed on its own merits against current policy and the revised plans . Northwood Residents Association 30-07-25: Objection raised on the basis that only 5 car parking spaces are shown, one of which is disabled, with no on -site visitor parking. Concerns raised that Murray Road is already congested and that The matters raised are addressed in the main body of the report. The principle of flatted redevelopment and compliance with Policy DMH 4 are assessed at paragraphs 7.1–7.5. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the proposal would worsen parking and traffic conditions. Objection also raised regarding loss of front garden, limited rear amenity space for 5no. flats, overdevelopment/cramped layout, loss of privacy from side windows, poor accommodation if habitable rooms require obscure glazing, and conflict with Policy DMH 4 due to flatted development resulting in parking pressure, loss of front gardens, privacy impacts, changes to the street scene and loss of family accommodation. Further objection 16-07- 25: Request that all side windows are obscure glazed and non -opening below 1.8m to prevent overlooking. Further objection 6-04- 26: Previous objection maintained. Concern raised that a window at No. 42 Murray Road is omitted from the submitted plans. Further objection 23-06- 26: The previous objections still apply with the loss of the front garden which becomes a car park being an adverse change to the streetscene, the loss of amenity space for the residents, no car parking on -site for visitors, habitable rooms having obscured glazing to avoid Design, frontage treatment, loss of front garden space and impact on the street scene are assessed at paragraphs 7.6 –7.18. Neighbouring amenity, including overlooking, obscure -glazed side windows, privacy, outlook, daylight/sunlight and the relationship with No. 42 Murray Road, is assessed at paragraphs 7.19 –7.30. It has been clarified during the course of the application that the ground floor window at No. 42 serves a habitable room. Updated daylight, sunlight and overshadowing information has been submitted on this basis and is considered within the report. Parking, visitor parking, access and traffic impacts are assessed at paragraphs 7.39 –7.49. The Highway Authority has reviewed the proposal and has raised no objection, subject to conditions. External amenity space for future occupiers is assessed at paragraphs 7.35 –7.38. Conditions are recommended to secure obscure glazing/non - opening side windows, privacy screens, landscaping, parking allocation, cycle storage Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press overlooking of the neighbours, and general overdevelopment. and refuse/recycling storage. David Simmonds Member of Parliament for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner I refer to the above application which falls within my constituency. Constituents have contacted me with their concerns regarding this application and I understand that a petition has been lodged with the Council. I would ask that you please take their concerns into consideration when determining this application. Noted. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Design and Landscape Officer Initial concerns were raised regarding the reduction in soft landscaping to the frontage, with the frontage dominated by hardstanding, bin storage and parking. Concern was also raised that the architecture appeared overly complex for the character of the street, including the porch depth, recessed “negative spaces” and projecting bays. It was recommended that the porch be simplified, the projecting bays removed, and a more traditional elevational arrangement secured. Further details were also requested in respect of the lift overrun, recessed balconies, rear dormer, CGI views, ground floor privacy/defensible space, the positioning of cycle/bin storage and the rear separation distance. Following revised drawings, the re tention of frontage trees, simplified porch, and removal of projecting bays at first-floor level were welcomed. The Design Officer requested an Arboricultural Method Statement to demonstrate that parking spaces can be installed without harm to retained The comments are noted. Following the Design and Landscape Officer’s comments, amended plans and additional information were submitted. These included a simplified porch design, removal of the projecting first -floor bays, relocation of cycle storage to the rear, retention of frontage trees and hedging, revised frontage landscaping, updated CGI views, clarification of the lift overrun and rear dormer, and clearer details of private Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press trees, updated CGI visuals to include the lift overrun, and clear indication of the private garden areas serving the ground floor flats. amenity/defensible space for the ground floor flats. The amendments are considered to have largely addressed the concerns raised. Final details of materials, landscaping, boundary treatments, tree protection and relevant external features are secured by condition. Access Officer No concerns were raised in respect of London Plan Policy D7. The Access Officer recommended conditions requiring details of step -free access via all points of entry and exit prior to works above damp proof course level, and certification prior to occupatio n demonstrating compliance with the technical specifications for an M4(2) dwelling, as set out in Approved Document M to the Building Regulations. The comments have been noted, and the relevant conditions have been added. Highways Authority No objection, subject to conditions. The Highway Officer noted that the site is located within a CPZ operating between 1pm and 2pm Monday to Friday, and that the site has a moderate PTAL rating. A legal agreement is recommended to restrict future residents from joining a Parking Management Scheme. The proposal would provide 5no. on-site parking spaces, including 1no. disabled-compliant space. Although this marginally exceeds the London Plan maximum parking standard, the provision is considered acceptable g iven the site’s public transport accessibility and the benefit of limiting on- street parking displacement. All 5no. spaces would have active EV charging. Cycle parking provision would exceed minimum requirements. Traffic generation would be modest and capable of being accommodated on the local highway network. The existing shared access with No. 42 would remain and is considered fit for purpose, with vehicles able The comments have been noted, and the relevant legal agreement and conditions have been added. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press to enter and leave in a forward gear. The proposed resurfacing of the driveway with permeable block paving was noted as an improvement. Refuse collection from Murray Road is acceptable, subject to the bin store being located within the Council’s collection distance. A Construction Management Plan condition is recommended. Waste Officer The proposed bin store does not include provision for a 140L communal food waste bin. Concerns were also raised that a collection strategy has not been demonstrated. Given the scale of the development, it is considered that these matters can be satisfactorily addressed through a planning condition requiring full details of refuse and recycling storage, including provision for food waste, access arrangements, a collection/presentatio n point and a refuse collection methodology. Subject to this condition, the proposal is considered acceptable in waste management terms. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The application seeks the demolition of the existing single dwellinghouse and its replacement with 5no. self -contained flats, resulting in a net increase of 4no. homes on the site. The proposed accommodation would comprise 1no. three- bedroom flat, 1no. one -bedroom flat and 3no. two- bedroom flats. Whilst the existing dwellinghouse would be lost, the provision of a three -bedroom, five- person unit would retain family-sized accommodation within the development and would therefore materially mitigate concerns regarding the loss of family housing. 7.2 This is a relevant consideration in the assessment of Policy DMH 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020), which seeks to manage the redevelopment of dwellings into flats where this would result in an over- concentration of flatted accommodation, with associated impacts including pressure on parking, reductions in privacy, loss of front gardens, changes to the character of residential streets and the loss of family accommodation. Policy DMH Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4 permits such development where the relevant criteria are satisfied, including where no more than 10% of properties on the residential street would be redeveloped into flats. 7.3 Murray Road is less than 1km in length and has therefore been assessed as a whole. Officers have reviewed the flat ted development position along Murray Road and are satisfied that the proposal would not result in more than 10% of properties on the street being redeveloped into flats, in accordance with Policy DMH 4. The existing bungalow is of limited architectural merit and has an unusual siting that does not address the street in the prevailing manner. Its replacement with a frontage building would better reflect the established urban grain and optimise the capacity of the site for additional residential units at an appropriate density, consistent with the design-led approach in London Plan Policy D3. 7.4 The site is located within an established residential area and comprises previously developed residential land. The redevel opment of the site would therefore represent an efficient use of land for housing with an appropriate mix , consistent with national, regional and local planning policy, which seeks to optimise site capacit y. In the context of the Council’s current five- year housing land supply position, the delivery of additional housing attracts positive weight. This does not automatically override all other planning considerations, but it is a material consideration which weighs in favour of the proposal. 7.5 Overall, the proposal would remain with in the Policy DMH 4 threshold, would provide a net increase of 4no. residential units, and would retain family -sized accommodation on the site through the provision of a three-bedroom ground floor flat. The principle of residential redevelopment is therefore considered acceptable, subject to the detailed assessment of design, character and appearance, residential amenity, highways and parki ng, landscaping, biodiversity, drainage and all other material planning considerations. The weight to be afforded to housing delivery, including in the context of the Council’s five -year housing land supply position, is considered further in the planning balance. Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.6 Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One (2012) seeks high quality design which responds positively to local charac ter. Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020) require development to be appropriate in terms of siting, scale, bulk, layout, appearance, landscaping and impact on the street scene. London Plan Policy D3 also requires development to follow a design -led approach which optimises site capacity while responding to local context. Site Context 7.7 The application site currently comprises a modest single-storey bungalow set within a relatively generous plot on the western side of Murray Road. The existing dwelling is set back from the highway, with vegetation and trees contributing to the landscaped character of the frontage. However, the building itself is unusual within Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press this part of the street, as its flank elevation addresses Murray Road rather than a principal frontage. The surrounding area is predominantly residential but varied in form and tenure. The prevailing pattern is generally one of buildings fronting the highway with a broadly consistent buildin g line, although there are examples of backland and infill development to the rear, including Nos. 38, 40A and 42 Murray Road. The wider street also includes single -storey bungalows, two- storey dwellings, properties with roof accommodation and three storey purpose- built flats, notably next door at Lingfield Close. Roof forms include hipped roofs and gable features, with materials generally comprising brick, render or a combination of both. 7.8 The proposal would replace the existing bungalow with a two-storey building containing 5no. self-contained flats. While the proposed building would be larger than the existing dwelling and would repres ent an intensification of built form on the site, it would remain residential in scale and appearance. It would also introduce a more conventional frontage relationship with Murray Road, in keeping with the established urban grain, while sitt ing within the varied suburban context described above. Proposed dwellings 7.9 The originally submitted scheme raised concerns regarding the complexity of the front elevation and the treatment of the frontage, including the use of front -facing balconies, projecting bay features, a deeper porch arrangement, and the extent of hardstanding and ancillary structures within the front garden. Revised plans were subsequently submitted, with the final amended plans received on 30 th of March 2026. These revisions removed the front -facing balconies, relocated balcony provision to the rear elevation, omi tted the projecting bay features at first -floor level, simplified the porch, amended the fe nestration to provide a clearer vertical hierarchy, relocated the cycle store to the rear and improved the frontage landscaping arrangement. Additional CGI views, sections and elevational information were also submitted to demonstrate the appearance of the revised scheme, including the rear elevation, dormer, balcony arrangement and roof profile. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 6: CGI of Front Elevation 7.10 As revised, the front elevation would comprise a balanced residential façade with two front -facing gables and ground floor bay windows. These features reflect elements already present within the surrounding street scene, where gables, bay windows, pitched roof forms and traditional domestic proportions form part of the local architectural character. The bay windows would provide articulation and rhythm to the frontage, while the simplified porch and more ordered window arrangement would create a clearer and more traditional architectural composition. Figure 7: Proposed Streetscene Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.11 The eaves height would maintain a broadly consistent relationship with neighbouring development. While the main ridge would sit slightly above the immediately adjoining dwelling, the overall height would remain comparable with other two -storey and roof-form development within the wider street. The retained gaps to either side of the building would also ensure that it sits comfortably within the plot, maintaining a sense of openness and avoiding a cramped appearance. Overall, the revised design would read as a coherent residential building rather than an overly complex flatted block. Figure 8: Streetscene Section 7.12 The submitted section drawing demonstrates the relationship between the proposed building, the retained frontage hedge and Murray Road. From the footway immediately adjacent to the site, views would be largely screened by the retained hedge, with the line of sight extending above the building towards the sky due to the set -back position of the proposed building and the change in levels. From the opposite side of Murray Road, views would include the top of the hedge and the lower part of the front elevation, with the retained landscaping continuing to soften the appearance of the development in the street scene. Figure 9: Proposed Site Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.13 The siting of the building has also been amended, with the footprint moved slightly forward so that the building sits more comfortably in relation to the neighbouring building line, while reducing the rearward projection. This assists the development in integrating with the established pattern of development along Murray Road and improves its relationship with the rear part of the site. 7.14 The revised frontage arrangement is also considered acceptable. The relocation of the cycle store to the rear reduces built form and visual clutter within the front garden, while the retention of the exist ing hedge and frontage trees would help preserve the verdant character of the stre et. It is also noted that a number of properties along Murray Road, including between Nos. 14 and 44 and on the opposite side of the road, contain sign ificant areas of frontage hardstanding for parking. In this context, the proposed level of hardstanding would not appear uncharacteristic. The retained hedge, frontage trees and proposed planting would ensure that a soft landscaped element is maintained, preserving the leafy suburban character of the street scene. Full details of hard and soft landscaping, tree protection, boundary treatments and long -term maintenance can be secured by condition. Figure 10: CGI of Rear Elevation Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.15 To the rear, the building would include hi pped roof forms, a modest rear dormer and recessed balcony. These elements would be positioned away from the principal street frontage and would not appear prominent within the public realm. The dormer is a modest scale and the recessed balcony provides a well-designed private space without compromising the roof form or creating any privacy issues to adjoining residents given it would be recessed. The lift overrun would be accommodated within the profile of the roof, rather than appearing as a separate rooftop structure, which is welcomed as it limits visual clutter and avoids unnecessary additional roof-level bulk. 7.16 The height, scale and massing of the proposed building are considered acceptable in the context of the surrounding area. While the building would be larger than the existing bungalow, it would remain two storeys in appearance and would sit comfortably betw een the two-storey residential development to the north and the three-storey flatted development to the south. The pitched roof form, gabled frontage and domestic elevational treatment would help the building respond to the residential character of Murray Road, while the simplified design would avoid appearing unduly prominent or incongruous within the street scene. The upper- floor balconies would be located to the rear and would be modest in scale, with privacy screening to the sides. They would not appear as visually dominant additions or result in excessive clutter to the rear elevation. Final external materials would be secured by condition to ensure a high-quality finish. Subject to such details, the proposed architectural approach is considered acceptable and would provide an appropriate residential appearance within the varied street scene. 7.17 Overall, having regard to the varied character of Murray Road, the two-storey scale of the building, its transitional relationship between neighbouring two and three -storey development, the simplified architectural approach, the use of gables and bay windows to the frontage, the contained roof form, improved frontage arrangement and retention of important existing landscaping, the proposal is considered to sit acceptably within the street scene. The development would not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and would accord with Policies BE1, DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHB 14, London Plan Policy D3 and the design objectives of the NPPF. Heritage 7.18 The application site is not located within a Conservation Area and the existing building is not listed or locally listed . The Northwood Town Centre, Green Lane Conservation Area lies to the north of the site, a short distance away. Having regard to the intervening residential development, the established built-up character of Murray Road, and the revised design and quality of the proposed materials, the development would not advers ely affect the setting or significance of the Conservation Area. There are no designated or non- designated heritage assets within the site itself. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in heritage terms and would accord with Policies DMHB 1, DMHB 2 and DMHB 3 of Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020), Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and the heritage provisions of the NPPF (2024). Residential Amenity 7.19 Policy DHMB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) states that development proposals should not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. An assessment of the potential impact on neighbouring residential amenity is discussed below. Figure 11: Location in relation to neighbouring dwellings 7.20 The application site has a relatively complex relationship with surrounding properties. No. 40 Murray Road lies immediately to the north. An access road runs along the southern side of the application site and provides access to No. 42 Murray Road, which is located to the rear of the site. No. 40 also has a side access road on its opposite side, which provides access to No. 40B, another backland/infill dwelling located to the rear and adjacent to No. 42. To the south of the application site, beyond the inte rnal access road, is L ingfield Close, a three- storey flatted development. The impacts on neighbouring properties are therefore considered in turn below. 7.21 The application is supported by an updated Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment, which considers the impact of the revised proposal on Nos. 40, 40B and 42 Murray Road and 2 Lingfield Close. The assessment also includes further consideration of the ground floor habitable room at No. 42 Murray Road following clarification of its internal layout. The updated assessment concludes that the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press proposal would meet the relevant BRE guidance in respect of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing. No. 40 Murray Road Figure 12: Showing No.40 and Roof of Application Site to the Left 7.22 No. 40 Murray Road lies immediately to the north of the application site. The proposed building would be larger than the existing bungalow and would therefore have a greater presence when viewed from this neighbouring property. However, the revised scheme has moved the footprint slightly forward, improving the relationship with this neighbouring dwelling. The proposed development would sit outside the 45 -degree sightline from No. 40 and would not result in an unacceptable loss of outlook, daylight or su nlight to this property. The updated daylight and sunlight assessment consider ed 11 windows at No. 40, all of which would meet the relevant BRE daylight guidance. The assessed windows would also meet the relevant sunlight target s. The rear balconies would include 1.8m privacy screens to the side, which would li mit overlooking towards No. 40 and its rear garden. The proposed side window s would be obscurely glazed and non- opening below 1.8m. Subject to these details being secured by condition and retained thereafter, the proposal is not considered to result in unacceptable overlooking, loss of privacy, enclosure or overdominance to occupiers of No. 40. No. 40B Murray Road 7.23 No. 40B is located diagonally to the rear of the application site and adjacent to No. 42. It would be approximately 21m from the rear windows/balconies of the proposed development, with views occurr ing at an oblique angle rather than Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press directly facing. Given this separation distance and the angled relationship, the proposal is not considered to result in unacceptable overlooking, loss of privacy, outlook or overdominance to occupie rs of No. 40B. The updated daylight and sunlight assessment considered six windows at No. 40B, all of which would meet the relevant BRE daylight guidance and sunl ight targets. The garden area would also continue to receive acceptable level s of sunlight. This further supports the conclusion that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to this property. No. 42 Murray Road Figure 13: Showing Application Site and No.42 7.24 No. 42 Murray Road is located to the rear of the application site and is accessed via the internal access road running along the southern side of the site. The relationship with this property has been carefully considered following concerns raised by the occupiers regarding the accuracy of the original daylight and sunlight assessment. The original assessment identified a minor adverse impact to a ground floor window within the flank elevation of No. 42. During the course of the application it was clarified that this window serves a habitable family room rather than a garage. In response, the applicant submitted an updated Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment and amended the siting of the proposed building, moving it slightly forward with in the plot and increasing the separation distance to No. 42. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.25 The updated assessment confirms that all four assessed windows at No. 42 would meet the relevant BRE daylight guidance and that the family room would also satisfy the daylight distribution test. All assessed windows would meet the relevant sunlight targets and the garden amenity area would continue to receive acceptable levels of sunlight. The assessment theref ore concludes that the proposal would not result in unacceptable daylight or sunlight impacts to No. 42. Figure 14: View from Window of Bedroom 1 Ground Floor Unit 1 7.26 Officers have also undertaken an assessment of outlook, privacy and overbearing impact. Whilst the ground floor family room window faces towards the application site, it already has a relatively enclos ed outlook due to the existing boundary treatment and vegetation between the properties. Views between the ground floor window at No. 42 and the application site would be limited by the intervening boundary treatment, landscaping and the angled relationship between the properties. Furthermore, the application site could erect a boundary fence of up to 2m in height without requiring planning permission. Having regard to the separation distance, intervening landscaping, orientation of the properties and the updated technical assessment, the proposal is not considered to result in unacceptable harm to the occupiers of No. 42 in terms of outlook, privacy, enclosure, daylight, sunlight or overbearing impact. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Lingfield Close Figure 15: Showing Application Site Entrance and Lingfield Close 7.27 Lingfield Close lies to the south of the application site and comprises a three- storey flatted development. It is separated from the site by the internal access road serving No. 42 Murray Road. Concerns have been raised regarding the potential impact on windows serving flats within Lingfield Close, including bedroom windows facing towards the application site. The updated daylight and sunlight assessment considered the relevant windows at Lingfield Close, including those serving No. 12 Lingfield Close, and confirms that they would meet the relevant BRE daylight guidance. No sunlight assessment was required for these windows as they face within 90 degrees of due north. Given the separation provided by the access road, the orientation of the buildings, the scale of the existing flatted development and the findings of the updated technical assessment, the proposal would not result in unacceptable loss of light, outlook, privacy or overbearing impact to occupiers of Lingfield Close. The proposed side windows facing south would also be obscurely glazed and non -opening below 1.8m, secured by condition, to prevent overlooking. 7.28 The properties on the opposite side of Murray Road are located over 34m from the front elevation of the proposed development. This distance is sufficient to ensure that the proposal would not result in unacceptable overlooking, loss of privacy, loss of outlook or overdominance to these occupiers. The removal of the front -facing balconies from the revised scheme also reduces the potential for overlooking towards properties opposite . The existing hedge and frontage trees are also to be retained, which would assist in filtering views of the development from the street. 7.29 The proposed ground floor terraces, upper floor balconies, recessed roof-level balcony and communal amenity space have also been considered in terms of neighbouring amenity. The rear balconies would be modest in scale and would include privacy screening where necessary to prevent harmful overlooking. The ground floor terraces would be enclosed and supported by defensible planting, Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press with final boundary treatment and land scaping details secured by condition. Subject to these measures, the proposed external amenity areas would not result in unacceptable overlooking, privacy impacts or disturbance to neighbouring occupiers. 7.30 The proposal would result in a more intensive form of development than the existing bungalow and would have a greater physical presence on the site. However, the revised plans have improved the relationship with neighbouring properties, and the updated Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment indicates that the development would not result in unacceptable harm to neighbouring properties in daylight, sunlight or overshadowing terms. Having regard to the surrounding pattern of development, the orientation of neighbouring properties, the separation distances, existing boundary conditions and proposed mitigation, the development is not considered to result in unacceptable harm to neighbouring residential amenity. Quality of Residential Accommodation (Internal and External) Internal 7.31 Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) requ ires new residential development to provide high quality accommodation and meet the minimum internal space standards set out in Table 3.1. The policy also requires at least 75% of the Gross Internal Area of each dwel ling to achieve a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 2.5m. Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020) requires new dwellings to provide a satisfactory stan dard of accommodation for future occupiers, including in terms of layout, outlook, daylight, privacy and usable amenity space. 7.32 The submitted plans demonstrate that all five units would exceed the relevant minimum internal space standards set out in London Plan Policy D6. Flat 1 would be a three -bedroom five- person unit and would provide 98sqm of internal floorspace, exceeding the minimum requirement of 86sqm. Flat 2 would be a one- bedroom two -person unit and would provide 58sqm, exceeding the minimum requirement of 50sqm. Flats 3 and 4 would each be two -bedroom three-person units and would each provide 77sqm, exceeding the minimum requirement of 61sqm. Flat 5 would also be a two -bedroom three-person unit and would provide 82sqm, exceeding the minimum requirement of 61sqm. 7.33 With regard to floor-to-ceiling heights, the submitted information confirms that Flat 5, which would be partly accommodated within the roof form, would provide 62sqm of floorspace at full height. This equat es to approximately 75% of the total unit area achieving a 2.5m ceiling height, in accordance with London Plan Policy D6. Whilst a detailed internal daylight asse ssment has not been submitted for the proposed flats, Flat 5 would benefit from a combination of dormer windows, large front windows and rooflig hts serving the principal habitable rooms. These openings would provide a good level of natural light, outlook and ventilation, notwithstanding the accommodation being located within the roof space. Taking this into account, together with the generous internal floorspace provided, the unit Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press is considered to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers. 7.34 Therefore, all units would be served by external windows to principal habitable rooms, providing acceptable outlook, daylight and natural ventilation. The ground floor lounge/kitchen areas would be served by front -facing bay windows, with frontage hedging proposed to provide privacy from the parking area. The rear- facing ground floor bedroom windows would face towards the private patio areas and communal garden beyond, with railings and planting proposed to provide a defensible space and protect privacy. The upper floor units would also benefit from front and rear -facing windows. Overall, the proposed units would meet and exceed the relevant internal space standards and would provide an acceptable standard of internal accommodation. External 7.35 Policy DMHB 18 of the Hill ingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020) requires flatted developments to provide appropriate and usable external amenity space for future occupiers. For flats, the Council’ s standards require 20sqm for a one -bedroom unit, 25sqm for a two-bedroom unit and 30sqm for a three- bedroom unit. On this basis, the proposed development would generate a total external amenity space requirement of approximately 125sqm. 7.36 The proposed development would provide a combination of private and communal amenity space. Flat 1 would benefit from an approximately 10sqm private terrace, and Flat 2 would also benefit from an approximately 10sqm private terrace. These terraces would be enclosed by 1.2m high railings with associated planting to provide defensible space and privacy for the ground floor units. Flats 3 and 4 would each benefit from an approximately 6sqm private balcony, and Flat 5 would benefit from an approximately 7sqm recessed balcony. Figure 16: Landscape Strategy Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.37 In addition to the private terraces and balconies, all units would have access to a rear communal garden measuring appr oximately 90sqm. The total external amenity provision would therefore amount to approximately 129sqm, exceeding the minimum policy requirement. The communal garden would be located to the rear of the building and would be of a usable size and shape for future occupiers. 7.38 Subject to a condition securing full landscaping, boundary treatment and planting details, the external amenity arrangement is considered acceptable. The proposal would therefore provide an acceptable lev el of external amenity for future occupiers, in accordance with Policy DM HB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020). Highways and Parking 7.39 Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020) require development to be acceptable in terms of traffic generation, highway safety, access arrangements and the capacity of the local highway network. Policy DMT 6 relates to vehicle parking provision. London Plan Policies T4, T5 and T6 seek to ensure that development supports safe and sustainable movement, provides appropriate cycle parking and complies with residential parking standards. 7.40 The application site is located on Murray Road, within a residential area subject to a Controlled Parking Zone operating between 1pm and 2pm, Monday to Friday. The site has relatively low/moderate public transport accessibility, and future occupiers are therefore likely to have some reliance on private vehicles. The existing vehicular access from Murray Road would be retained and would continue to serve both the application site and No. 42 Murray Road to the rear. 7.41 The proposed development would provide 5no. on-site car parking spaces, including 1no. disabled-compliant space. This would equate to one space per flat. The Highway Authority has advised that, while the provision marginally exceeds the London Plan residential parking standard, it is acceptable in this location given the site’s public transport accessibility a nd the benefit of reducing potential on- street parking pressure. A condition is recommended requiring the parking spaces to be allocated and retained for the lifetime of the development. 7.42 The surrounding area is subject to a Controlled Parking Zone operating between 1pm and 2pm, Monday to Friday. This provides a degree of control over on-street parking demand during controlled hours. The Highway Authority has reviewed the proposed parking arrangement and has requested that the applicant enter into a legal agreement to ensure that future oc cupiers of the residential units shall not be entitled to join any parking management scheme within an existing or future Controlled Parking Zone in the vicinity of the site. A Head of Terms securing this legal agreement has been set out at the start of the report. This would secured post committee and has been agreed by the Applicant. 7.43 The applicant has confirmed that all 5no. parking spaces would be provided with active electric vehicle charging points. This would exceed the minimum London Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Plan requirement for 20% active provision with the remaining spaces passive, and is therefore welcomed and secured by condition. 7.44 In terms of cycle parking, the development would be required to provide secure and accessible cycle parking for future occupiers. The revised plans show the cycle store relocated to the rear of th e site, which is welcomed in design and landscaping terms as it reduces clutter to the fron tage and allows for improved soft landscaping. Subject to a condition securing compliance, the proposed cycle parking arrangement is considered acceptable. 7.45 The proposal would result in an increase in traffic generation compared with the existing single dwelling. However, the Hi ghway Authority has advised that peak period movements are unlikely to exceed two vehicle movements during the busiest morning and evening periods. This level of traffic generation would be modest and capable of being accommodated within the local highway network without resulting in unacceptable congestion or highway safety impacts. 7.46 The existing vehicular access would remain unchanged and is considered suitable to serve the development. Vehicles would be able to enter and leave the site in a forward gear, which is welcomed in highway sa fety terms. It is noted that the access road also serves No. 42 Murray Road and concerns have been raised regarding its maintenance. 7.47 The proposal includes resurfacing of th e shared driveway with permeable block paving, which would represent an improvement to the existing arrangement. The continued private access rights and maintenance arrangements are separate civil matters, but the physical access arrangement is considered acceptable in highway terms. 7.48 Given the residential nature of Murray Road and the constrained site arrangement, a Construction Management Plan is recommended by condition. This should include details of construction traffic routing, contractor parking, loading/unloading, delivery times, wheel washing, dust control and measures to protect the shared access and surrounding highway during construction. 7.49 Overall, subject to conditions securing parking allocation, Legal Agreement restricting parking permits, EV charging, cycle storage, refuse storage and a Construction Management Plan, the proposal is considered acceptable in highway, parking and transportation terms. The development would not result in unacceptable harm to highway safety, traffic flow or parking conditions, and would accord with Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020), and Policies T4, T5 and T6 of the London Plan (2021). Noise 7.50 The site would remain in residential us e, with the proposal replacing one dwellinghouse with 5no. self -contained residential flats. A Noise Assessment Technical Note has been submitted, which confirms that the development would not introduce a materially different land use or significant new source of noise-

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Part 2 – Application Report Case Officer: Katherine Mills 26090/APP/2024/813 Date Application Valid: 28.03.24 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 17.07.26 Application Type: Householder Ward: Northwood Applicant: Mr Anthony Strachan Site Address: 15 KEWFERRY ROAD NORTHWOOD Proposal: Erection of first floor rear extension. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 3 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Petition received) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 1 Deferred at Planning Committee on 11th June 2024 1.1 This application was deferred at Planning Committee on 11th June 2024 in order to carry out a Members Site Visit to assess the impact on the neighbours windows at No 17 Kewferry Road. Members also requested that an independent daylight/sunlight report be commissioned and should be received prior to the site visit. Members Site Visit 1.2 Following the previous deferral, a Member’s Site Visit was arranged. A visit was was carried out on 16th July 2025 at the application site. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, it was not possible to complete the visit to the neighbouring property (17 Kewferry Road) .The key matters looked at on the site visit were: x The relationship between the proposal and adjacent property at No 17 Kewferry Road x Review of the neighbours windows in the context of the development to understand whether there is impact on daylight sunlight, outlook or sense of enclosure. x Review of the design in the context of the existing dwelling and the wider local character. 1.3 Since the Members’ Site Visit at the application site took place, amended plans have been submitted which accurately reflect the boundary treatments associated with both the application site and the adjoining neighbouring property. These amendments accurately reflect the survey Officers had previously undertaken and a further consultation with neighbours has been undertaken. 1.4 Officers have sought guidance from Democratic Services on the most appropriate way forward given the previous deferral for a Members Site Inspection following the recent Council elections in May 2026, which has led to a new Planning Committee been established. 1.5 Democratic Services have advised that the application should be brought back before the Planning Committee for determination. Th is approach reflects the fact that the current Committee was not responsible for t he original deferral and enables Members to consider the application afresh, together with an update on the matters that led to the previous deferral, including the site visit arrangements. Should Members consider that a further site visit is necessary, they may defer the application to facilitate a visit by the current Committee. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Independent Daylight Sunlight Review 1.6 As part of the initial Planning Deferral, an Independent Daylight Sunlight Assessment was to be carried out. This was commissioned by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and provides further analysis on the impact on daylight sunlight of the windows serving No 17 Kewferry Road. The Daylight Sunlight Report was produced by Lambert Smith Hampton by a recognised qualified Daylight/Sunlight professional. As part of their assessment, the company carried out 2 site inspections at the neighbouring property to survey the neighbour’s property in the context of the development. 1.7 The results of both daylight and sunlight test demonstrate that the development would not cause a detrimental impact on their neighbour’s light in line with the Building Research Establishment (Site Layout Planning for daylight and sunlight) with each room tested passing both Daylight and Sunlight testing. The result of this report is discussed in detail within the amenity section of the report below. 2 Consultation Update 2.1 Since the deferral of this application, two additional rounds of consultation took place upon receipt of the revised information. One new petition has been received with 20 signatures. The outcome sought by the petition is refusal. Executive Summary 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a first-floor rear extension to be situated above an existing ground floor rear extension. 3.2 As set out above in paragraph 1.1, the application was deferred at Committee in June 2024. The application is subject to an additional petition (20 Signatures) following the Committee deferral. The concerns raised within these pe titions are set out in more detail in Section 8 of this report, but in summary include loss of residential amenity with the first-floor extension over-dominating No 17 Kewferry Road. 3.3 Concerns have been raised regarding the accura cy of the Daylight Sunlight report and the overall positioning of the neighbouring proper ties on the plans. The Independent Daylight Sunlight company have carried out a second site inspection and surveyed the neighbour’s windows and are satisfied that the findings within the revised report are accurate . The figures within Appendix C of this daylight sunlight report provides the relevant findings and confirm that the rooms of the neighbouring property would pass daylight and sunlight. 3.4 Furthermore, the overall positioning of the extension ensures that the neighbour’s outlook would be protected to the rear garden. The extension would not lead to a sense of enclosure given it would be set in from the site boundary of both neighbouring properties. The LPA remain of the view that the proposal would not lead to unreasonable level of harm to the adjoining neighbour’s amenity. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3.5 The proposal is considered to comply with other objectives of the relevant planning policies and would appear subordinate in the context of the existing dwelling. It would not give rise to any significant harm to the wider local character nor impact the street scene given its location to the rear of the site. The proposal would not adversely affect highway safety, or cause harm in other respects. 3.6 Due regard has been given to local residents’ objections, including the 2 petitions against the application, however it is concluded that the proposal complies with the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. 3.7 The planning application is therefore recommen ded for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 4 The Site and Locality 4.1 The application site comprises a two-storey, detached dwellinghouse located on the western side of Kewferry Road, Northwood (refer to figure 1 below). 4.2 The property has an existing single storey full width rear extension, as well as an outbuilding situated along the northern boundary with No.17 Kewferry Road. A first-floor side extension along the southern side and rear dormer has also been added previously to the original building. The site contains a generous garden with an outbuilding located towards the rear along the north -western boundary. To the front, the site bene fits from a small centrally positioned landscaped section with off -street parking accessed via a vehicular cross- over off Kewferry Road. 4.3 The application site is located within TPO 118. The northern site boundary is located within the Flood Map for Surface Water, as identified in the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) for Hillingdon. 4.4 No.13 Kewferry Road is located along the southern site boundary and comprises a two- storey detached property which has been extended to the rear at ground floor. No.17 Kewferry Road is located along the northern si te boundary and comprises a similar style dwelling with a single storey rear extension and outbuilding adjacent application site. Nos.1- 6 Harrison Close and Nos.7-11 Harrison Close are located to the east, on the opposite side of the road. 4.5 The surrounding area is residential in charac ter comprising of two-storey, semi-detached and detached dwellinghouses of a similar style and age to the application property. Generally, there is a variation of alterations to the existing dwellings along this street of Kewferry Road that have evolved overtime and contribute to the established character. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figure 2: Aerial View of the application site and neighbouring property (No 17 Kewferry Road on the left and Application site on the right) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Street View Image of the Application Property (See below) Figure 4: Rear Elevation Image of the Application Property 15 Kewferry Road, Northwood Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 5: View of Application site from the garden of No.17 Kewferry Road 5 Proposal 5.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a first-floor extension to the rear of the application property. The extension would be situated towards the northern side above the existing utility room. It would extend 3.6m deep beyond the main rear wall and 3.52m wide. The proposed first floor rear extension would have a hipped style roof that would have a maximum height of 7.8m and set down approximately 1.8m from the main ridgeline. The proposed materials would match the existing pr operty. The proposed first floor rear extension would extend an existing bedroom and include a shower room. 5.2 Amended plans were received during the c ourse of the application which included references to the side door on the outbuildi ng structure between the application property and No.17 Kewferry Road.It also demonstrated compliance with the 45 -degree rule taken from the nearest neighbouring habitable room window on the rear elevation at No.17 Kewferry Road. The amendments also addressed the positioning of the neighbour’s property in the context of the application site with follow up survey carried out by the applicant. 5.3 An independent daylight sunlight assessment and amended plans showing amendments to the footprint of the neighbouring property at 17 Kewferry Road has also been submitted Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press following the June Committee 2024 deliberation. The amended plans reflected the neighbouring property footprints position following an onsite survey which established that the positioning was initially shown closer to the garden than it actually is. Figure 6: Existing and Proposed Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Figure 7: Proposed elevations (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 8: Plan showing compliance with 45-degree from the main ground floor window 6 Relevant Planning History 6.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 6.2 Planning permission was approved in August 2017 (ref: 26090/APP/2017/2357) for a “first floor side extension, single storey rear extension and conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer, 2 front rooflights and 3 side rooflights. This was built on site, albeit the single storey rear extension was not built in accordance with approved plans and was the subject of a retrospective planni ng application ref: 26090/APP/2020/300 which is discussed below (paras 4.4-4.6) 6.3 Planning application ref: 26090/APP/2019/2 860, for a “single storey front extension and porch/canopy” was Approved on 22-10-2019. This has been built on site. 6.4 Planning application ref. 26090/APP/2020/300, for a “retrospective application for a single storey rear extension and front boundary wall and gates” was Refused on 19 -06-20 for the following reason: “The proposed front garden, boundary treatment an d gates, by reason of their size, scale and design would significantly erode and detract from the verdant character and appearance of the street scene and have a detrimental appearance on the character and appearance of Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the street scene contrary to Policies BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012), and Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 14 and DMHD 1 Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020)”. 6.5 The Council had no objection to the single st orey rear extension sought under planning application ref. 26090/APP/2020/300.An appe al against the Council’s refusal of the retrospective planning application ref. 26 090/APP/2020/300) was Allowed by the Planning Inspectorate on 25/05/2021 (Appeal Ref. APP/R5510/D/20/3256761). In allowing the appeal, the Planning Inspector stated: ‘8. The appeal site comprises a two-storey dwelling, which has a fairly traditional appearance. A single storey extension with a roof domelight, which is part of the appeal development, has been erected to the rear. The front boundary treatment, also part of the appeal development, consists of a red brick wall with metal railings and metal gates which are painted black with minor detailing. Whilst I note that the wall and railings are taller than some of the neighbouring boundary treatments, there are other neighbouring examples which are similar in scale. 9. Although I have noted the predominantly verdant character of the surrounding area, there are properties on Kewferry Road which do not incorporate boundary planting to the front. The variation in appearance, scale, and mate rials of front boundary treatments in the neighbouring area also creates a mixed char acter. Within this context the appeal development does not stand out as an incongruous feature and assimilates well with the surroundings. The fact that the development comprises two separate gates does not have a visually harmful impact’. 6.6 There has been an enforcement investigation (ref: ENF/566/19) regarding works on the site not being carried out in accordance with approved plans. An Enforcement Notice regarding the front boundary enclosure was served on 20/08/2020. The Enforcement Notice however was quashed following the appealed decision in September 2021 which concluded that the design of the brick walling and timber fenc ing was an acceptable design. (Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/C/20/3258741, dated 04/10/21). 7 Planning Policy 7.1 A list of planning policies rele vant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 8 Consultations and Representations 8.1 The adjoining neighbouring properties and Northwood Residents Association were consulted on 5th April 2024 which expired on 26th April 2024. Two objections from one consultee were received along with one petition objecting to the proposal. An objection was also received from the Northwood Residents Association. 8.2 Following receipt of independent daylight sunlight report and revisions to the layout/block plan which accurately reflected the neighbouring property positioning to the application site, Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press two further rounds 14-day consultations periods took place expiring on 4 th April 2026. An additional 4 objections were received with a further petition against the scheme. Northwood Residents Association also provided follow up comments. 8.3 Representations received in response to pu blic consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summ arised 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 An initial petition of 20 signatures has been received against the application 1. Concern regarding the impact on adjoining neighbours’ amenity in terms of dominance. Discussed at paragraphs 9.51– 7.57 of this report. 2. The description is incorrect as the first-floor extension has not yet been built. The description of development as originally inputted/validated referred to the proposed first floor rear extension as retrospective. Officer site visits have established that the development has not been built and therefore is not retrospective, and the description of development has been amended accordingly. A follow up petition of 20 signatures has been received following the second round of consultation 1. The first-floor extension would over-dominate No.17 Kewferry Road 2. Note: The Daylight Sunlight Report is incorrect Discussed in paragraphs 9.51- 9.57 Discussed in paragraphs 9.45- 9.50 . The Daylight Sunlight has been carried out independently by a private company commissioned by the LPA. A follow up site inspection was undertaken by the company to re -survey the site to ensure its accuracy. This revised report was uploaded on the 14 th May 2025. The author of the report has also confirmed in writing that Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press All statements within the report are correct…the software used in presenting the figures are highly accurate…We are confident the building are in the correct position….. We went to site and measured the windows; these are in the correct position…. The room retains enough sunlight and meets the BRE guidelines. 6 letters of objection have been received. I. Application is not retrospective The description of development as originally inputted/validated referred to the proposed first floor rear extension as retrospective. Officer site visits have established that the development has not been built and therefore is not retrospective, and the description of development has been amended accordingly. II. Plans incorrect. Outhouse building, door not shown. The footprint of the neighbouring property misrepresented on the amended plans. The plans show the houses at an angle to each other when they actually parallel. Amended plans had been received to rectify the outhouse building. In terms of the positioning of the neighbouring building, a site inspection has been undertaken from both the application site and the neighbouring property to further understand the positioning of the building. During the visit, Officers undertook measurements and confirmed that the gap between the building is narrower towards the front of the property. This widens to the rear of the property. Revised plans have since been submitted which accurately reflect the site boundary conditions. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press III. Extension overbearing. It will block most light from kitchen meaning will need to have lights on all day. Sunlight blocked to conservatory. Light blocked to bedroom. Discussed at paragraphs 7.22 – 7.57 of this report. IV. Numbers 5 to 17 Kewferry Road were built 1902 to 1904 and are handsome Edwardian houses - except for no 15 which following extension built between 2017 and 2020 had 1,000 sq. ft added which totally spoiled the harmony. The design is discussed at paragraphs 7.6 – 7.13 of this report. It is noted that there have been a number of planning applications between 2017 and 2020 on the site. Planning applications have been determined against relevant local, regional, and national planning policies at the time of the applications. The planning history of the site has been discussed in detail in Section 4 of this report. V. No 15 is a single person occupancy and does not need further extension The level of occupancy is not a material consideration once the use remains a C3 Dwelling House. The applicant is entitled to apply for planning permission no matter the level of occupancy and this is accessed against relevant planning policies. The proposed first floor rear extension would extend an existing bedroom within the property and provide a shower room. The property is an existing 4 -bedroom property, and no additional bedrooms would be provided. VI.Length of time previous works took to complete and damage to neighbours’ buildings from previous works. More building work will mean another long period of stress and most Any damage caused to neighbouring properties during construction phase is a civil matter. It is not considered proportionate given the modest size of the extension to impose a planning condition in relation to a construction management plan for this Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press likely cause further damage to outhouse householder application. 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; this would be added as an informative on any consent issued. Issues relating to property damage from building works is a civil matter and is not a material planning consideration. VII.The daylight sunlight report has incorrect measurements as the kitchen windows are shown more than 2 metres to the west than they are. It is therefore invalid. The lighting report was also a desk job as the consultant never attended the site. No allowance made for differing seasonal light and the loss of sunlight. This is addressed in section 9.22-9.50 of the report VIII. No notice has been posted outside the property. Consultation letters were sent to neighbouring properties as per the statutory guidance, giving a period of 21 days for comments. The statutory guidance did not require a site notice advertising the application to be displayed on site. The Public consultation for the application was therefore carried out in accordance with statutory guidance. IX. Human Rights This is addressed at paragraphs 10.1-10.5 of the report. Officers have considered the proposal in light of the Human Rights Act 1998, particularly Article 8 (right to respect for private and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press family life) and Article 1of the First Protocol (protection of property). While it is acknowledged that the proposed development may have some impact on the neighbouring property, it is considered that the impact is not so significant as to amount to an unacceptable infringement of these rights. In this case, any interference with these rights is considered proportionate and in accordance with national and local planning policy. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Northwood Residents Association The rear first floor will be over dominant affecting number 17 Kewferry Road. The description is inaccurate and misleading because it is not retrospective as the rear first floor has not been built yet. Therefore, the description of the application is incorrect. Inaccurate Drawings on the existing site context Discussed at paragraph 7.51 to 7.57 of this report. The description of development as originally inputted/validated referred to the proposed first floor rear extension as retrospective. Officer site visits have established that the development has not been built and therefore is not retrospective, and the description of development has been amended accordingly. Amended plans have been provided which include reference to the side door on the outbuilding structure between the application Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Policy HD 1 B) vi) - there is no statement that it complies with the 45-degree rule for two story extension. Northwood Residents Association (Additional comments following further consultation) Following on from the error in the plan in the Daylight Sunlight Report, we understand that at a re -inspection by the applicant’s advisor on Daylight Sunlight, they have said the plans submitted for the application itself are incorrect. Therefore, our view is that a decision cannot be based upon the plans and report submitted. Northwood Residents Association (Additional Comments following consultation on the amend ed survey plans) The Daylight survey has made no mention of different seasons, and the Surveyor did not carry out an inspection, but only carried out a desktop report. We therefore still request that the adverse property and No. 17 Kewferry Road. Amended plans have been provided which include a 45 -degree line from the nearest neighbouring habitable room window at No.17 Kewferry Road. The impact on neighbour’s amenity is further discussed below in paragraphs 9.22-9.57 The Daylight Sunlight has been carried out independently by a private company instructed by the Local Planning Authority. A follow up site inspection was undertaken by the company to re -survey the site to ensure its accuracy. This revised report was uploaded on the 14th of May 2025. The author of the report has also confirmed in writing that the detail within the report is accurate and reflects the site circumstances. This is discussed further in detail from paragraphs 9.22- 9.50 The Sunlight Assessment does take account winter requirements in line with the BRE guidance and passes this test Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press impact on the neighbour at No. 17 is wrong and the application should be refused 9 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 9.1 The proposal is for an extension to an existing residential dwelling. As such, the principle of development is supported by national, regional , and local planning policies, subject to the considerations set out below. Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 9.2 Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) requires that new developments achieve a high quality of design in all new buildings, alterations, extensions, and the public realm which enhances the local distinctiveness of the area, contributes to community cohesion and a sense of place 9.3 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) requires all development to be designed to the highest standards and incorporate principles of good design, either complementing or improving the character and appearance of the area. Policy DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Loca l Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) seeks to protect and improve the public realm, including streets. 9.4 Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) requires that alterations an d extension of dwellings would not have an adverse cumulative impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and should appear subordinate to the main dwelling. 9.5 Part B of Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) sets out specific re quirements for rear extensions. Two storey extensions should not extend into an area provided by a 45-degree line of sight drawn from the centre of the nearest ground or first floor habitable room window of an adjacent property and should not contain windows or other openings that overlook other houses at a distance of less than 21m. Pitched roofs on extensions should be of a similar pitch and materials to that of the original roof and subordinate to it in design. Site Context 9.6 The property is situated on Kewferry Road, which is characterised by detached two-storey dwellings of varied architectural design set wi thin spacious plots and a relatively verdant streetscape. The dwelling is set back from the highway behind a large frontage and driveway, separated from the public realm by a boundary wall and fencing which were previously allowed at appeal. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 9.7 The dwelling has been extended through a numb er of planning permissions granted since 2017, including a first -floor side extension with roof conversion and a single- storey rear extension, as detailed within the planning history section of this report. The first-floor side extension has been successfully integrated into the roof form, whilst the rear dormer is appropriately positioned within the roof slope, maintaining sufficient separation from the ridge, side boundaries and eaves. Collectively , these additions appear subordinate to the host dwelling and remain sympathetic to the character and appearance of the property and surrounding area. Proposed scheme 9.8 The proposal seeks planning permission for a first-floor rear extension positioned above the existing ground-floor rear extension on the northern side of the dwelling. The extension would project approximately 3.6m beyond the main rear wall and measure approximately 3.52m in width, retaining approximately 6m of the original rear elevation unaffected by the proposal. The extension would align with the rear wall of the existing ground-floor extension and would incorporate a pitched roof form reflecting the architectural style of the host dwelling. External materials would match those of the existing property. 9.9 The proposed roof form is considered acceptable and would sit comfortably on the northern side of the dwelling. The hipped roof would be set down from the main ridge and maintain adequate separation from the existing rear dormer. The eaves would align with the existing arrangement, thereby maintaining a consistent roof profile and building line. 9.10 The modest scale and hipped design of the roof ensure that the extension would not appear unduly bulky or dominant within the overall roofscape. Officers are satisfied that the extension would remain subordinate to the host dwelling and would not detract from its architectural composition. The limited width of the first-floor addition ensures that the principal rear elevation remains visually prominent, reinforcing its subordinate appearance. 9.11 The proposal complies with the requirements of Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part Two (2020). The extension would project 3.6m in depth and would not breach the 45-degree line drawn from the centre point of the nearest habitable room window serving No. 17 Kewferry Road. 9.12 The modest width of the extension also ensures that, when viewed cumulatively with the existing rear dormer, the additions would not appear visually awkward, excessive or overdeveloped. A clear visual separation would remain between the dormer and the roof serving the proposed extension, allowing each element to be read independently within the overall roof form. 9.13 The proposed fenestration is considered appropriate and would reflect the design and proportions of the existing first-floor windows. As the external materials would match those of the host dwelling, the extension would achieve a cohesive appearance that is sympathetic to both the dwelling and the established character of the area. A condition is recommended requiring materials to match the existing property. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 9: CGI Image shows the proposed first floor extension to the left 9.14 Given that the extension is located solely to the rear of the dwelling, it would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the street scene. Visibility from the public realm would be limited and, where views are available from neighbouring private land, the extension would appear as a modest and sympathetic addition to the property. 9.15 Whilst the dwelling has been extended previously, Officers are satisfied that the cumulative impact of the existing and proposed additions would not result in an overdevelopment of the host dwelling or an incongruous addition to the site. The proposal would retain an appropriate scale, form and relationship with the original dwelling, whilst maintaining sufficient garden space and spacing around the building. As such, the property would continue to read as a detached dwelling set within a spacious plot, and the proposal would not appear excessive when viewed in the context of the site's overall size and established character. 9.16 It is therefore considered that the proposed first-floor rear extension would preserve the character and appearance of both the application property and the surrounding area. The proposal is considered to comply with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One – Strategic Policies (2012) and Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies (2020). Residential Amenity 9.17 Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that planning applications rela ting to alterations and extensions of dwellings will be required to ensure that : ii) a satisfactory relationsh ip with adjacent dwellings is achieved; and v) there is no unacceptable loss of outlook to neighbouring occupiers. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 9.18 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) seeks to ensure that development proposals do not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. 9.19 The site abuts two detached properties with No 13 Kewferry Road situated to the south and No 17 Kewferry Road located along the northern flank where the proposed extension would be erected. To the rear, the site also abuts a section of garden that is associated with No 17 Kewferry Road. Further beyond this garden lies the rear gardens of the properties serving Nos. 34-36 Gateway Close which are over 50 metres distance from the proposed works. 13 Kewferry Road 9.20 No.13 Kewferry Road site boundary would be situated approximately 8.7m away from the flank wall of the first-floor extension. There are no windows proposed along this flank elevation that would cause any loss of privacy to this adjoining resident. It is also noted that this neighbour has an existing ground floor extension that extends out from the main rear wall with only a small section (approximately 1m) of the proposed first floor element projecting out beyond the existing ground floor rear building line of this neighbour. 9.21 Given the modest projection, as well as the sufficient separation distance between the flank elevation of the development and the common boundary of this neighbour, Officers are satisfied that there would be no direct impact on this neighbouring property’s amenity. It would not impact in terms of loss of daylight/sunlight or overbearing/sense of enclosure. The amended plans also confirm compliance with the 45 -degree line of sight from the closest neighbouring habitable room window. A condition is also recommended ensuring that no additional windows are added along either flank wall which would ensure privacy remains protect. 17 Kewferry Road 9.22 The original planning application was deferred by Members in order to obtain further information regarding the potential impact of the proposed first-floor extension on the neighbouring property at No. 17 Kewferry Road. In particular, concerns were raised regarding the effect of the development on the levels of daylight and sunlight received by the neighbouring windows serving the kitchen, conservatory and associated rooms. Figures 10, 11 and 12 below identify the windows that formed the basis of those concerns. These comprise two flank windows facing towards the application site and a rooflight serving a utility room which provides access to a further reception room. The subsequent Daylight and Sunlight Assessment was commissioned to independently assess the impact of the development on these windows in accordance with the BRE Guidelines. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 10 - shows the floor plan of neighbouring windows (taken from amended Daylight Sunlight Report) Figure:11 shows the windows serving No 17 Kewferry Road taken from site inspections (W1, W2, W3, W10, W11 and W12 as indicated on daylight report Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 12 showing the windows serving the kitchen taken from site inspections (W16 and W17) Daylight Sunlight Assessment Report (17 Kewferry Road) 9.23 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan seeks to ensure that development does not result in an unacceptable loss of residential amenity, including through the loss of daylight and sunlight. Whilst the BRE Guidance is not a statutory document, it is widely recognised as the industry standard methodology for assessing daylight and sunlight impacts and has therefore been used to inform the assessment of this application. 9.24 Following the deferral of the original application in June 2024, the Local Planning Authority instructed Lambert Smith Hampton to undertake a daylight sunlight assessment at No 17 Kewferry Road. This assessment was to clarify the impact on the windows and rooms serving the adjoining and whethe r this impact was in line wi th the guidance set out in the BRE Daylight Sunlight guidance. Lambert Sm ith Hampton carried out an initial site inspection on the 11th of December 2024 where they undertook a site survey of the neighbour’s windows. A subsequent daylight sunlight report was produced in February 2025 which provided the findings of this initial test 9.25 During the follow up consultation of the Daylight Sunlight Report concerns were raised about the accuracy of the information in the report and the location of the windows. On this basis, the LPA requested Lambert Smith Hampton to carry out a follow up survey of the site and provide an updated report. The follow up site inspection took place on the 18th March 2025 and the revised report produced. 9.26 In total 17 glazed window areas were tested against the BRE Daylight Sunlight Guidance. These windows served 3 specific rooms namely a kitchen, an outer reception room and a non-habitable utility room. These rooms are identified within figure 10 above. The key findings of this report confirmed that with the proposed development in place all rooms of the neighbouring property. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press x The rooms will continue to receive adequate daylight, defined by the BRE guidance x All rooms tested passed and continue to receive a good level sunlight These findings are further reviewed in the paragraphs that follow. Daylight (Vertical Sky Component) 9.27 The daylight report has applied the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) to assess the neighbouring windows against loss of daylight. The BRE Guidelines stipulate at paragraph 2.2.23 that: 9.28 If any part of a new building or extension, measured in a vertical section perpendicular to a main window wall of an existing building, from the centre of the lower window, subtends an angle of more than 25 degrees to the horizonal, then the diffuse daylighting of the existing building may be adversely affected. This will be the case if either: x The VSC measures at the centre of an existing main window is less than 27%, and less than 0.80 times its former value. x The area of the working plane in a room which can received direct skylight is reduced to less than 0.8 times its former value. In simpler words, the BRE Guidance advises that a room with 27% VSC or at least 80% of the former value, will be adequately lit. 9.29 The Vertical Sky Component (VSC) assessment considered a total of 17 glazed openings serving three rooms within No. 17 Kewferry Road, namely the reception room, kitchen and utility room. Of the 17 windows assessed, 15 retained in excess of 80% of their former VSC value and therefore met the relevant BRE guideline. Whilst two individual windows (W6 and W11) recorded values below this threshold, however as the rooms are served by several windows, the average VSC can be taken into consideration. 9.30 The BRE Daylight and Sunlight Guidance also advises that where a room is served by more than one window, the average Vertical Sky Component (VSC) for the room should be considered when assessing the overall availability of daylight (para 2.26 of the BRE Guidance). This reflects the fact that occupants experience daylight within a room as a whole rather than through a single window in isolation. Accordingly, whilst individual window results have been reviewed, officers have also had regard to the average VSC values for each room in order to establish whether the proposed development would result in a material loss of daylight to the neighbouring occupiers. 9.31 The room-based assessment demonstrates that the reception room, kitchen and utility room all continue to exceed the BRE guideline values and retain more than 80% of their former VSC levels. As such, notwithstanding the limited shortfall identified at two individual windows, the assessment confirms that the rooms as a whole would continue to receive adequate levels of daylight. Officers therefor e conclude that the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable loss of residential amenity arising from a reduction in daylight and is compliant with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 9.32 In this regard, the room-based assessment demonstrates that the reception room, kitchen and utility room all continue to exceed the BRE guideline values, retaining more than 80% of their former VSC levels. The reception room would retain a VSC value of 56.12%, the kitchen 44.65% and the utility room 49.46%, indicating that all three rooms would continue to receive good levels of daylight following implementation of the development as highlighted in figure 14 below. This would be well above the 27% identified within the BRE guidance which further demonstrates that the development would not infringe on the daylight levels as set out in the professional daylight sunlight guidance. Figure 13 Table of Vertical Sky Component results Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 14: Table showing the average VSC for each room demonstrating compliance Room VSC Existing VSC Proposed VSC PR/EX Meets BRE Criteria Reception Room 56.84 56.12 0.99 Yes Kitchen 46.50 44.65 0.96 Yes Utility 51.35 49.46 0.96 Yes Daylight Distribution/No-Skyline Test 9.33 As part of the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment, a Daylight Distribution (No-Skyline) assessment was also undertaken. The Daylight Distribution Test looks at how much of a room receives direct skylight (i.e. has a direct view of the sky through the window) under normal sky conditions. The test uses a notional line on a floor plan of the room, called the No-Skyline (NSL). x According to the BRE Guidance, if the area of the room that receives direct daylight (i.e. the area in front of the NSL) is reduced by more than 20%, and the resulting area is less than 0.8 times its former value, this is likely to be noticeable and potentially adverse. x However, if the room still retains at least 80% of its former daylight distribution, the impact is generally considered acceptable. 9.34 The results confirm that all three rooms assessed would comply with the BRE guidance. Whilst it is acknowledged that the kitchen would experience a reduction in the proportion of the room receiving direct skylight, from 91.31% to 82.56%, the retained area would remain at approximately 0.9 times of its former value. As the room would retain well in excess of 0.8 times of its former daylight distribution, the impact would not be regarded as materially harmful under BRE guidance. Officers are therefore satisfied that the affected rooms would continue to receive an acceptable distribution of daylight and that the proposal would accord with the BRE Daylight and Sunlight Guidelines. Figure 15: Daylight Distribution results Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Sunlight 9.35 The effect on sunlight has been evaluated through the Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH) test. This tests sunlight to windows of habitable rooms which fall within 90-degrees due south of the development and calculates how many hours in a year a window would receive direct sunlight. The BRE Guidelines state that sunlight will be adversely affected if after the development, sunlight received in a year is less than 25% of APSH (or less that 5% annual probable sunlight hours between 21st September and 21st March). Where a development causes a reduction below these values, the reduction should not be greater than 20% of its former value. 9.36 Paragraph 3.2.3 of the BRE Guidelines is quite clear in the windows that need to be assessed for loss of sunlight. It states 9.37 “To assess loss of sunlight to an existing building, it is suggested that all main living rooms of dwellings and conservatories, should be checked if they have a window facing within 90 degrees of due south. Kitchens and bedrooms are less important, although care should be taken not to block too much sun . Normally loss of sunlight need not be analysed to kitchens and bedrooms.” (Quotation from Building Research Establishment guide: Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice (2022) page 24)” 9.38 As such, it is important to emphasise that there is no requirement within the BRE Guidance to analyse north-facing windows for sunlight. It is only windows within 90 degrees of due south that should be tested. Kitchen windows may be tested if they serve as a main living space, but they’re often considered secondary to living rooms as outlined in the guidance above. 9.39 All relevant windows tested pass both annual and winter thresholds with the exception of 3 windows which has been identified below in figure 13. These include W 6, W11 and W16 which serve the flank reception, flank utility window and a kitchen respectively. As highlighted in Paragraph 3.2.3 of the BRE Guidelines, in terms of assessing sunlight both kitchens and bedrooms need not be analysed. Similarly, the non- habitable utility space would not require testing given the nature of this space. Figure 16: Annual Probable Hours Windows No Annual Sunlight Hours Existing Annual Sunlight Hours Proposed Difference (%) Meets BRE Criteria Annual Winter Hours Existing Annual Winter Hours Proposed Difference (%) Meets BRE Criteria W6 (Reception Room) 27.00 21.00 0.78 No 13.00 7.00 0.54 Yes W11 Utility Room (Non- 54.00 40.00 0.74 Yes 7.00 2.00 0.29 No Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Habitable Room) W16 (Kitchen) 29.00 23.00 0.79 No 2.00 2.00 1.00 Yes 9.40 The results demonstrate that windows W6, W11 and W16 fall marginally below the BRE annual sunlight retention target of 80%. However, the significance of these results must be considered in the context of the BRE guidance and the nature of the rooms served. 9.41 Window W11 serves a utility room, which is a non-habitable space and would not ordinarily require assessment under the BRE methodology. Whilst this window records a reduction in sunlight, officers attach limited weight to this outcome given the function of the room. Window W16 serves a kitchen. Paragraph 3.2.3 of the BRE Guidelines identifies kitchens and bedrooms as being of lesser importance when assessing sunlight impacts, with the primary focus being on main living rooms. Whilst W16 would retain 79% of its former Annual Probable Sunlight Hours, representing a marginal shortfall against the BRE threshold, it would continue to meet the winter sunlight criteria, and the extent of the reduction is not considered sufficient to result in a material loss of amenity. 9.42 Similarly, W6 serves a flank window to the reception room and would retain 78% of its former Annual Probable Sunlight Hours. Whilst marginally below the BRE target, this window forms only one source of sunlight to the room, which also benefits from additional windows facing the rear garden. The Daylight Sunlight Officer’s assessment of the room as a whole confirms that it would continue to achieve the relevant BRE sunlight criteria. 9.43 The submitted BRE assessment considered the average sunlight availability within each affected room. Whilst some individual windows would experience reductions in annual and winter sunlight levels, the overall room assessments demonstrate that the Reception Room, Utility Room and Kitchen continue to meet the relevant BRE guidelines. The rooms retain between 88% and 99% of their existing annual sunlight availability. In respect of winter sunlight, although the Kitchen would experience a reduction to 50% of its former value, it would continue to achieve a winter APSH of 8%, which exceeds the BRE minimum guideline of 5%. Accordingly, the affected rooms would continue to receive acceptable levels of sunlight, and the proposal is not considered to result in a material loss of residential amenity. Figure: 17 Average Sunlight for each room Total APSH for each room Annual Sunlight Hours Existing Annual Sunlight Hours Proposed Difference (%) Meets BRE Criteria Annual Winter Hours Existing Annual Winter Hours Proposed Difference (%) Meets BRE Criteria Reception Room 55.00 51.00 0.93 Yes 17.00 13.00 0.76 Yes Utility Room 71.00 62.00 0.87 Yes 17.00 8.00 0.47 Yes Kitchen 69.00 60.00 0.87 Yes 18.00 9.00 0.5 Yes Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 9.44 When considered in the round, the assessment demonstrates that the affected habitable rooms would continue to receive levels of sunlight consistent with the objectives of the BRE Guidelines. Officers are therefore satisfied that the proposal would not result in a materially harmful impact on neighbouring residential amenity in terms of sunlight. Queries raised regarding the accuracy of plans and daylight sunlight report. 9.45 During the consultation process, objections were received questioning the accuracy of the submitted Daylight and Sunlight Assessment, in cluding the positioning and orientation of windows within the model, the methodology used in the assessment, and the conclusions reached regarding the effects on neighbouring occupiers 9.46 In response to these concerns, the Planning Officer sought further clarification from the independent daylight and sunlight consultant responsible for preparing the assessment. The consultant confirmed that a site survey had been undertaken by a suitably qualified surveyor and that the assessment was based on measurements obtained during the site visit rather than solely upon the architect’s drawings. The consultant further confirmed that the building and window positions were reviewed following a subsequent inspection and remains satisfied that the model accurately reflects the existing site circumstances. 9.47 The consultant has advised that the assessment was undertaken using industry-standard software and methodology in accordance with the BRE guidance. Clarification was also provided regarding the orientation of individual windows and the treatment of north -facing windows within the assessment, with the consultant confirming that the modelling accurately reflects the orientation and position of the affected windows 9.48 The Daylight Sunlight Consultant stated “We are confident the building is in the correct position….. We went to site and measured the windows, these are in the correct position…. The room retains enough sunlight and meets the BRE guidelines. x All statements within the report are correct. x The surveyor who conducted the visit is professionally trained and competent to carry out the required measurements. They also note that it is standard industry practice for site visits to be carried out by trained surveyors rather than the report authors themselves x The data was based on the surveyor site measurements as opposed to the architect drawings. x The firm has further assured the Planning Department that the modelling software used is highly accurate. x They are confident following the second inspection, the building and windows are in the correct position x Windows 1-3 and 13-15 specifically, they have clarified that windows 90° of north are excluded. They remain confident that the software used ensures that the orientation of the windows was accurately captured. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press x The rooms of windows 10 and 11 would still receive enough sunlight. x The tables used within the Daylight Sunlight Report are industry standard and the results would suggest different to the objection comments. 9.49 Having reviewed the objections raised and the consultant’s response, officers are satisfied that the submitted assessment has been prepar ed by appropriately qualified professionals using recognised industry methodology and that it provides a robust basis upon which to assess the impacts of the development. The consultant has maintained that the modelling, calculations and conclusions contained within the report are accurate and that the affected rooms would continue to retain sufficient levels of daylight and sunlight in accordance with the relevant BRE guidelines 9.50 It is also noted that the consultant’s verified window positions broadly correspond with available aerial imagery and site observations. Whilst the objector disagrees with a number of the assumptions and conclusions contained within the assessment, no independent technical evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the modelling or results are materially flawed. On the basis of the information available, officers are satisfied that the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment can be afforded significant weight and that its findings represent a reliable assessment of the likely impacts arising from the proposed development Outlook and Enclosure 9.51 The proposed 3.6m deep first floor rear ex tension would not extend beyond the existing ground floor rear building line and would no t extend beyond the existing northern side elevation. It has been demonstrated throu gh the proposed plans, that the extension would not compromise this neighbours’ outlook or sense of enclosure. The plans show the nearest first floor window serving No.17 Kewferry Roa d which would continue to have unrestricted outlook to their rear garden largely due to the orientation of the building. The proposed floor plan also demonstrates compliance with the 45 -degree rule in so far as, the proposed first floor extension would not break the 45 -degree line of sight from this closest neighbouring habitable room window. 9.52 Concerns have been raised that the propos ed first floor rear extension would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of No.17 Kewferry Road through an over- dominant/overbearing form to the neighbouring property. Given the policy compliant depth, together with the orientation and separation distance between the two properties, and the fact that the proposed first floor extension would not break the 45-degree line of sight from the closest neighbouring habitable room window, it is considered that the proposed first floor rear extension would not over -dominate No. 17 Kewferry Road. The two kitchen windows already face onto the existing flank elevation at two storey level. This is demonstrated by the photo within figure 12. The outlook of these windows is already compromised, and the additional depth would not cause significant harm over and above the current site circumstances, Similarly the windows along the flank of the conservatory and utility area would have additional floor. This however is set in over both outbuildings and would not lead to an unacceptable sense of enclosure. The main outlook for the conservatory facing the rear garden would remain unaffected by the development. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 9.53 The proposal would not lead to any additional overlooking concerns. A condition can also be attached ensuring no additional windows are added along the flank elevation that could protrude into this neighbour’s amenity. It is therefore considered that the proposed rear extension would not impact on the residential amenity of No. 17 Kewferry Road through the loss of outlook, privacy, or over-bearing form. 9.54 The comments received also raised concerns regarding light to the garden area. The BRE Daylight Sunlight guidance (2022) requires gar den spaces to achiev e a minimum of two hours sunlight on 21 March, which Officers are satisfied is easily achieved given the overall size of the garden. The modest depth would ensure that overshadowing of the garden areas would be limited, and sufficient daylight sunlight would be maintained throughout most of the daytime. 9.55 Dwellings located to the rear on Gateway Close (34-36) would be over 50m from the proposed extensions, thus they would experience no harmful loss of residential amenity. 9.56 As the development is situated to the rear of the site, there would be no impact on the dwelling/residential units (1 to 6 & 7 to 12 Harri son Close) to the front on the opposite side of the highway 9.57 For the reasons outlined above, it is concluded that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenity in compliance with Policies DMHD 1 and DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Residential Amenity – Application Property 9.58 The proposed extension involves a modest addition at first floor level to provide a larger bedroom space. This space would be served by a window that provides outlook onto the rear garden. It is considered that all the proposed habitable rooms would maintain an adequate outlook and source of natural light, therefore complying with Policy D6 of the London Plan (March 2021). 9.59 The proposed extension would be located at first floor level and so would not impact on the existing external amenity space for the property. The property would continue to be served by a generous garden which would meet the standards set out in Table 5.3 (Private Amenity Space Standards) of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2: Development Management Policies (2020). The proposal, therefore, would not und ermine the provision of external amenity space, thereby complying with Policies DMHB 18 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). Highways and Parking 9.60 Policy DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Pa rt 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.

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Part 2 – Application Report Case Officer: Katherine Mills 48867/APP/2025/3235 Date Application Valid: 02-01-26 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 27-07-26 Application Type: Householder Ward: Northwood Applicant: Mr and Mrs Ashar Site Address: 8 KILN WAY NORTHWOOD Proposal: Conversion of front attached garage to a habitable use, front porch extension, proposed side windows and retention of the existing garage doors 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 – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Planning permission is sought for the conv ersion of the existi ng front attached garage to a habitable use, a front porch extension, proposed side windows and the retention of the existing garage doors. T he application is brought forward to committee due to a Petition received which raised concerns regarding the impact on the street scene. 1.2 The proposed development is considered to comply with the objectives of the relevant planning policies and the proposal would not give rise to any significant harm to the character and appearance of the application property or to the character and appearance of the immediate street scene and surrounding area. 1.3 The proposal would have an acceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenity and would not adversely affect highway safety, or cause harm in other respects. 1.4 Due regard has been given to local resid ents’ objections, including the petition against the application. Amended plans were received during the course of the application, retaining the existing garage doors on the front elevation and retaining part of the garage for non -habitable use. The description of development was amended to provide clarity and to include the retention of the existing garage doors and the proposed front porch extension. It is concluded that the proposal complies with the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. 1.5 The planning application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site comprises a detached dwelling located on the eastern side of Kiln Way. 2.2 9 Kiln Way and 2 Pines Close are located along the northern site boundary. 6 and 7 Kiln Way are located along the southern site boundary . To the east, the rear of the site backs onto the rear gardens of 8 and 10 Pines Close. 5 Kiln Way Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press and Woodsman Court, 24 Eastbury Avenue, are located to the west, on the opposite side of the road. 2.3 The application site is located within TPO 152. The application site is located within the Flood Map for Surface Water, as identified in the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) for Hillingdon. 2.4 The surrounding area is residential in character comprising of two-storey detached dwellinghouses of a similar style and age to the application property. The site lies within the Developed Area as identified within the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Saved UDP Policies (November 2012). 2.5 The application site is not designated within a Conservation Area. However, the Northwood, Frithwood Conservation Area is located to the north, west and south of the application site, as designated in the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Saved UDP Policies (November 2012). 2.6 The application site is not designated wi thin an Area of Special Local Character. The site does not contain any Listed Buildings. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application Property 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the conv ersion of the existing front attached garage to a habitable use, a front porch extension, two proposed side windows and the retention of the existing garage doors on the front elevation. 3.2 The garage had previously been partially converted to utility room in 1994. The scheme would now convert this utility room to a partial office room and a utility room, whilst the other half of the garage would be retained to provide one parking space. 3.3 The initial planning submission had involv ed converting the whole garage space to a reception room with windows replacing the garage doors. However amendments have been sought whic h involved the re tention of the two existing garage doors on the front elevation. 3.4 One window would be provided on the northern side elevation facing 9 Kiln Way. 3.5 One window would be provided on the southern side elevation facing 6 Kiln Way. 3.6 The proposed front porch extension would infill between the existing entrance and the front elevation of the existing loun ge. The proposed front porch extension would be set back 2.65m from the front elevation of the garage. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Proposed Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4.2 29854/81/0127 – 2-14 1-7 Pines Close & 1-9 (cons) Kiln Way - Erection of 20 detached dwellings garages and footpaths – Approved on 10-03-81. Condition 13 stated “Notwithstanding anything contained within the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1977 no further enlargement extension improvement or alteration of any dwellinghouse as therein defined shall be carried out, nor shall any additional windows be prov ided or any garage or garden shed or livestock enclosure be erected or extended without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.” 4.3 The reason for the condition was “Having regard to the density, character and layout of the estate the Local Planning Authority consider such structures, extensions or alterations would be likely to adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and the character of the estate and consider it is in the public interest to require an application to enable the merits of any proposal to be assessed.” 4.4 48867/A/94/0290 - Conversion of part of integral garage to a habitable room – Approved on 27-05-94. The part conversion was to provide a study. There were no changes proposed to the front elevation. The existing plans indicate that the garage is currently used as a garage and a store. 4.5 48867/APP/2013/2128 - Single storey rear extension and first floor rear extension – Approved on 24-09-13. 4.6 The planning history of 3 Kiln Way and 5 Kiln Way are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application. 4.7 3 Kiln Way - 36885/J/90/0874 - Retention of use of integral garage as a habitable room – Approved on 23-11-90. There were no changes proposed to the front elevation. 4.8 5 Kiln Way - 50682/APP/2014/4475 - Single storey rear extension, conversion of attached garage to habitable use, attached garage to front and conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include 2 side dormers and 1 rear dormer with 2 Juliet balconies involving alterations to elevations – Refused on 11-03-15 due to the visual impact of the proposal on the application property and the surrounding area, along with the impact on residential amenity. 4,9 The existing attached front garage would have been converted into habitable use as a gym and a new double garage would have been erected in front of the existing garage with a garage door on the side. 4.10 It was considered that “the proposed front extension, by reason of its position, size, scale, bulk, depth, height and forwar d projection would represent a visually overdominant and unsympathetic form of development that would detract from the character, appearance and architectur al composition of the original dwelling and the visual amenity of the surrounding area, including the adjacent Northwood, Frithwood Conservation Area. The propos al would therefore be contrary to Policies BE1 and HE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press (November 2012), Policies BE4, BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Saved UDP Policies (November 2012) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document HDAS: Residential Extensions”. 4.11 A key difference between the current application at 8 Kiln Way and the refused application at 5 Kiln Way is that the existing garage at 8 Kiln Way would have been extended at the front, thereby significantly increasing the footprint and visual scale of the property. The current application at 8 Kiln Way would not involve increasing the footprint of the application property. Amended plans were received during the course of the application, retaining the existing garage doors on the front elevation and retaining part of the garage for non-habitable use. Figure 4: Refused Plans - Planning Application Ref: 50682/APP/2014/4475 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4.12 5 Kiln Way - 50682/APP/2015/1238 - Single storey rear extension and alterations to front elevation (Application for a Cer tificate of Lawful Development for a Proposed Development) – Approved on 13-05-15 . The alterations to the front elevation involved replacing the existing windows and extending the staircase window. There were no changes proposed to the garage doors. 4.13 5 Kiln Way - 50682/APP/2015/3288 - Single storey rear extension and alterations to elevations – Approved on 29-10-15. The proposed works to the front elevation involved replacement windows, widening an existing front window, removal of an existing front windows and replacing two garage doors with one garage door. 4.14 9 Pines Close - 66437/APP/2009/2303 - Part conversion of garage to habitable use – Refused on 17-12-09 due to impact on parking provision and visual impact of the proposal on the application property and the surrounding area. 4.15 Half of the garage would have been converted into habitable use involving the removal of one garage door and replacement with a window and matching brickwork. The other garage door would have been retained. 4.16 Notwithstanding the planning history of the application property and the neighbouring properties, t he proposed development sought under the current planning application has been assessed against relevant policies of the Hillingdon Local Plan, site context and planning history. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Consultation letters were sent to 9 local owners/occupiers and the Northwood Residents Association, with the consultation period dating between 6th January 2026 and 27th January 2026. 10 objections were received along with one petition objecting to the proposal. 6.2 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 and Table 2 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 3 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response A petition of 22 valid signatures has been received against the application. 1. This would adversely alter the street scene as all other houses have the same brown garage doors at the front of the building. So to change that by replacing those with windows would end the consistency of the area. The proposed development has been assessed against relevant policies of the Hillingdon Local Plan, site context and planning history, and the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the application property and the surrounding area has been discussed at paragraph s 7.2 – 7.14 of this report. Amended plans were received during the course of the application, retaining the existing garage doors on the front elevation and retaining part of the garage for non -habitable use. 10 letters of objection have been received. i) Development would result in disruption to the symmetrical appearance of the existing garages to the front of properties within the stree t – detrimental to the character and appearance of the host property and the visual The proposed development has been assessed against relevant policies of the Hillingdon Local Plan, site context and planning history, and the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press amenity of the Kiln Way street scene of the application property and the surrounding area has been discussed at paragraph s 7.2 – 7.14 of this report. Amended plans were received during the course of the application, retaining the existing garage doors on the front elevation and retaining part of the garage for non -habitable use. ii) Other properties have had garage conversion applications refused The proposed development has been assessed against relevant policies of the Hillingdon Local Plan, site context and planning history . Relevant planning applications have been discussed in Section 4 of this report. iii) Replacing garage doors with windows would destroy the unity of the estate /1980s design. The proposed development has been assessed against relevant policies of the Hillingdon Local Plan, site context and planning history, and the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the application property and the surrounding area has been discussed at paragra phs 7.2 – 7.14 of this report. Amended plans were received during the course of the application, retaining the existing garage doors on the front elevation and retaining part of the garage for non -habitable use. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press iv) Garage conversion can be done without changing the garage doors e.g. side windows The impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the application property and the surrounding area has been discussed at paragraphs 7.2 – 7.14 of this report. Amended plans were received during the course of the application, retaining the existing garage doors on the front elevation and retaining part of the garage for non -habitable use. v) Reduce on-site parking as existing driveway is very short/limited on -street parking The impact of the proposed development on the highway and on -site parking provision has been discussed at paragraphs 7.30 and 7.31 of this report. The Council’s Highways Engineer has been consulted on the application. Amended plans were received during the course of the application, retaining the existing garage doors on the front elevation and retaining part of the garage for non -habitable use/parking. 6.3 A 14-day re-consultation was carried out following the submission of amended plans involving retaining the existing garage doors on the front elevation and retaining part of the garage for non-habitable use; the description of development was amended to reflect the proposed changes and to include the proposed front porch extension. 6.4 The 14-day re-consultation period expired on 26 June 2026. One response was received. Table 2: Summary of Representations Received (Re-Consultation) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response All the houses are the same but this will change the look of all houses on Kiln Way and Pines Close The impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the application property and the surrounding area has been discussed at paragraphs 7.2 – 7.14 of this report. Amended plans were received during the course of the application, retaining the existing garage doors on the front elevation and retaining part of the garage for non - habitable use. Table 3: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Northwood Residents Association This would adversely alter the street scene as all of the other houses have the same brown garage doors at the front of the building. So, to change that by replacing these with windows would end the consistency of the area. Amended plans were received during the course of the application, retaining the existing garage doors on the front elevation and retaining part of the garage for non - habitable use. Conservation and Urban Design Officer: No objection in principle provided bricks and window details and finishes match existing. We would recommend that the officer is satisfied that off street parking for the dwelling is sufficient given the small external drive. The comments from the Conservation and Urban Design Officer are noted and a materials condition shall be attached to any consent granted. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press The Council’s Highways Engineer has been consulted on the application. Highways Officer: As on-plot parking is to remain on the frontage area, there are no envisaged highway related implications or demands imposed on this application. The comments from the Highways Officer are noted and the impact on highways and parking provision has been discussed at paragraph s 7.30 and 7.31 of this report. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The proposal is for alterations to an ex isting residential dwelling. As such, the principle of development is supported by national, regional and local planning policies, subject to the considerations set out below. Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.2 Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) requires that new developments achieve a high quality of design in all new buildings, alterations, extensions and the public realm which enhances the local distinctiveness of the area, contributes to community cohesion and a sense of place. 7.3 Policy DMHB 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that "new development, including alterations and extensions to existing buildings, within a Con servation Area or on its fringes, will be expected to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area. It should sustain and enhance its significance and make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness". 7.4 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Pa rt Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) requires all development to be designed to the highest standards and incorporate principles of good design, either complementing or improving the character and appearance of the area. Policy DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) seeks to protect and improve the public realm, including streets. 7.5 Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) requires that alterations and extension of dwellings would Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press not have an adverse cumulative impact on the character and appearance of the street scene, and should appear subordinate to the main dwelling. It also required that there is no unacceptable loss of outlook to neighbouring occupiers. 7.6 Part D of Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan : Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that alterations and extensions to the front of a house must be minor and not alter the overall appearance of the house or dominate the c haracter of the street. Porches should be subordinate in scale and individually designed to respect the ch aracter and features of the original building. 7.7 The Northwood, Frithwood Conservation Area is located to the north, west and south of the application site, as designated in the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Saved UDP Policies (November 2012). However, the application site is not located with the Conservation Area. No extensions are proposed and the overall footprint, scale, massing, roof form and height of the dwelling would remain unchanged. 7.8 The estate displays a degree of architectural consistency, with hipped roof forms, projecting front elevations, integral garages and a common palette of brick and roof materials contributing to the established character of the area. Concerns were made during the public consultation regarding the loss of the two existing garage doors on the front elevation and the impact on the character and appearance of the street scene. 7.9 Amended plans were received during the c ourse of the application, retaining the existing garage doors on the front elevation and retaining part of the garage for non -habitable use . The description of development was amended to provide clarity and to include the retention of the existing garage doors and the proposed front porch extension. In this regard, the proposal would not alter the established built form of the dwelling. Based on the amended plans received, the principal architectural characteristics of the property , including its scale, proportions, roof profile and relationship with neighbouring dwellings, would remain unchanged. 7.10 The Council’s Conservation and Urban Design Officer has assessed the proposal and has no objection to the proposed garage conversion, proposed alterations to the side elevations and the proposed front porch extension, subject to the proposed bricks, window details and finishes to match the existing materials. This would be secured by condition on any consent granted. 7.11 Given that the existing garage doors on the front elevation would be retained, there would be no change to the front elevation of the converted garage. There are two windows also proposed along the flank walls. 7.12 The two proposed side windows would match the design and proportions of existing windows and so would be acceptable. The proposed garage conversion and proposed side windows would therefore not cause harm to the character and appearance of the application property, the immediate street scene and the surrounding area. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.13 The proposed front porch extension would infill between the existing entrance and the front elevation of the existing lounge, with a 2.65m set back from the front elevation of the garage. Given that the proposed front porch extension would not extend beyond the existing southern side elevation, that the proposed brickwork would match the existing brickwork, and that there would be no increase in roof height, it is considered that the proposed front porch extension would not have a detrimental impact on the character and a ppearance of the application property, the immediate street scene and the surrounding area. 7.14 The proposal thereby complies with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) and Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). Residential Amenity 7.15 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Pa rt Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that new developments should not result in loss of privacy, overlooking and loss of sunlight and daylight. 7.16 Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) requires that alterations and extension of dwellings do not result in an unacceptable loss of outlook to neighbouring occupiers. 7.17 9 Kiln Way and 2 Pines Close are located along the northern site boundary. Although half of the existing garage would be converted into habitable use, the proposed garage conversion would not involve increasing the width of the application property and would not encroach outside the application property's site boundaries . The proposed garage conversion would therefore not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of 9 Kiln Way and 2 Pines Close. 7.18 Whilst a new window would be provided on the side elevation facing 9 Kiln Way and 2 Pines Close, the proposed window would be obscure glazed; this would be secured by a condition on any consent granted, along with a requirement that the proposed side windo w be non- opening below 1.8m from finished floor level. Subject to this condition, the proposed side window would not result in loss of privacy or overlooking of 9 Kiln Way and 2 Pines Close. 7.19 The proposed front porch extension would be set back 2.65m from the front elevation of the garage and so would not be visible from 9 Kiln Way and 2 Pines Close. The proposed front porch extension would therefore not impact on the residential amenity of 9 Kiln Way and 2 Pines Close. 7.20 6 and 7 Kiln Way are located along the southern site boundary. The existing garage is located on the opposite side of the property. Given that the proposed garage conversion would not involve increasing the width of the application property and would not encroach outside the application property's site Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press boundaries, the proposed garage conversion would not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of 6 and 7 Kiln Way. 7.21 A window is proposed on the side elevat ion of the converted garage and would serve the proposed office. Given the position and orientation of the application property and the neighbouring properties, the proposed side window would be screened from 7 Kiln Way by the existing southern side elevation of the application property. The proposed side window would not directly face on to the habitable room window on the front elevation of 6 Kiln Way and combined with the 13m separation distance from the proposed side window, there would not be an issue of direct overlooking of 6 Kiln Way. It is therefore considered that the proposed side window to the converted garage would not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of 6 and 7 Kiln Way through the loss of privacy or overlooking. 7.22 The proposed front porch extension would not extend beyond the existing southern side elevation and there would be no increase in height. The proposed front porch extension would not be visible from 6 and 7 Kiln Way, and so would not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of 6 and 7 Kiln Way. 7.23 To the east, the rear of the site backs onto the rear gardens of 8 and 10 Pines Close. The existing garage is located on the front of the property. G iven that the proposed garage conversion would not involve increasing the width of the application property and would not encroach outside the application property's site boundaries, the proposed garage conversion would not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of 8 and 10 Pines Close. 7.24 5 Kiln Way and Woodsman Court, 24 Eastbury Avenue, are located to the west, on the opposite side of the road. Given that the proposed garage conversion would not involve increasing the width of the application property and would not encroach outside the application property's si te boundaries, the proposed garage conversion would not have an adverse impact on the re sidential amenity of 5 Kiln Way and Woodsman Court, 24 Eastbury Avenue. 7.25 The proposed front porch extension would not extend beyond the existing southern side elevation and there would be no increase in height. There would therefore not be an impact on the residential amenity of 5 Kiln Way and Woodsman Court, 24 Eastbury Avenue. 7.26 The proposal thereby complies with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) and Policies DMHB 11 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). External Amenity Space 7.27 Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Pa rt Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) re quires developments to provide good quality and useable private outdoor amenity space in accordance with the Council's standards (as per Table 5.2), whilst Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) seeks to ensure that proposals to extend dwellings retain adequate garden space. 7.28 The application site has a rear garden of 136sq.m. The proposed garage conversion and the proposed front porch extension would not impact on the existing external amenity provision and so would comply wi th Policies DMHB 18 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). Outlook/Light to Proposed Habitable Rooms 7.29 It is considered that all the proposed habitable rooms would maintain an adequate outlook and source of natural light, therefore complying with Policy D6 of the London Plan (March 2021). Highways and Parking 7.30 Policy DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that dev elopment proposals must ensure they provide safe and efficient vehicular access to the highway network and do not contribute to the deterior ation of the safety of all road users and residents. Policy DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) seeks to ensure that de velopments provide acceptable levels of car parking in line with the Council's Parking Standards (Appendix C Table 1). 7.31 The application site has a driveway and parking area at the front of the site, along with an existing front attached double garage. The Council’s Highways Engineer has assessed the proposal and has no objection to the existing garage being converted into habitable use, given that the existing parking provision at the front of the site would be retained. Half of the garage would be retained for non- habitable use and would retain space for parking one vehicle. It is therefore considered that acceptable parking provision would be provided on the site and so the proposed garage conversion wou ld not impact on the local highway. The proposal is thereby in accordance with Policies DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). Impact on TPO 152 7.32 Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Pa rt Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) seeks to ensure that developments retain and enhance existing landscaping and trees, particularly trees of merit, and requires landscape schemes to be appropriate to the character of the area. 7.33 The application site is located within TPO 152. The proposed garage conversion and the proposed front porch extension would not involve increasing the footprint of the application property and would not impact on TPO 152. The proposal thereby complies with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Drainage/Flood Risk 7.34 Policy DMEI 9 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) seeks to ensure that developments provide appropriate management of flood risk. 7.35 The application site is located within the Flood Map for Surface Water, as identified in the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) for Hillingdon. An informative advising the applicant that water run off should be directed to a soakaway, tank or permeable surface shall be added to any consent granted. 8 Other Matters Human Rights 8.1 The development has been assessed against the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and in particular Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the Act itself. This Act gives further effect to the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to the applicant's reasonable development rights and expectations which have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / the Devel opment Plan and Central Government Guidance. Equality 8.2 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the assessment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.3 Not applicable. The proposed development is not CIL liable. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 10 Background Papers 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 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 48867/APP/2025/3235 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 5 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 plans The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on Drawing Refs: PP-14579737v1 Location Plan PR/001 Rev E Proposed Ground & First Floor Plans PR/101 Rev E Proposed Elevations REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) and the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020), and the London Plan (March 2021). 3. HO4 M Materials The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building and shall thereafter be retained as such. REASON To safeguard the visual amenities of the area and to ensure that the proposed development does not have an adverse effect upon the appearance of the existing building in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 4. HO5 N No additional windows or doors Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no additional windows, doors or other openings shall be constructed in the walls of the development hereby approved. REASON Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 5 To prevent overlooking to adjoining properties in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 55. HO6 O Obscure Glazing The side window facing 9 Kiln Way shall be glazed with permanently obscured glass to at least scale 4 on the Pilkington scale and be non-opening below a height of 1.8 metres taken from internal finished floor level for so long as the development remains in existence. REASON To prevent overlooking to adjoining properties in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). Informatives 1. I59 C Councils Local Plan : Part 1 - Strategic Policies On this decision notice policies from the Councils Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies appear first, then relevant Local Plan Part 2 (2020), then London Plan Policies (2016). Hillingdon's Full Council adopted the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies on 8 November 2012 and the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 on 16 January 2020. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 5 AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History 29854/81/0127 2-14 1-7 Pines Close & 1-9(Cons) Kiln Way Northwood Erection of 20 detached dwellings garages and footpaths. Decision: 10-03-1981 Approved 48867/A/94/0290 8 Kiln Way Northwood Conversion of part of integral garage to a habitable room Decision: 27-05-1994 Approved 48867/APP/2013/2128 8 Kiln Way Northwood Single storey rear extension and first floor rear extension Decision: 24-09-2013 Approved Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 5 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 PT1.HE1 (2012) Heritage Part 2 Policies: DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 4 Conservation Areas DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 18 Private Outdoor Amenity Space DMHD 1 Alterations and Extensions to Residential Dwellings DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP HC1 (2021) Heritage conservation and growth LPP D6 (2021) Housing quality and standards Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 5

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Christopher Lamb 14226/APP/2025/3062 Date Application Valid: 23.12.25 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 08.06.26 Application Type: Full Ward: Ruislip Applicant: C/O Agent Site Address: 54 High Street Ruislip HA4 7AT Proposal: Change of use of part ground and the first floor from a Financial and Professional Services (Use Class E (c)) to Residential. Erection of rear dormers, raising of the roof ridge on the rear section of the building an d installation of 7no. roof lights and associated fenestration changes, private balconies together with bike and bin storage to provide an to provide an additional floor of residential (Total 5 flats Use Class C3) Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 3 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Petition received) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 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 This application at no. 54 High Street, Ruislip, seeks full planning permission for the change of use of part of the ground floor and all of the first floor from its existing Financial and Professional Services (Use Class E (c)) use to Residential (Use Class C3) , in addition to alterations to the fenestration, and the roof including expansion and raising of the rear roof slope, erection of rear dormers, and installation of 7no. roof lights to the front roof slope, so as to provide an additional floor of residential use at second floor level, together with associated balconies, bin and cycle storage. 1.2 In total, the application would retain 184 sqm of Class E commercial space to the ground floor and provide 5 x residential units (2 x one-bedroom , 3 x two- bedroom). 1.3 A signed petition has been received from the public with a total of 35 valid signatures, and as such this application has been called to Committee for determination. Concerns raised include, inter alia, the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and Conservation Area, neighbour amenity, and lack of parking . These matters have been considered within the assessment section of the report below. 1.4 In this instance, in consideration of a recent appeal within the vicinity and the submitted marketing evidence, the principle of the part-conversion of the building to residential use, and the modest loss of ground floor commercial space within a Primary Shopping Area, is considered to be justified. The alterations required to the building, which are pr edominantly to the less-visible rear, are considered to be acceptable from a character , appearance and heritage perspective , in which the character of the Ruislip Village Conservation Area would be preserved. 1.5 Following amendments made to the application, namely the reduction in size of the balcony to Flat 5 (and therefore the alteration to its outlook), it is considered that the proposal would not give rise to undue overlooking or loss of privacy to existing adjacent residential occupiers, whilst no further amenity concerns are raised. 1.6 The Highways Officer has raised no objections to the proposal. Given the ‘car- free’ status of the development and physical parking constraints on the local highway network surrounding the site, it is considered that the proposal would Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress and would not raise any measurable highway or pedestrian safety concerns. 1.7 Taking all relevant matters into account and giving due regard to local residents’ objections (including the petition against the application), it is concluded that the proposal complies with the overarching aims of the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. The planning application is therefore reco mmended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The site comprises no. 54 High Street in Ruislip, a two-storey building which is centrally located along Ruislip High Street and was previously occupied by Barclays Bank for several years. 2.2 The site lies on the corner of the High Street and King Edward's Road, within the Ruislip Town Centre designation. The building itself is rectangular in nature, with the longest of its elevations facing onto King Edward’s Road. It has a prominent front entrance on the street corner with the High Street, with a noteworthy first- floor balcony located above. The building is constructed in red brick and has a clay tiled pitched roof. Joinery across the building is consistent in design. 2.3 The building is locally listed and is within the Ruislip Village Conservation Area. It is of an attractive design and finish, contributing positively to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The site also lies within a Primary Shopping Area, and the Ruislip Motte and Bailey Archaeological Priority Area. The site and surrounding High Street is also subject to an Article 4 direction that removes permitted development rights for the conversion of Use Class E to residential use, hence planning permission is required for such a conversion. 2.4 The surrounding area comprises a mix of commercial and residential uses. The adjoining property to the south and opposing properties across the High Street and King Edward's Road consist of various commercial uses on the ground floor, as do other nearby properties along the High Street. The upper floors of the High Street consist of multiple uses, including residential and offices. The adjoining no. 56 to the south has a residential flat above its ground floor commercial use (no. 56a). 2.5 To the west of the site, the surround ing area along King Edward’s Road is predominantly residential in nature , featuring a mix of detached and semi- detached dwellings of varying styles and design. The neighbouring property to the west, no. 1 King Edward’s Road, is a residential dwellinghouse. It is separated from the application site by a service road running between the two sites, which provides parking and access to the rears of properties facing onto the High Street. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2.6 Directly to the north-east of the site is Church Field Gardens Park. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Application Property as Viewed from the High Street Figure 3: Application Property as Viewed from King Edward’s Road Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4: Application Property as Viewed from King Edward’s Road Figure 5: Rear of Application Property as Viewed From Access Road Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 6: Rear of Application Property as Viewed From Access Road Figure 7: Rear of Application Property as Viewed From Entrance to No. 56a Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the change of use of part of the ground floor and all of the first floor of the property from its existing Financial and Professional Services (Use Class E (c)) use to Residential (Use Class C3), in addition to alterations to the roof inc luding expansion and raising of the rear roof slope, erection of rear dormers, balconies, and installation of 7no. roof lights to the front roof slope, so as to provide an additional floor of residential use at second floor level. 3.2 Overall, the redevelopment would retain 184 sqm of Class E commercial space to the ground floor, accessed from the existing commercial entrance, and provide 5 x residential units (2 x one-bedroom, 3 x two-bedroom), with details as below: - Flat 1 – Two bedroom, three person. 77 sqm. Duplex over ground and first floor. - Flat 2 – One bedroom, two person. 59 sqm. Duplex over first and second floors. - Flat 3 – Two bedroom, four person. 84 sqm. Duplex over first and second floors. - Flat 4 – One bedroom, two person. 51 sqm. First floor flat. - Flat 5 – Two bedroom, four person. 82 sqm. Duplex over first and second floors. 3.3 Flats 2, 3 and 5 would benefit from external amenity space in the form of balconies, on the second floor. No. 5 would also have an additional balcony on the first floor facing the High Street, an existing feature of the building. 3.4 All of the flats would be accessible via a new ground floor entrance door facing onto King Edward’s Road (north -facing elevation), which would lead into a communal lobby entranceway and staircase. Flat 1 would be accessed from the ground floor, and Flats 2 to 5 from an internal communal corridor on the first floor. An existing external staircase to th e rear of the building (south elevation) would provide a secondary access point fo r the flats, leading to the communal first floor corridor. As part of the proposal, a new secondary access door for the commercial unit would also be installed, adjacent to the primary residential access facing onto King Edward’s Road. 3.5 The proposal would introduce additional fe nestration to the ground floor of the north-facing elevation (facing onto King Ed ward’s Road), first floor of the west- facing side elevation, and second floor of the south -facing rear elevation. The ground and first floor windows of the south elevation would remain as existing. The High Street facing east elevation would be unchanged by the proposal. Bin and cycle storage would be located on the west -facing side elevation, adjacent to the access road. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3.6 The proposal has been amended during the course of the application to reduce the size of the second -floor balcony (‘Balcony 2’) to Flat 5. This was altered at the request of the Case Officer so as to reduce its level of outlook and resolve privacy/overlooking concerns which were raised. This is discussed in further detail within the assessment section. Figure 8: Existing Elevations (please note – a larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 9: Proposed Elevations (please note – a larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 10: Existing Floor Plans (please note – a larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 11: Proposed Floor Plans (please note – a larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 12: Existing and Proposed Roof Plans (please note – a larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A full list of the planning history relating to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 The application site has an extensive planning history, however this largely relates to its former use as a bank. None would be directly relevant to this application. 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 6.1 35 neighbouring properties, as well as the Ruislip Residents Association, were originally consulted on the application on 09.01.26, with the consultation period expiring on 30.01.2026 . A site notice was also displayed at the site and an advertisement published in the local paper . These consultation periods expired on 10.02.2026 and 11.02.2026 respectively. 6.2 Altogether: - A petition with a total of 35 valid signatures was received in objection to the proposal. - 4 representations, from one individual, were received, in objection to the proposal. - 2 representations from the Ruislip Residents Association were received. - Representation from a Local Ward Councillor objecting to the proposal. 6.3 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response Petition of 35 total valid signatures have been received against the application I. Impact on the character of the area/Conservation Area; too big. II. Impact on neighbour amenity (loss of privacy, noise). III. No parking Discussed within paragraphs 7.29 - 7.49 of this report Discussed within paragraphs 7.50 - 7.68 of this report. Discussed within paragraphs 7.80 - 7.103 of this report. 4 individual letters of objection have been received I. Concerns over principle of development (loss of office space) Discussed within paragraphs 7.1 - 7.28 of this report. II. Harm to character and appearance of the site / Conservation area; out of scale with surrounding development Discussed within paragraphs 7.29 - 7.49 of this report Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press III. Impacts on neighbour amenity; loss of privacy / overlooking; noise (increased from previous use) Discussed within paragraphs 7.50 - 7.68 of this report. IV. Highway and parking concerns; development has no parking; impact on existing parking; limited space for satisfactory bin storage/uncertainty over land ownership Discussed within paragraphs 7.80 - 7.103 of this report. The bin and cycle store is sited within the site red edge, indicating that it is within the ownership of the applicant. The application is therefore assessed as such. V. Request for Case Officer to visit the site The site was visited by the Case Officer on 24.03.2026. This included visiting the neighbouring residential flat no. 56a, internally and externally. VI. Reference to previous dismissed appeal at no. 58 The dismissed appeal at the site of no. 58, referenced within a neighbour representation, has been reviewed however is not considered to be materially relevant to the proposal given the significant difference between the two schemes. 2 letters of objection from the Ruislip Residents Association I. Impacts on neighbour amenity; loss of privacy / overlooking; noise (increased from previous use) Discussed within paragraphs 7.50 - 7.68 of this report. II. Harm to character and appearance of the site / Conservation area Discussed within paragraphs 7.29 - 7.49 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press III. Uncertainty Over Land Ownership The bin and cycle store is sited within the site red edge, indicating that it is within the ownership of the applicant. The application is therefore assessed as such. IV. Inaccuracies in submitted plans The submitted plans have been reviewed and are accurate in so far as their relationship with no. 56. The matter of concern – the cross-sectional drawing of no. 56 in the south elevation – is simply taken from where the application site adjoins this propert y – the point where the depth of no. 56 is at its narrowest. A separate sectional drawing, showing the south elevation of the application property in relation to the wider (total) depth of no. 56, was requested however by the Case Officer to better illustrate the relationship between the two properties. This is included within Figure 17 of this report. V. Request for Case Officer to visit the site The site was visited by the Case Officer on 24.03.2026. This included visiting the neighbouring residential flat no. 56a, internally and externally. Local Ward Councillor Concerns raised regarding the number of flats without parking. The area already suffers considerable parking stress.Limited Concerns regarding parking and refuse storage are discussed within Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press provision of bin storage space Concerns raised regarding the impact on the amenity of existing residents which would be overlooked with balconies close to their bedrooms and living space. The level of development is on balance unacceptable. paragraphs 7.80 - 7.103 of this report. Impact on neighbour amenity is discussed within paragraphs 7.50 - 7.68 of this report. The principle of the development is discussed in detail in paragraphs 7.1- 7.28 . This section also deals with the level of housing proposed. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Conservation and Design: No Objections, subject to conditions. This is a pleasant metroland bank building located on Ruislip high street with a return to King Edwards Road. It is of two storeys with a clay tiled roof and the detailing and finishes result in a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area. There has been ongoing discussions in relation to the proposals. We believe that the design solution now arrived at addresses our concerns. There will be a positive street presence to King Edwards Road and when approaching from the west the impact of the rear dormer elements has been reduced. In addition the gable elevation now provides a positive response which reflects the character of the area. The design preserves the character of the building and the wider conservation area. As such we would support and recommend approval. External materials and finishes subject to approval. Joinery details and finishes subject to approval. Rooflight details subject to approval. Landscaping details and finishes subject to approval. Comments noted. It is agreed that the suggested conditions are imposed. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Highways Officer: No Objections, subject to conditions. The overriding regional parking standard demands up to a maximum of 3 -4 spaces in total for the proposal. Although the ‘car -free’ option for the residential component technically falls wi thin this spectrum, it is noted that the regional standard recommends ‘car- free’ development where a site registers a PTAL level of 5 or higher which is not the case for this particular address. However, it is acknowledged that the site envelope is located in relative proximity to Ruislip LU station with generous bus services which suggests a potential anomaly/under -estimation in the PTAL calculation (3) indicating a higher ‘real-world’ rating. Therefore, in this case, any apparent ‘shortfall’ in parking is not considered potentially problematic and it is anticipated that if a refusal reason based on insufficient on -plot parking were to be applied and thereafter appealed, it is highly unlikely to be supported by the Planning Inspectorate given the relatively good PTAL in the first instance and the physical limitations of convenient alternative availability of ‘free of charge’ parking areas in the vicinity that could otherwise serve as an alternative provision. The Highway Authority therefore advises that no objection is raised to the absence of on -plot parking. It should be noted that, as a safeguarding measure (as acknowledged by the applicant) it would normally be recommended that the site address be made 'Resident Permit Restricted' via legal agreement to prevent future occupiers from obtaining on -street parking permits. However, as the address is encompassed within a ‘Pay & Display’ CPZ without formal residential parking provisions, this mechanism cannot be enacted in this case. Cycle Parking In line with the regional plan, the applicant is to provide the required 9 ‘long stay’ & 2 ‘short stay’ spaces incorporating a staking system within a bike store, detail of which would be secured by way of planning condition. Vehicular Trip Generation Comments noted. It is agreed that the suggested conditions are imposed. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Given the ‘car-free’ status and physical parking constraints on the local highway network, the proposal does not give rise for concern, as it would be anticipated that any traffic imposition can be absorbed within the local road ne twork without notable det riment to traffic congestion and road safety. Servicing Arrangements – Waste Collection Residential In the case of waste management, collection distances between a designated bin store and a refuse vehicle should not exceed 10m in order to accord with the council's waste collection standard with carrying distances from each residential unit not exceeding a distance of 30m to the store. Bin storage accessed via neighbouring King Edward’s Road is proposed located at the rear of the build which broadly conforms to the above parameters. Commercial As there is an existing commercial use, refuse arrangements are to continue in a similar manner but may require a separate ‘update’ conversation with the appropriate private waste collection service. There are no further observations. Construction Management Plan (CMP) The above will be a requirement given the constraints and sensitivities of the local road network to avoid/minimise potential detriment to the public realm. The submitted CMP is considered broadly fit for purpose for the type and scale of development. Conclusion The application has been reviewed by the Highway Authority who are satisfied that the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress, and would not raise any measurable highway safety concerns, in accordance with Local Plan: Part 2 Development Plan (2020) Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 & DMT 6 and Policies T4, T5 and T6 of the London Plan (2021). Access Officer: No Objections. This proposal has been reviewed against the requirements of the 2021 London Plan policy D7 which should not be applied to the proposed Change Comments noted. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press of Use of this existing Class-E development to residential (C3) dwelling. Conclusion: no objections raised from an accessibility perspective. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The application site is the former Barclay’s Bank which, since its closure in February 2024, has been vacant. The site is therefore considered to fall under the definition of brownfield land. 7.2 Paragraph 124 of the NPPF (2024) stat es that decisions should promote 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. 7.3 Paragraph 125c of the NPPF (2024) st ates that substantial weight should be attributed to the value of using suitable br ownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, and that proposals for which should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused. 7.4 Paragraph 125d of the NPPF (2024) states that substantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs in addition to promoting and supporting the development of under -utilised land and buildings, especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is constrained and available sites could be used more effectively. 7.5 Paragraph 128 of the NPPF (2024) states that Local Planning Authorities should adopt a positive approach towards applications that repurpose retail and employment land for residential use in areas with high housing demand, provided this would not undermine key econ omic sectors or sites or the vitality and viability of town centres. 7.6 Policy H1 of the London Plan encourages the optimisation of housing delivery on appropriate sites, particularly in accessible town centre locations. The site is located within Ruislip town centre and is within walking distance of a full range of services, employment opportunities and public transport. Residential accommodation on upper floors in town centres is well -established and supported in principle, reflecting the ef ficient use of existing buildings and sustainable locations. 7.7 Policy SD6 of the London Plan seeks to promote the vitality and viability of Town Centres by focusing commercial activity and identifying locations for mixed -use or housing-led intensification to optimise sustainable residential growth potential. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Loss of Ground Floor Class E Space 7.8 Policy DMTC 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states the Council will support 'main town centre uses' where the development proposal is consistent with the scale and function of the centre and that residential use of ground floor premises in Primary and Secondary Shopping Areas and in designated parades will not be supported. 7.9 The site lies within a Primary Shopping Area and proposes to repurpose a small section of the ground floor into residential use. This would notably conflict with the above policy, however the overall intention of this policy is to maintain the marketability of ground floor retail units for commercial use, preserving the wider function and vitality of commercial centres. 7.10 As above, this is consistent with th e NPPF (2024), which is supportive of the repurposing of retail land for residential use in areas with high housing demand, provided this would not undermine key economic sectors or sites , or the vitality and viability of town centres. 7.11 In this instance, the large proportion of the ground floor would remain in Class E Use, which given its High Street location would be appropriate. The proposed ground floor residential element would be li mited to a small area at the rear of the existing floorplate, fronting King Edward’s Road, where the adjacent context is primarily residential and where this aspect of the existing building presents a blank ground floor elevation . To this extent, it is accepted that this part of the floorplate does not currently function as shopping frontage (Figure 13), despite its designation, and therefore does not effectively contribute to the vitalit y or functioning of the shopping area or town centre more generally. Figure 13: Ground Floor Area to be Converted to Residential Use Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.12 In a recent appeal at 82-84 High Street, for a comparable commercial to residential conversion which required the loss of a small section of ground floor Primary Shopping Area (Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/W/24/3356952), the Inspector similarly concluded that the conversion of commercial ground floor to residential use would be acceptable, provided that such a conversion would not undermine the attractiveness and marketability of the commercial unit. 7.13 In this instance, it is re cognised that the commercial space as existing has a considerably deep floorplate. The rear se ction proposed for residential use has no direct customer access and provides limited commercial value. Given this, as well as the limited extent of the ground floor to be converted, it is considered that the proposal would not harm the marketability of the ground floor as a commercial unit, and so would not harm t he function and vitality of the Ruislip Town Centre. 7.14 Furthermore, the proposal would also include an additional window that would serve the retail space, and a new entrance door, increasing its functionality. The residential element includes a shared entrance door, two new windows and landscaping within the street. These alterations would improve the existing street scape and the interaction of the application site with the public realm. 7.15 Whilst the confliction with Policy DMTC 1 is therefore noted, in consideration of the recent appeal for a comparable proposal, and that the proposed conversion would similarly not undermine the marketability of the commercial unit , it is considered as above that the loss of this small section of ground floor commercial space would be justified, in this instance. 7.16 Indeed, it is considered that this aspect would be compliant with the overarching aims of the NPPF, which supports the repu rposing of retail land for residential use in areas of high housing demand, given that in this instance the scope of the conversion would not undermine the delivery of the ground floor as a Class E site, with this aspect being viewed as commercially redundant and, in and of itself, not functioning as shopping frontage , or contributing to the vitality and viability of the town centre. In the same respects, i s it considered that the proposal would accord with London Plan Policy SD6, which seeks to promote town centres for commercial activities whilst encouraging residential intensification. 7.17 For the above reasons, it is considered therefore that the conversion of the ground floor Class E use to residential, as proposed, would be acceptable in principle. Loss of First Floor Class E (Office) Space 7.18 The former use of the site was as a bank (professional and financial services), with the first floor offices/storage ancillary to this function. Accordingly, Policy DME 3, which seeks to protect office floorspace within designated town centres, Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press would not be applicable as the primary use of the site was not as an office in and of itself. 7.19 The loss of the ancillary storage/office space on the upper floors, to be replaced by residential flats, would not unduly harm the vitality and viability of the town centre given the upper floor siting. Local Policy would be generally supportive of this change of use, such as Policy SD6 of the London Plan, as would the NPPF (2024). 7.20 In any case, a Marketing Letter, Report, and Supporting Evidence, prepared by HRH Retail has been submitted in support of this application. Since the start of the vacancy in early 2024, the submitted evidence demonstrates that the property has been subject to an extensive marketing campaign for re- letting under Class E Use. Marketing commenced on 27 February 2024 and has continued for over 12 months. 7.21 Review of the supporting documentation demonstrates that the marketing campaign included the erection of a letting board on- site, online advertising through PIP and EACH platforms, HRH Retail’s website, and circulation to their mailing lists. Detailed letting particulars were also prepared and made available online. 7.22 The Planning Statement accompanying the application states that “despite this comprehensive approach, the outcome has been limited. The vast majority of interest has come from residential developers and investors seeking to purchase the freehold for conversion. There has been minimal interest from occupiers for Class E uses, and notably no interest from office users. This lack of demand is attributed to several factors: the hard ‘bank’ frontage, the secondary location within the High Street, the size and layout of the property, and the significant cost of fitting out the space. The absence of car parking and local parking restrictions further reduce its attractiveness for office use.” 7.23 The conclusions from the marketing evidence have been reviewed and it is concurred that over the 12-month period there has been no realistic prospect of re-letting the property, and specifically the first floor, for Class E Use. 7.24 The proposal would bring the first floor back into a viable and appropriate use, which would weigh in its favour particularly given the conclusions of the marketing report and the fact the existing use served ancillary storage and offices to the previous function as a bank . In this instance, it is not considered that the conversion of the first floor to re sidential use would result in confliction with the Development Plan, given that it would allow for appropriate housing-led intensification. Housing Mix and Number of Units 7.25 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 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 that the Council's current information on housing needs indicates a substantial borough- wide requirement for larger affordable and private market units, particularly three -bedroom properties. Notwithstanding, the delivery of any additional housing units, regardless of bedroom numb ers, would weigh in favour of the proposal given that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. 7.26 In this instance, the proposal would provide 2 x one-bedroom and 3 x two- bedroom units. While the lack of provision of a larger family-sized flat is generally not in compliance with Policy DMH 2, in applying the tilted balance and given the proposed high street location, low number of proposed units, and lack of car parking (which would not tend itself to a family dwelling), the lack of family-sized housing would be acceptable in this instance. Indeed, it is recognised that the housing tenure proposed is generally more appropriate for the town centre, upper floor location. Overall, the benefits of additional housing in general would outweigh the lack of family units. 7.27 In terms of number of units, the NPPF (2024) is generally supportive of gentle densification, and the efficient use of land. It is considered that the provision of five units in this instance would be proportionate and suitable for the size of the site and scale of the development. Each of the units would provide a suitable overall standard of accommodation meeting the minimum standards set out in the London Plan. This would also suppor t the view that the proposal would not lead to an over intensification of the site. The physical changes required to create the residential units would also be largely situated within the existing envelope of the building with modest extensions to the roof, fenestration, balconies and associated storage facilities. Conclusion 7.28 Overall, the provision of additional housing would weigh in favour of the proposal. Additionally, the proposal would conform to the overarching aims of the NPPF, with regard to making efficient use of land and repurposing of brownfield land, bringing it back into appropriate use. Whilst there would be minor conflictions with local policy with regard to the conversion of the ground floor to residential use, and lack of family housing, deviation from these policies is considered to be justified when considering the site context, and previous appeal decision. Overall, the benefits of additional housing units in this location would outweigh any harm resulting from these conflictions. The principle of the proposed change of use would therefore be acceptable. Character and Appearance 7.29 The application property is a Locally Li sted Building, situated within the Ruislip Village Conservation Area. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.30 Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Bu ildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) details the obligations of Local Planning Authorities to pay special attention to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas in exercising planning functions. 7.31 Paragraphs 212 and 213 of the NPPF (2024) state that great weight should be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset and that any harm to the significance of such an asset (from its alteration or from development within its setting) should require clear and convincing justification. 7.32 Policy HC1 of The London Plan (2021) states development proposals affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance by being sympathetic to the assets' signific ance and appreciation within their surroundings. Councils should actively manage the cumulative impacts of incremental change from development on heritage assets and their settings. 7.33 Policy DMHB 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that the Council will expect all development proposals to avoid harm to the historic environment. Along with Policy DMHB 3, it is expected that buildings and structures within the curtilage of a locally listed building do not compromise its setting. 7.34 Policy DMHB 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that new development within a Conservation Area or on its fringes, will be expected to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area. Development should sustain and enhance its significance and make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. 7.35 In general design terms: Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021) states that developments should enhance the local context, be of high quality, and respond to a place's existing character. They should also respect, enhance, and utilise architectural features that contribute to the local character. 7.36 Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (2012) seeks a quality of design in all new development that enhances and contributes to the area in terms of form, scale and materials; is appropriate to the identity and context of the townscape; and would improve the quality of the public realm and respect local character. 7.37 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Loc al Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) advises that all development will be required to be designed to the highest standar ds and incorporate principles of good design. It should take into account aspects including the scale of the development considering the height, mass and bulk of adjacent structures; building plot sizes Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press and established street patterns; building lines and streetscape rhythm and landscaping. Site Context and Proposal 7.38 The site lies within a high street loc ation, in which there is a mixture of commercial and residential uses in the surrounding area. The building itself is an important locally listed building and one of the earliest structures on the High Street (in its Metroland phase), constructed in 1919. 7.39 The building has been previously extended to the west, evident from the slight set back in the elevation along King Edward’s Road and lower ridge height. To the south -facing rear, the existing building has a section of flat roof running behind the pitched element. 7.40 The proposal would consolidate the roof form, raising the ridge of the newer extension aspect approximately 0.4m, so that it matches the height of the main ridge. The rear dormer alterations would project from the south facing roof, building atop the existing flat roof and integrating into the pitched rear roof slope. This aspect would be set down from the main roof ridge. As part of the proposal, new openings would also be added to the north -facing and west- facing elevations of the existing new extens ion aspect, as well as seven rooflights spanning the north elevation. 7.41 Facing onto King Edward’s Road, the proposed roof alterations would appear visually modest. The slight raising of the roof of the newer extension element would better consolidate the roof appearance of the building, whilst the retention of the step -ins alo ng the elevation would continue to break up the overall massing. Overall, the roof alteration wo uld be visually very minor, with the existing characteristic hipped roof form replicated, ensuring that there would be no visual harm arising from this aspect. 7.42 The proposed roof lights would be approp riate in size and scale, set well within the confines of the roof slope. They would appear as proportionate additions and would not overwhelm the visual appearance of the roof. It is considered that the roof lights would be acceptable subject to the submission of detailed drawings and being conservation-style, both to be secured by condition. 7.43 The additional fenestration to the north and west elevations of the newer extension element would be a positive addition, given that the ground floor of the north elevation is currently blank, whilst the entirety of the existing west elevation is also blank. The additional openings and glazing would break up the existing large expanse of brickwork , which currently limits the visual interaction with the street and presents a harsh appearance, and would also provide for more natural surveillance along the streetscape. The glazing and doors would be in keeping with the existing given their size, design and siting, and coupled with the additional planting to the front of Flat 1, would improve the quality of the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press streetscape, to the benefit of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 7.44 To the south-facing rear, the proposed dormer structure would, though large, be set down from the main roof ridge and set well in from the sides, whereby it would not be readily visible or prominen t when viewed from King Edward’s Road approaching the High Street. In effect, the dormer would only be visible from the service road, which is of a varied character containing numerous flat roofed and angular structures. Furthermore, the service road is of limited visual merit given its purpose and is seldom used by the public given its no- through nature. As such, the proposed dormer structure would not be viewed as out of context given its position on the rear roof slope and would in any case be of a size and scale which is considered proportionate to the existing building. 7.45 The proposed balconies would be set back, integrated into the dormer structure. As such, they would appear within the confines of the roof rather than outwardly projecting. This would reduce their prominence, as well as assist in breaking up the overall bulk and massing of the dormer. Overall, it is considered that the roof structure proposed would integrate successfully with the rear of the building. 7.46 Cycle and bin stores are proposed adjacent to the west-facing side elevation, next to the access road. Limited details have been submitted with regard to these aspects, however the plans indicate these features would be of a subservient and proportionate scale, and finished to match the colour of the existing brickwork, reducing their prominence. The cycle and bin stores, given their location, would be set back from King Edward’s Road, whereby they would not appear as visually obtrusive in the street scene. Overall, it is therefore considered that these aspects are acceptable in principle, however a condition is recommended to ensure further details are provided to ensure a satisfactory appearance upon installation. 7.47 In consideration of all the above, su bject to the conditions above, use of appropriate (matching) materials and the submission of joinery details and finishes, to be secured by condition, the proposal is considered to accordingly preserve the character and appearance of the building as viewed from the public domain, whilst the fenestration additions to the north elevation would constitute an enhancement. To the rear, the appearance of the dormer would be acceptable give n its siting and that it is set within the confines of the roof. Furthermore, it would largely replace an existing flat roofed element of the existing building, which is of limited architectural or historical merit. 7.48 Overall, the proposed alterations would be considered acceptable in terms of their impact to the setting and appearance of the existing building and Conservation Area more generally. This is concurred by the Council's Conservation Officer, who has raised no objections to the scheme subject to the conditions as specified above. The proposal would have a neutral impact on the Ruislip Village Conservation Area, and ther efore accordingly preserves the character and appearance of the historic environment as required. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.49 The proposal is considered to accord with the policies of the Development Plan in character/appearance terms, as well as the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), and is therefore acceptable in this regard. Neighbouring Residential Amenity 7.50 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Loc al Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) seeks to ensure that development proposals do not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. 7.51 The application site adjoins no. 56 High Stre et to the south. This property is a commercial unit at ground floor level, with a residential flat (no. 56a) above. To the north, on the opposite side of Kind Edward’s Road, is a commercial premises with residential flat above. To the west is no. 1 King Edward’s Road, a two storey detached residential dwelling. This proper ty is separated from the application site by a service road which runs behind the High Street properties. 7.52 The proposed roof alterations, given the location of the application site, siting of surrounding neighbours, and that these alterations would be contained within the existing footprint of the property a nd not exceed the existing height of the building, would not be considered to result in any significant impact to neighbour amenity in terms of loss of light/overshadowing or loss of outlook/overbearingness. The submitted dayl ight and sunlight report confirms this with regard to light levels, whilst the nort hernly siting of the application site in relation to the adjoining no. 56a would further reduce any light impact given the pathway of the sun. 7.53 In terms of privacy, to the north elevation the proposal would introduce new ground floor openings to the newer rear extension aspect and roof lights. These openings would face onto King Edwar d’s Road and the elevations of the buildings opposite which face the road, for which there can therefore be no expectation of privacy. As such, no concerns are raised with regard to these additions. The openings on the first floor would remain as existing. 7.54 To the west elevation, the proposal would introduce two first floor windows. These windows would face onto the fr ontage of no. 1 King Edward’s Road – at a 90-degree angle – where again there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy given that this frontage is viewabl e to the public, as well as the front of the side elevation which, directly opposite the proposed window, is blank. Whilst this neighbour’s flank elevation has a small ground floor window and two high- level windows at first floor level, these are located further to the rear of the property, are obscurely glazed and serve non- habitable rooms/spaces. For the above reasons it is not considered that the proposed openings to this elevation would result in a significant loss of privacy for the adjacent neighbour above and beyond the existing arrangement. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.55 To the east elevation, this would remain unchanged from the existing. The existing balcony faces onto the High Street and would not afford direct views of any adjacent neighbours. 7.56 To the south elevation, the proposal would introduce new openings and balconies at second floor level. It should be noted that the openings to the ground and first floor of this elevation are all pre -existing, and no additional openings at these floors is proposed. 7.57 At present the south elevation faces onto the rear of properties facing the High Street. As per the images below, the rears of these properties are generally non- residential, with the ground floor elements relating to commercial properties and associated garaging. Closest to the application site however is no. 56a, and its associated garden, and no. 58a adjacent to this neighbour. The existing ground and first floor openings face onto the garden of no. 56a, however the flat itself (as well as no. 58a) is orientated at 90-degrees in relation to the south elevation of the application property, hence there is currently no direct overlooking between the windows of these neighbours and the application property. Figure 14: Rears of High Street Properties as Viewed from the Access Road Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 15: Rears of High Street Properties as Viewed from stairs to no. 56a Figure 16: Application property and nos. 56a (left half of gable) and 58a (right half of gable) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.58 Noting the position of the garden of no. 56a, as above this aspect of the neighbouring site is already considerably overlooked by the application property, given the existing ground and first floor openings. Given these windows are pre- existing, it is not considered that these openings would result in any greater loss of privacy for the neighbouring occupier , given that they represent no change from the existing arrangement. Furthermore, it is noted on the plans that all windows on this elevation serving the flats are also proposed to be obscurely glazed to at least half their height – again mitigating privacy concerns – whilst the closer of the first floor windows to the neighbouring properties would serve the internal communal corridor, rather than a residential unit, hence there would be no direct unit-to-unit overlooking resulting from these openings. 7.59 Provided a condition is added to ensure the south-elevation windows of the flats are retained as indicated on the plans, it is not considered that these openings, despite the change of use, would result in any significant level of overlooking over and above what is already present at the site. 7.60 Beyond impact to the garden of no. 56a, internally, in terms of nos. 56a and 58a, it is noted that the rear elevation of thes e first floor flats is orientated at a 90- degree angle away from the southern elevation of the application property. Accordingly, the southern openings to the application property would not afford any direct overlooking of the rear openi ngs of these properties. Whilst no. 56a has flank windows facing the application property, these look onto a blank part of the southern elevation of the application property, which would be unchanged by the proposal. 7.61 In terms of the additions at second floor level, to Flats 2 and 3 the outlook from the windows would be similar to that of th e existing openings at first floor level, hence would not introduce any greater level of overlooking beyond what already exists , particularly given their proposed obscure glazing to half-height, t o be retained by condition . Again, the outlook from these windows would be at 90- degrees to the rears of nos. 56a and 58a, hence would not afford any direct overlooking of these properties. 7.62 The outlook from the second floor openi ngs of Flat 5 (and the dining room window of Flat 4) would not result in any loss of privacy given that they would face onto the roof slope of no. 56. This is best visualised by the section drawing below which shows that these openings would be located behind the existing roof slope of no. 56. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 17: Proposed South Elevation Section 7.63 In terms of the balconies of Flats 2 and 3, these would be set within the proposed dormers, and therefore enclosed to the sides, so as to provide privacy for users and protect the privacy of nos. 56a and 58a from oblique overlooking . The balconies are also proposed to include opaque glass balustrades and planters on the edges to further enclose their outlook. It is recommended that details are submitted with regards to these aspects, however in principle this would be an acceptable arrangement. Overall, given the siting of these balconies, design and mitigation measures to be imposed, it is not considered that these additions would result in any undue overlooking for neighbours beyond the existing arrangement. 7.64 The second floor balcony to Flat 5 has been reduced as part of the proposal, to prevent overlooking towards the flank be droom window of no. 56a on the floor below, which may have occurred given the siting of this window and the original size of the balcony (see Figure 18). The outlook of this balcony would now be restricted on the southern side to the roof slope of no. 56, and westwards whereby it would be at a right -angle to other openings within the development, with the other balconies set into the roof slope. Furthermore, its outlook would again be reduced by the presence of an opaque glass balustrade and planting. Provided these additions are implemented, it is not considered that this balcony, following the amendments made, would result in undue overlooking or loss of privacy for adjacent neighbours. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 18: View Upwards from Inside no. 56a (Following amendments, the second floor balcony to Flat 5 would no longer be directly above this window) 7.65 Overall, with consideration given to the existing relationship of the application property to neighbouring properties to the south, positioning of openings and the amendments made, it is not consider ed that the proposal would have a significantly greater impact on the privacy of neighbours beyond the existing arrangement. With no concerns raised with regard to the other elevations and no detrimental impact envisaged with regard to overshadowing or loss of outlooking, overall the proposal is cons idered to have an acceptable impact on the amenity of the existing adjacent neighbours. Noise Activity and Disturbance 7.66 The development site is located within a dense commercial and residential area. The additional homes would not lead to any increase in people movements that would be out of character or harmful to residents to such an extent that would warrant a refusal of the application, partic ularly given the existing bank / office use (and lawful Class E Use more generally) w hich could support multiple employees (generating a similar number of people movements). If the application is approved, an informative has been recommended to ensure that Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14th July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the construction process is managed in a manner which limits the developments impact on neighbours. 7.67 Further to this, concerns were raised regarding the noise and disturbance from proposed Flat 5, which shares a party wall with no. 56a. It is not considered that noise generated from this flat would be notably dissimilar to any other residential flat that shares a party wall. Furthermore, i t is noted that any soundproofing, if so required, would be subject to building control regulations and hence would be implemented under this remit. The general noise of future occupants, if generating harm or causing a statutory nuisance, would be a matter for the Council’s Environmental Health team to investigate and resolve, if such an incident were to occur. 7.68 Overall, given the existing site contex t and building regulations, it is not considered that the introduction of five flats (replacing the existing first floor offices) within the walls of an existing building, in a busy town centre location, would result in any significant increase in noise or disturbance for neighbouring residents, beyond the existing relationship. Amenity of Future Occupiers 7.69 The submitted floor plans indicate that all five residential units would comply with the respective minimum internal space standards relative to their number of floors/bedrooms/persons, in accordance with Policy D6 of The London Plan and Policy DMHB 16 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). 7.70 Flats 1, 2, 3 and 5 would all be duplexes and at least dual aspect. It is considered that these flats would have good access to sunlight, outlook and ventilation. This is supported by the submission of a daylight and sunlight report (eb7, 05.11.2025) and overheating report (zed, 07.11.2025), which together confirm that these flats would be served by su fficient daylight and sunlight which meets or exceed BRE guidelines, whilst they al so demonstrate compliance with the relevant overheating parameters. 7.71 Flat 4 would be the only single storey unit. It is noted that this flat would be single aspect with its openings facing northwest. As per Paragraph 9.4.3 of The London Plan (2021) single-aspect dwellings are more difficult to ventilate naturally and are more likely to overheat and should normally be avoided in line with Policy D6 (Housing quality and standards). 7.72 It is noted within the submitted daylight and sunlight report that this flat would not meet the BRE target for hours of direct sunlight. This would however be expected given its orientation, and notwithstanding this the report nevertheless demonstrates that all habitable rooms within the flat would meet the BRE guidelines with respect to daylight illuminance. As such, it is considered that this flat would be served by adequate internal daylight, despite its orientation.

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Mike Kemp 79146/APP/2024/2943 Date Application Valid: 12/02/2025 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 17/07/2026 Application Type: Full Ward: Uxbridge Applicant: Premier Inn Hotels Ltd. Site Address: 3 Riverside Way, Uxbridge, UB8 2YF Proposal: Partial change of use of the existing hotel restaurant and construction of new rear extension building providing additional hotel bedrooms, together with alterations to the car park and all 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 – 14 July 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: A) That the Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or any other legislation to secure the following: I. Employment Strategy and Training Scheme: A financial contribution of £28,088 towards the delivery of an Employment Strategy and Training Scheme, secured in accordance with the Council 's Planning Obligations SPD. II. A Carbon offset contribution of £22,675. III. A Project Management and Monitoring Fee, equalling 5% of the total financial contributions to be paid under this agreement. B) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in preparation of the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed. C) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed wording of the heads of terms, the proposed Legal Agreement and conditions of approval. D) That, if the Legal Agreement has not been finalised within 6 months (or such other time frame as may be agreed by the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth), delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth to refuse planning permission for the following reason: ‘The applicant has failed to mitigate the impacts posed by the proposed development (in respect of employment/construction training and energy/sustainability standards). The scheme therefore conflicts with Policies DMEI 14 and DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020); the adopted Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2014); Policies E11, SI2, DF1 of the London Plan (2021); and paragraphs 56-58 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).' Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press E) That if the application is approved, that the permission is subject to the Conditions as set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 The proposals relate to a series of wo rks to the Premier Inn Hotel located at Riverside Way to the west of Uxbridge Town Centre. The works include the conversion of a single storey section of the former Beefeater restaurant to use as hotel bedrooms and ancillary staff and servicing space. A 362sqm area of restaurant space would be retained for the use of hotel guests only. A three-storey rear extension is proposed, extending into the car park to the rear of the hotel and would attach to the south elevation of th e hotel, this extension would provide an additional 36 bedrooms. The proposals include a reconfiguration of the parking layout to account for the new extension. The extension would provide an additional 36 bedrooms, with 4 rooms provided within or adjacent to the former Beefeater restaurant, whilst 3 existing rooms would be lost to access the proposed extension. In total there would be a net increase of +37 hotel rooms. The size of the hotel would be increased from 80 to 117 bedrooms. The proposals were revised in March 2026 , as initially a larger extension to the hotel was proposed, which would also have attached to the south elevation of the hotel. This extension would have provided 72 bedrooms and would have covered a more extensive footprint. 1.2 Whilst the site lies outside of the Uxbr idge Town Centre Hotel and Office Growth Location Area, the site is already in use as a hotel and the proposals are an intensification of this existing use. The hotel lies within close distance to Uxbridge Town Centre (within 15 minutes walking di stance) and the location is reasonably accessible in relation to the town centre, notwithstanding the sites low PTAL rating of 1a. The extension, although significant in the context of the existing hotel would not be of a sufficient scale that would be viable as a standalone hotel. Accounting for the existing use of the site and limited scale of the extension, it is considered that it would not be necessary for the applicants to complete a sequential test and an extended hotel in this location is considered acceptable in line with Policy E10 of The London Plan, Policy E2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1, and Policy DME 5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2. 1.3 The design of the extension would mirror the scale, form and appearance of the existing hotel. The extension would be three storeys, with the roof ridge set slightly lower than the existing three storey main section of the hotel building. In terms of scale, design, form and mass ing the extension would relate appropriately to the existing hotel building and would read as a proportionate addition to the building, one which would also be commensurat e with the scale of surrounding development in the immedia te area. Overall, the design approach is appropriate, and the proposals would comply with Paragraph 131 of the NPPF, Policies D3 of The London Plan, Policy BE1 of the Local Plan Part 1, and Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Local Plan Part 2. It is considered that the development would not result in harm to the significance of the Uxbridge Moor Conservation Area which extends to a position to the east and north east of the site, neither would the development result in harm to the histor ic significance of the Grade II listed Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press General Elliot Public House located to the north east of the site. Consequently, the setting of these designated heritage assets would be preserved. 1.4 The majority of the surrounding land uses are industrial/commercial in nature. The nearest residential uses are located at St Johns Close, the nearest property (32 St Johns Close) is located approximately 52 metres from the site of the proposed extension. Accounting for the relatively substantial separation, the development would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of residential uses in the area and would comply with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Subject to the imposition on relevant planning conditions to ensure that o ccupiers of the accommodation are not impacted by virtue of the surrounding uses in line with Policies D3, D13, D14 and E5 of The London Plan (2021). 1.5 116 car parking spaces are currently provided on site within a surface level car park located to the north and south of the main hotel building. The extension would be located on a section of the south car park resulting in a reduction in parking bays. Access into the car park would be unchanged. 103 parking spaces would be provided to serve the existing and new hotel rooms. The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment wh ich estimates that the existing hotel use may be expected to generate a total of 173 two-way daily trip movements, this is in addition to 253 trip movements associated with the former Beefeater Restaurant. The estimated two-way trip movement associated with the extension and additional 36 bedrooms provided would be 80 trips per day. The reduced trip generation associated with the Beefeate r restaurant is accounted for where calculating trip generation associated with the extended hotel which is assessed as being likely to generate -174 fewer daily trips, mainly resulting from the loss of the restaurant use. Based on the estimated trip-generation it is considered that the development would not have a severe impact on the local highway network. It is considered that on balance that the proposed development complies with Paragraph 116 of the NPPF (2024), Policies T4, T5, T6, and T7 of The London Plan (2021), and Policies DMT 1, DMT 5, DMT 6, and DMT 2 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020). 1.6 Appropriate measures may be secured by condition or through relevant planning obligations to mitigate/control land c ontamination, drainage, air quality, noise impact, impact on existing trees, aviation safety; and to protect biodiversity and ensure the delivery of biodiversity net gain. The development would therefore ensure appropriate standards of environmental protection. 1.7 On balance, the proposal is acceptable and would be consistent with the overarching aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2024), The London Plan (2021), and Hillingdon Local Plan Parts One and Two. 1.8 The planning application is therefore re commended for approval, subject to the conditions contained in Appendix 1; the Section 106 Heads of Terms detailed above. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site comprises a primarily three-storey building operated by Premier Inn as an 80-bedroom hotel and surrounding park in use by hotel guests and staff. Planning approval for the hote l was granted in 2014 under planning permission reference 56862/APP/2014/170. The building features yellow brickwork and composite grey metal panel cladding. An attached single storey wing of the building was previously in use as a ‘Beefeater restaurant’ but is now used as a restaurant for hotel guests. 2.2 The site is located on the Riverside Way Industrial Estate located to the south west of Uxbridge Town Centre. The surrounding uses consist of large buildings used for a mix of Class B2 (Industrial) and B8 (Storage and Distribution) uses. The site is accessed via Riverside Way which leads fr om St John’s Road in a position to the east of the site. The River Colne is located to the east of the site. The nearest residential properties are located on th e opposite side of the River Colne at St John’s Road and St John’s Close. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Site Frontage to Riverside Way with former Beefeater Resturant Figure 3: Front (North) Elevation of Existing Premier Inn Building from Riverside Way Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4: Rear (South) Elevation of Existing Premier Inn Building 3 Proposal 3.1 The proposals include the conversion of a single storey section of the former Beefeater restaurant to use as hotel bedrooms and ancillary staff and servicing space. A 362sqm area of restaurant space would be retained for the use of hotel guests only. A three-storey rear extension is proposed, extending into the car park to the rear of the hotel and would attach to the south elevation of the hotel. The extension would provide an additional 36 bedrooms, with 4 rooms provided in space occupied by the former Beefeater restaurant, whilst 3 existing rooms would be lost to access the proposed extension. In total there would be a net increase of +37 hotel rooms. The size of the hotel would be increased from 80 to 117 bedrooms. 3.2 The proposals have been subject to considerable amendments during the application process. Initially a larger extension to the hotel was proposed, which would also have attached to the south elevation of the hotel. This extension would have provided 72 bedrooms and would have covered a more extensive footprint. The proposals as originally submitted also included the demolition of the single storey section of the building containing the former Beefeater restaurant. It was proposed that parking provision on site would be increased from 116 spaces to 139 spaces. The proposals were revised in March 2026 in order to address concerns expressed by officers in relation to the design of the originally submitted plans, particularly in relation to how the designed related to Riverside Way given Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the loss of the existing active frontage to the street, which would instead have been replaced by increased surface level parking to adjoining the street. Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4: Proposed South and North Elevation (Restaurant Link) Figure 4: Proposed East and West Elevation Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 5: Proposed South Elevation and North Elevation (Riverside Way View) 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 Of specific relevance is planning permission (56862/APP/2014/170) which was granted in May 2014 for the redevelopment of a previously vacant parcel of land to provide 1 industrial unit (2361sqm) for B1(c), B2 and B8 uses and a 80 bedroom hotel (C1 use) with associated restaurant, bar and meeting facilities (755sqm), car parking, landscaping, lighting, plant and equipment and associated works. The original planning permission for the hotel established the acceptability of this use on the site and is discussed in the context of the present application in the relevant section of the report below. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to t he consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 A total of 25 neighbouring properties were consulted directly in February 2025 whilst site notices were also posted at this time. No public comments were received in relation to the application as originally submitted. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 6.2 Following the submission of amended plans in March 2026 all previously consulted occupiers adjoining the site were re- consulted and new site notices were posted surrounding the site. Two letters of objection have been received. 6.3 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response 1 letter of objection has been received in relation to the revised planning application from EDC Lord and Co. 1. Potential disruption from business during construction works including dust, construction traffic and noise and how construction impacts would be addressed/enforced. Some level of disruption would typically be expected with all constructed activity; however, a Construction Management Plan would be required by condition which would be expected to set out appropriate measures to control dust, vehicle movements and noise amongst other matters. It would be expected that the CMP establishes a process for liaisi ng with adjoining occupiers during the construction process. A letter of objection has been received from Freeths on behalf of Pickering Properties Limited (Site Owner) 1. No evidence that the use a non-employment use on the site is appropriate. The development would undermine the sites status as SIL (Strategic Industrial Land) These matters are addressed within paragraphs 7.1 to 7.4 of the report below. 2. The application should be subject to the sequential test in respect of the hotel The in-principle acceptability of a hotel use on the site is addressed in paragraphs 7.5 to 7.9 of the report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press use as this is a main town centre use. 3. Introduction of the use could undermine the continued operation of the SIL site through the agent of change principle given noise. Noise is discussed in paragraphs 7.32 to 7.38 below. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Thames Water No objection to the development in regard to surface water or foul water capacity. Comments are noted. Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) Although this is a major application within the Colne Valley Archaeological Priority Zone, it is not supported by an archaeological desk-based assessment. This would normally be unacceptable however a field evaluation was undertaken on the site in 2014. The evaluation found post-glacial natural deposits but minimal evidence for human activity. No further assessment or conditions are therefore necessary. Comments are noted. London Fire Brigade No response received. A condition is recommended to be attached to the application requiring the submission of a comprehensive Fire Statement at different stages of the development. Internal Consultees Economic Development Supportive of the application and would expect the applicant to submit a construction employment training scheme. A payment in lieu of £28,088.91. Noted, the suggested financial contribution towards the creation of training and employment Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press towards the creation of training and employment opportunities would however be preferred. opportunities is included within the proposed Heads of Terms. Metis (on behalf of Council as Local Lead Flood Authority) No objection subject to planning conditions requiring the submission of a detailed drainage strategy prior to the commencement of development and evidence that SuDS have been implemented and installed. Comments are noted. The recommended conditions have been added. Urban Design The proposed development is broadly supported. The retention of the restaurant fronting Riverside Way, providing activation and a positive frontage, is welcomed. Retaining the existing Riverside Way frontage almost entirely in its current form and locating the majority of the development to the rear (south) is a rational strategy that we support. The increased greening and tree planting is welcomed. The proposed roof plant to the rear raises some concerns but is considered acceptable on balan ce, subject to the further mitigation set out below, which can be secured by condition. The use of matching materials and the replication of the existing building's visual style and appearance for the new extensions is rational and broadly supported. We broadly support the intensification and making better use of the existing site. The comments from the council’s Urban Design Officer are noted . Additional details relating to the proposed landscaping and use of materials is recommended to be secured by planning condition. Contaminated Land No objection subject to condition requiring the submission of a scheme to deal with land contamination. Noted, the suggested condition is recommended to be attached should the application be determined for approval. Noise Based on the information provided it is unlikely that an adverse noise impact would be caused by the proposed development. Comments are noted. Highways A ratio of 0.9 parking spaces per room can be accepted. Twelve disabled persons parking spaces The comments are noted and relevant Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press would be provided which is in accordance with the standard set out in the London Plan 2021 Policy T6.5 . There would be 28no. long-stay bicycle parking spaces, this is well over the London Plan 2021 requirement for 6no. spaces. To be in accordance with the London Plan 2021 Policy T5 Cycling, cycle parking for “larger cycles, including adapted cycles for disabled people” should also be provided, 2no. spaces would be sufficient. The Highway Authority require that prior to commencement of works on site a Parking Design and Management Plan (PDMP) is submitted for approval. The London Plan (2021) requires hotel developments to provide suitable arrangements for taxi pick-up and drop-off, this may be provided within the requested PMP. The site access plan indicates that delivery vehicles can circulate around the south-eastern corner of the site. However, this is a dead end and no turning head is provided. The Highway Authority require that vehicles are able to turn and return in a forward gear, this is because a vehicle reversing would present a heightened road safety risk to others . conditions are recommended requiring the approval of a parking design and management plan and submission of the design and specification of cycle parking to be provided. Planning Policy A sequential test is not considered necessary given the reduction in the scale of the extension. This is on the basis that 32 bedrooms is unlikely to be a sufficient number of bedrooms to support a new hotel in its own right in LB Hillingdon. It therefore would not be reasonable to expect the development to be located on a town centre site. Comments are noted, the in-principle acceptability of the extension to the hotel is addressed further in Paragraphs 7.5 to 7.9 of the report. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The site is located within the North Uxbridge Strategic Industrial Location (SIL). Policy DME1 of the Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies states that: The Council will support employment proposals in Strategic Industrial Locations (SILs) - Preferred Industrial Locations (PIL) or Industrial Business Parks (IBP) - Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press in accordance with relevant policies in the London Plan. Proposals for other uses will be acceptable in SILs, LSELs and on LSIS only where: i) There is no realistic prospect of the land being developed in accordance with criterion A, B or C; or ii) Sites have been vacant and consistently marketed for a period of 2 years; and iii) The proposed alternative use does not conflict with the policies and objectives of this Plan. 7.2 Policy E5 of the London Plan which is applicable to SIL’s states that development proposals in SILs should be supported where the uses proposed fall within the industrial -type activities set out in Part A of Policy E4 Land for industry, logistics and services to support London’s economic function. Development proposals within or adjacent to SILs should not compromise the integrity or effectiveness of these locations in accommodating industrial -type activities and their ability to operate on a 24-hour basis. 7.3 The application site is already in use as a hotel, a use which was approved under planning permission 56862/APP/2014/170. At the time that this application was determined the site fell within the North Uxbridge Industrial and Business Area (IBA) and it was acknowledged that whilst the inclusion of a hotel, restaurant and meeting room facility did not fully accord with the IBA designation, the release of industrial land was permitted on the basis that the hotel and restaurant use would facilitate the growth and retention of local businesses in the area. The proposed extension to the hotel would be located on an area of land currently used as parking for the hotel and whilst the site falls within the North Uxbridge Strategic Industrial Location (SIL) the proposals would not result in land currently in use for industrial/employment purposes . On this basis in line with Policy DME1 of the Local Plan Part 2 it is considered that there is no realistic prospect of the site being used for any of the other employment purposes referenced under Policy DME1. It is similarly considered for this reason that the development would not undermine the purposes of Policy E5 of the London Plan. 7.4 In accordance with Policy E5 of the London Plan, it is important that the provision of the existing hotel use does not compromise the integrity or effectiveness of surrounding industrial -type activities and their ability to operate on a 24- hour basis. The impact of the use on the functioning of existing employment uses is discussed further within the relevant section of the report below and it is considered that the proposed use would not undermine the operation of the industrial uses on the adjoining land. 7.5 Paragraph 91 of the NPPF (2024) states that 'Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses which are neither in an existing centre nor in accordance with an up -to-date plan. Main town centre uses should be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations; and only if suitable sites ar e not available (or expected to become available within a reasonable period) shoul d out of centre sites be considered. Paragraph 92 states ' when consid ering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites which are well Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as fo rmat and scale, so that opportunities to utilise suitable town centre or edge of centre sites are fully explored'. 7.6 Policy DME 5 (Hotels and Visitor Accommo dation) of the Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies states that the Council will support a range of visitor accommodation, conference and related uses in accessible sustainable locations, as defined in the Site Allocations and Designations document, subject to the development being of a high standard of design, the provision of accessible rooms, and the development having no adverse impact on nearby land uses. 7.7 The Local Plan Part 1 and the Local Plan Part 2 Site Allocations and Designations identifies Uxbridge Town Centre as a loc ation for hotel growth acknowledging there is a need for further hotel accommodation to be provided within the borough. The site does not fall within the Uxbrid ge Town Centre Hotel and Office Growth Location area as defined within the Local Plan Part 2 Site Allocations and Designations. The limit of this area extends up to the junction of New Windsor Street and Trumper Way, approximately 580 metres to the north west of the site. 7.8 Whilst the site lies outside of the Uxbridge Town Centre Hotel and Office Growth Location area the site is already in us e as a hotel and the proposals are an intensification of this existing use. The hotel extension would be within a close distance to Uxbridge Town Centre (within 15 minutes walking distance) and the location is reasonably accessible in relation to the town centre , notwithstanding the sites low PTAL rating of 1a. The scale of the proposed extension has been reduced during the application process from 72 to 36 bedrooms. The extension, although significant in the context of the existing hotel would not be of a scale that would be viable as a standalone hotel. Accounting for the existing use of the site as a hotel and the limited scale of the extension, it is considered that it would not be necessary for the applicants to complete a sequential test and an extended hotel in this location is considered acceptable in locational terms. Chapter 11 and Paragraphs 124 and 129 of the NPPF 2024 make clear that development should make effective use of land. The site comprises previously developed land and an intensification of the existing use to provide additional hotel bedrooms would represent a positive use of the site. 7.9 Accounting for the above considerations the proposal is considered to comply with the aims of Policy E10 of The London Plan, Policy E2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1, and Policy DME 5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2. Greenbelt Policy 7.10 The majority of the site lies outside of land falling within the Metropolitan Green Belt, however a small section of the car park to the south of the hotel lies within the green belt which covers the land immediately to the south west of the site adjoining the River Colne as well as all of the land to the west of the site. The site lies on the urban edge of Uxbridge and is heavily screened in medium to longer distance views to the west and south wes t by other buildings on the Riverside Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Industrial Estate and by dense tree screening to the south and south west on either side of the River Colne. 7.11 The extension has been positioned to avoi d encroaching into land falling within the green belt, however in accordance with the NPPF, Local Plan and London Plan it is necessary to assess the impact of the development on the openness of the green belt. 7.12 Paragraph 153 of the NPPF 2024 states that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstance s. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 7.13 Paragraph 155 of the NPPF 2024 states that the development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where: a) The development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan; b) There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed ; C) The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular refer ence to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework. 7.14 The NPPF defines the Grey Belt as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land t hat, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in Paragraph 143. Namely the purposes specified under Paragraph 143 are as follows: a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built -up areas; b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. 7.15 Considered in this context, the application site could be considered as grey belt land, given its function as previously development land which provides parking for the hotel and does not strongly contribute to any of the purposes listed under purposes (a), (b), or (d) in Paragraph 143 of the NPPF 2024. 7.16 The scale of the extension would be three storeys, which matches the scale of the existing buildings and is of a lesser scale and height than the surrounding industrial buildings. The extended hotel would sit within the context of other urban development on a site that is specifically allocated for industrial/employment buildings. Visibility in mid to longer range views would be negligible and in immediate views the development would be read in the context of urban development of an equivalent or greater scale. The development is considered to not impact on the openness of the green belt and would not undermine the purposes of the green belt as set out in Paragraph 143 of the NPPF. It is considered in relation to Paragraph 155 of the NPPF that there is an unmet need Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press for the type of development proposed and that the development would be in a sustainable location . The development would not therefore conflict with the provisions of the L ocal Plan, London Plan and NPPF in respect of green belt policy. Design and Heritage Impact 7.17 Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020); Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies (2012) Policy BE1; as well as Policies D1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021); in addition to Paragraph 135 of the NPPF each seek to ensure that development achieves the highest standard of design, which integrates positively to the character its surroundings. 7.18 The site lies outside of, but within the se tting of the Uxbridge Moor Conservation Area which extends to a position approximately 60 metres to the north east of the site and includes The General Elliot Publ ic House, which is a Grade II listed building sited approximately 70 metres from the site. The development would fall within the wider setting of this listed building. 7.19 Policy DMHB 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states: The Council will expect development proposals to avoid harm to the historic environment. 7.20 Policy DMHB 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states: new development, including alterations and extensions to existing buildings, within a Conservation Area or on its fringes, will be expected to preserve or enhance the character or a ppearance of the area. It should sustain and enhance its significance and make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. 7.21 Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development that affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or it s setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. 7.22 In line with Paragraph 212 of the NPPF 2024 consideration must be given to the impact of a proposed development on th e significance of designated heritage assets and great weight should be given to the asset's conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to subs tantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. 7.23 The design of the extension would mirror the scale, form and appearance of the existing hotel. The extension would be three storeys, with the roof ridge set slightly lower than the existing three storey main section of the hotel building. The materials would consist of a mix of mult i yellow brick, anthracite metal grey Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press cladding panels and aluminium curtain walling. In terms of scale, design, form and massing the extension would relate appropriately to the existing hotel building and would read as a proportionate addition to the building, one which would also be commensurate with the scale of surrounding development in the immediate area. A condition is recommended requiring the approval of materials prior the commencement of above ground works. Following the amendments to the proposed plans the single storey element of the existing building containing the former Beefeater restaurant would be retained and would continue to be used as a restaurant, albeit for hotel guests therefore an active frontage to Riverside Way would be retained, which formed a key element of the original hotel design. Other changes to the front of the building , including the insertion of new windows and the infilling of glazing along the west elevation close to the main entrance are minor alterations which are considered acceptable in design terms. 7.24 Dense tree and vegetation cover extends along the eastern and southern boundaries of the site with screening on both sides of the River Colne. Alongside the presence of existing buildings, visibi lity of the proposed extension would be limited to glimpsed views outside during the winter season from St John’s Road and public footpath U64 located on the eastern side of the River Colne. Given the proportionate scale and its design which would match the appearance of the hotel building, it is considered that the extension would read as an appropriately designed addition to the hotel in these glimpsed views. 7.25 In relation to the wider site area minor changes are proposed to the landscaping on the site which primarily involve alterati ons to the parking layout and internal vehicular accesses. The majority of the existing trees on the site would be retained, including those adjoining Riverside Way, additional tree planting is proposed on the site with an increase in soft landscaping as addressed in further detail in the trees and urban greening section of this report. 7.26 Overall, the design approach is considered appropriate, and the proposals would comply with Paragraph 131 of the NPPF, Policies D3 of The London Plan, Policy BE1 of the Local Plan Part 1, and Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Local Plan Part 2. 7.27 The site is relatively well screened in v iews from within the Conservation Area accounting for the relatively dense tr ee cover which extends along the eastern edge of the site adjoining the River Colne. The single storey wing of the building containing the Beefeater Restaurant and isolated sections of the upper part of the building can be seen from St John’s Road to the north east of the site. Following amendments to the proposed plans, the extension to the hotel would be located to the rear of the existing building and would sit below the roof ridge of the existing hotel building, consequently, a side from a section of the proposed plant screen the extension would not be visible from within the conservation area . The north elevation of the hotel building which would be viewed in the context of the conservation area and Grade II listed General Elliot Public House would be largely unaltered. The site itself has an established use as a hotel and sits within the cont ext of large industrial buildings and does not contribute to the historic setting or significance of the conservation area. Accounting for the scale and siting of the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press extension, it is considered that the dev elopment would not result in harm to the historic significance of the Conservation Area or Grade II listed General Elliot Public House and the setting of these heritage assets would be preserved. 7.28 The application site falls within the Colne Valley Archaeological Priority Zone. The Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) have been consulted and have advised that although t he application is not supported by an archaeological desk-based assessment a field evaluation was undertaken on the site in 2014. The evaluation found post- glacial natural deposits but minimal evidence for human activity . GLAAS have consequently advised that n o further assessment or conditions are therefore necessary. Consequently, the development would not conflict with Paragraph 218 of the NPPF and Policy DMHB 7 of the Local Plan Part 2. Residential Amenity 7.29 Policy DMHB 11 of Hi llingdon Council's Local Plan Part 2 seeks to ensure that development proposals do not adversely impact residential amenities, daylight, and sunlight of adjacent properties, and open space. The supporting text for this policy states that the Council will expect new development proposals to carefully consider layout and massing to ensure development does not result in an increased sense of enclosure and loss of outlook. 7.30 The majority of the surrounding land uses are industrial/commercial in nature. The nearest residential uses are located at St Johns Close; the nearest property (32 St Johns Close) is located approximately 52 metres from the site of the proposed extension. The River Colne an d relatively dense screening lie between the site and the nearest neighbouring properties. Accounting for this substantial separation, the extension would not result in significant overlooking, loss of light and overshadowing and at three storeys in scale, the development would not appear overbearing. 7.31 In summary, it can be concluded that the development would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of any adjoining properties and the development would comply with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Noise, Existing Land Uses and Agent of Change 7.32 Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021) states that development proposals should help prevent or mitigate noise impacts. Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020) requires that development proposals should not adversely impact the amenity of adjoining uses. 7.33 Policy D13 of the London Plan states th at the Agent of Change principle places the responsibility for mitigating impacts fr om existing noise and other nuisance- generating activities or uses on the proposed new noise -sensitive development. Boroughs should ensure that Development Plans and planning decisions reflect the Agent of Change principle and take account of existing noise and other Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press nuisance-generating uses in a sensitive manner when new development is proposed nearby. Development should be designed to ensure that established noise and other nuisance-generating uses remain viable and can continue. 7.34 As identified in the above sections of this report, the application site is located within the North Uxbridge Strategic Industrial Location (SIL). In line with Policy E5 of the London Plan it is important that the hotel use does not compromise the integrity or effectiveness of surrounding industrial -type activities and their ability to operate on a 24-hour basis. There are relatively large buildings to the north and west of the site used for a mix of B2 (Industrial) and B8 (Storage and Distribution) uses which are understood to operat e on a 24-hour basis. Most of the buildings on the Industrial Site where the hotel is located are sited on the opposite side of the building to where the extension would be located and are therefore some distance from most of the new bedroo ms which are being proposed with the exception of the building located to the wes t of the site that was approved at the same time as the hotel use. Condition 7 of the 2014 permission specified that the rating level of the noise emitted from the site shall be at least 5dB below the existing background noise level. When officers visited the site, n oise levels were observed to be low, with background noise being mainly associated with traffic using St John’s Road. The siting of a hotel use in conjunction with the existing industrial uses on the site was deemed acceptable and both uses have co-existed for an extended period. 7.35 The application is accompanied by a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA), which advises that the development would be expected to meet the client’s (Premier Inn) standards for internal noise that are listed in the table below and exceed British Standard 8233 (guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings. 7.36 The NIA states that the above standards can be met within the construction through the design of the façade, glazing and incorporation of sound insulation. A condition is recommended to ensure that the development would achieve compliance with British Standard 8233. On this basis it is considered that the use proposed can co-exist in conjunction with the existing industrial uses and would not undermine their long-term operation. 7.37 In relation to the proposed use, it is note d that plant is proposed in the form of 4 condenser units located on the roof of the building. Given the relatively large separation distance to the nearest neighbo uring properties (over 75 metres) the impact of the plant equipment is anticipated to be low and noise levels can be controlled through a condition, which has been recommended by officers. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the submitted NIA and has Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press advised that the impact of the development would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of existing occupiers. 7.38 Based on the above assessment it is considered that the development would comply with Policies D3, D13, D14 and E5 of The London Plan (2021) Transport 7.39 Paragraph 116 of the NPPF 2024 states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, ta king into account all reasonable future scenarios. 7.40 Policy T2 of The London Plan states that development proposals must demonstrate how they will deliver improvements that support the ten Healthy Streets Indicators in line with Transport for London guidance, reduce the dominance of vehicles on London's streets, whether stationary or moving, and be permeable by foot and cycle and connect to local walking and cycling networks as well as public transport. Policy T4 states that development proposals should not increase road danger. Policy T5 states that development proposals should help remove barriers to cycling and create a healthy environment where people choose to cycle. Policy T6 states that car parking should be restricted in line with levels of existing and future public transport accessibility and connectivity. Appropriate disabled persons parking for Blue Badge holders should be provided, and where car parking is provided in new developments, provision should be made for infrastructure for electric or other Ultra -Low Emission vehicles. Policy T7 states that development proposals should facilitate safe, clean, and efficient deliveries and servicing. Provision of adequate space for servicing, storage, and deliveries should be made off -street, with on-street loading bays only used where this is not possible. 7.41 Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part 2 require the council to consider whether the traffic generated by proposed developments is acceptable in terms of the local highway a nd junction capacity, traffic flows, and conditions of general highway or pedestrian safety. Policy DMT 5 states that development proposals will be required to meet the Council's cycle parking standards as set out in Appendix C Table 1. 7.43 Policy DMT 6 requires that proposals comply with the Council's parking standards to facilitate sustainable development and address issues relating to congestion and amenity. With regards to the provisio n of new hotels the policy specifically states that parking requirements should be determined 'On an individual basis and in addition to a series of specific car parking requirements relating to these uses. 7.44 London Plan Policy T6.4 sets out car parking standards for hotel and leisure uses. The policy states that in locations of PTAL 0 -3, schemes should be assessed on a case-by- case basis and provision should be consistent with the Healthy Streets Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Approach, mode share and active travel ta rgets, and the aim to improve public transport reliability and reduce congestion and traffic levels. 7.45 The site has a PTAL score of 1b which is relatively low. While the PTAL rating is a useful tool, it is not always a realistic reflection of the sites level of sustainability. The site is within 800 metres of Uxbridge Town Centre and is within 1km of Uxbridge underground station. The site is also within 200 metres of bus stops on Riverside Way providing services to Uxbridge Underground S tation and Slough. As the site is within 800 metres of Uxbridge Town Centre the PTAL rating increases significantly wi thin close proximity to the site, it is approximately 5 minutes’ walk from a PTAL 3 area and 10 minutes from a PTAL 5/6 area. This means that while there is a limited access to public transport adjacent to the site boundary itself the transport and services availability increase significantly within a few hundred metres of the site. 7.46 116 car parking spaces are currently provided on site within a surface level car park located to the north and south of the main hotel building. The extension would be located on a section of the south car park resulting in a reduction in parking bays. Alterations are proposed to other parts of the parking layout which include amendments to the position of marked bays, internal accesses and adjoining soft landscaping. The two-way accesses currently provided onto Riverside Way to the north and west of the site would be unaltered. In total 103 parking spaces would be provided to serve the existing and new hotel rooms, a reduction of 13 spaces. The ratio of spaces per room is currently 1.45 . The proposals would reduce the ratio to 0.9 spaces per room. As noted, London Plan Policy T6.4 states that in locations of PTAL 0-3, schemes should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and provision should be consistent with th e Healthy Streets Approach, mode share and active travel targets, and the aim to improve pu blic transport reliability and reduce congestion and traffic levels. In this instance there would be a reduction in parking compared with existing provision , the reduction in parking would promote active travel and use of public transport as a means of accessing the site, both of which are considered viable, notwithstanding the sites low PTAL score. Twelve disabled persons parking spaces would be provided which is in accordance with the standard set out in the London Plan 2021 Policy T6.5 non-residential disabled persons parking. The London Plan (2021) requires hotel developments to provide suitable arrangements for taxi pick-up and drop-off, which are not included in the current proposal. Details of taxi pick-up and drop-off would be expected to be provided within a Parking Design and Management Plan that is recommended to be secured by planning condition. 7.47 The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment which estimates that the existing hotel use may generate a total of 173 two -way daily trip movements, this is in addition to 253 trip movements associated with the Beefeater Restaurant (200 covers). The estimated two-way trip movement associated with the extension and additional 36 bedrooms provided would be 80 trips per day. As the former Beefeater restaurant would be repurposed for use by hotel guests only. The reduced trip generation associate d with the Beefeater restaurant is accounted for where calculating trip generation associated with the extended hotel, which is assessed as being likely to generate 174 fewer daily trips, mainly resulting from Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the loss of the restaurant use. Based on the estimated trip-generation it is considered that the development would not have a severe impact on the local highway network. 7.48 Policy T5 of the London Plan sets out minimum standards of cycle parking, which includes specific standards for new hotel and leisure uses. The standards require the provision of 1 long stay space per 20 bedrooms and 1 short stay space per 50 bedrooms. Based on the provision of 70 room s, this would require the provision of 4 additional long-stay and two additional short-stay cycle parking spaces. 7.49 In line with the cycle parking standards set out in the London Plan, there would be a requirement to provide 1 long-stay space per 20 bedrooms; and 1 short- stay space per 50 bedrooms. Based on the scale of the proposed extension this would equate to two additional long-stay cycle spaces and one additional long-stay cycle space. A plan showing the location and specification of the cycle parking spaces is recommended to be secured by planning condition. 7.50 The submitted site plan shows a servicing area located to the south east and east of the extension to the hotel building. Tracking details have been provided showing that delivery vehicles would be capable of manoeuvring into this access. The Highways Authority have highlighted that a turning head should be provided within this part of the site to allow vehicles to enter and leave in forward gear. Limited space however exists to cons truct a turning head, whilst retaining the existing trees to the east of the site or providing new tree planting in this location. The removal of existing trees and failure to provide replacement trees in this section of the site is likely to impact adversely on urban greening, biodiversity net gain and the visual appearance of the site. Pedestrian use of this section of the site would be low as there are no entrances or key routes for pedestrians access this area. Consequently, the arrangement as proposed is considered acceptable on balance. 7.51 Taking into account all relevant considerations relating to the provision of parking and associated vehicle movements and trip generation, it is considered that on balance that the proposed development complies with Paragraph 116 of the NPPF (2024), Policies T4, T5, T6, and T7 of The London Plan (2021), and Policies DMT 1, DMT 5, DMT 6, and DMT 2 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020). Access 7.52 Policy E10 of the London Plan requires that to ensure sufficient choice for people who require an accessible bedroom, development proposals for serviced accommodation should provide either: 10 per cent of new bedrooms to be wheelchair -accessible in accordance with British Standard BS8300- 2:2018 Design of an accessible and inclusive built environment; or that 15 per cent of new bedrooms to be accessible rooms in accordance with the requirements of 19.2.1.2 of British Standard BS8300 -2:2018 Design of an accessible and inclusive built Environment. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.53 To comply with The London Plan, a minimum of ten per cent (four hotel rooms) of the 36 additional hotel bedrooms must be fully accessible to wheelchair user guests, with these rooms designed in accordance with BS 8300-1:2018. A further one per cent (one hotel room) sh ould be fitted with a tracked hoist system and have an adjoining door to a standard bedroom. The fully accessible wheelchair user rooms and the additional tracked hoist system rooms shall be retained as such for the lifetime of the develop ment. A planning condition is recommended to ensure policy compliance is achieved. 7.54 Subject to compliance with the recommended condition listed above, the proposed development would comply with Policies D5 and D12 of The London Plan. Flooding/Drainage 7.55 The vast majority of the application site lies within Flood Zone 1 and is considered to be at low risk of flooding. A very small area of land within the site falls within Flood Zone 2 and is therefore at a higher risk of flooding, however this comprises a minimal part of the overall site and no development is proposed within this area of land. The areas of land immediately adjoining the River Colne fall within Flood Zones 2 and 3, although this would be outside of the red line site area. 7.56 The application is accompanied by a Drainage Strategy and Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). Existing surface water drainage is managed via trapped gullies and drainage channels which discharge into the River Colne to the east of the site. One drainage channel drains the northern car park, whilst the other drains the southern car park. Excess runoff is stored and attenuated in an existing attenuation tank beneath the parking area to the south of the hotel. The existing tank is located below the extension and would need to be removed to facilitate the development. 7.57 The submitted drainage strategy and flood risk assessment has been reviewed by Metis on behalf of the Council as Local Lead Flood Authority, who have advised that there would be no objection to the application on flood risk and drainage grounds subject to planning conditions requiring the submission of a detailed drainage strategy prior to the commencement of development and evidence that SuDS have been implemented and installed. 7.58 Subject to the provision of this additi onal information that would be secured by planning condition, it is considered that the proposed development comply with Policy SI 13 of The London Plan (2021) and DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020). Trees and Urban Greening 7.59 Policy DMHB 14 of the Local Plan requires the retention and enhancement of existing landscaping, trees, biodiversity or other natural features, landscaping that supports and enhances biodiversity and amenity and replanting of new trees. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.60 Policy G5 of the London Plan stipulates that major development proposals, should include urban greening as a fundamental element of site and building design by incorporating measures such as high-quality landscaping (including trees), green roofs, green walls, and nature-based sustainable drainage. 7.61 The application is accompanied by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) and Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) which identify that there are 31 individual trees, 3 groups of trees, 2 hedges and 1 woodland group located on the site. 7.62 The development as revised would include the removal of nine Category C trees located within the south car park. The removal of the trees are proposed to allow for the construction of the hotel extension and for alterations to the parking and accesses. It is proposed that all other trees on the site would be retained and protected during the course of works, det ails relating to the protection of the retained trees would be required by condition. 7.63 The proposals would involve the partial removal of trees within tree group G1 (Category B) to allow for the surfacing of the existing sub-base as well as specified works to trees wi thin this group . Appropriate measures are set out within the applicants AMS and Tree Protection Plan to ensure the protection of the retained trees during works and ensure their longer-term protection following construction. To compensate for the loss of the existing trees on the site, a total of 34 replacement trees are proposed within the site, details of which would be set out within a detailed landscaping scheme recommended to be secured by planning condition. 7.64 Policy G5 of the London Plan requires an increase in urban greening equating to an Urban Greening Factor (UGF) score of 0.3 for commercial uses (including hotels) as clarified in the Mayor of London’s Urban Greening Factor

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Christos Chrysanthou 3723/APP/2024/2902 Date Application Valid: 14-02-25 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 17-07-26 Application Type: Full Ward: Yeading Applicant: OG Holdings Ltd Site Address: 266-278 Yeading Lane, Hayes, UB4 9AX Proposal: Partial demolition of existing building, construction of a two storey upward extension and internal works to provide 14 residential units, enhancement to existing shopfronts and alterations to front elevation to form a new central entrance to the upper floor level. External works including vehicle and cycle parking, refuse and recycling storage and resurfacing of the service yard. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 1 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Major application recommended for approval) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 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. A) That the Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or any other legislation to secure the following: - Parking Permits: Residential Parking Permits restriction (excluding Blue Badge holders). - Carbon Offset Contribution: A Carbon Offset sum based on an Updated Energy Strategy to be submitted to di scharge Condition 19, with the offset calculation based on £95 per tonne of CO2 over a 30 year period. - Project Management & Monitoring Fee: A Project Management and Monitoring Fee, equalling 5% of the total financial contributions to be paid under this agreement. B) That in respect of the applicati on for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in preparation of the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed. C) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreement and conditions of approval. D) That, if the Legal Agreement has not been finalised within 6 months (or such other timeframe 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 provide contributions towards the improvement of services and facilities as a consequence of demands created by the proposed development (in respect of Highways and Carbon Emission Reductions). The scheme therefore conflicts with Policies DMCI 7, DMEI 2, DMT 2 and DMT 6 and of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020), the adopted Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2014), and Policies DF1, SI2, T1, T2 and T6 of the London Plan (2021).' 1 Executive Summary 1.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the intensification of an existing mixed use residential and commercial site located within Yeading Local Parade. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 1.2 The proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle, making effective use of an under-utilised brownfield site within a su stainable location and would make a positive contribution by providing new homes that meet the borough's identified needs. 1.3 The design of the development as a whole, including the massing, scale, bulk and detailed architecture of the proposed buildings, is considered appropriate for the site context and would optimise the density and use of the site. Due to the scale and siting of the proposed development coupled with adequate separation distances to adjoining buildings, the impact on residential amenity of nearby properties would be acceptable. The quality of accommodation proposed is considered to be of a high standard with sufficient outlook and access to natural light within the future units and amenity spaces, with all units meeting the minimum space standard requirements. 1.4 With the exception of the provision of 2no. disabled car parking spaces, the development is otherwise ‘car-free’ which is supported in this sustainable location. A s106 legal obligation would prevent future occupiers of the new development from being eligible to apply for parking permits within the parking management schemes in the vicinity of the site. 1.5 The local residents’ representations have been noted, however it is concluded that the proposal complies with the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. The planning application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 and s106 legal obligations outlined in this report. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site is located to the east of Yeading Lane and comprises a two- storey, flat-roofed building forming part of an existing retail parade. The ground floor contains six commercial shop units, with five three -bedroom residential units located above. 2.2 Access to the residential accommodation is provided via an uncovered first-floor rear walkway and the associated staircase is positioned externally along the northern side elevation of the building. The commercial units front a service road accessed from Yeading Lane. Vehicular access to the rear of the site is provided by a service road located to the south of the parade and a further service road that is accessed off Willow Tree Lane. 2.3 Residential properties are located to bot h the north and rear of the site, while a further two -storey retail parade lies to the south beyond the service road. The existing building has an overall width of approximately 48.1 metres, with a maximum depth of 20 metres at ground floor level, re ducing to 8.4 metres at first floor level. The rear access walkway is positioned approximately 4 metres from the rear elevation of the flats, with the intervening area providing amenity space for the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press residential units. The southern end unit benef its from the full depth of this amenity space. 2.4 The site lies within a designated Local Parade and within the Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) . It is also within a Critical Drainage Area and partly within a Flood Zone 2 (moderate flood risk). The site has a Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) of 3. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Aerial View Image of the Application Site Figure 3: Street View Image of the Application Site 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the partial demolition of existing building, construction of a two storey upward exte nsion and internal works to provide 14 residential units, enhancement to existing shopfronts and alterations to front elevation to form a new central entrance to the upper floor level. External works Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press including vehicle and cycle parking, refuse and recycling storage and resurfacing of the service yard. 3.2 The existing shopfronts and first floor are proposed to be removed. One of the existing units on the ground floor would be repurposed as a lobby and internal servicing for the proposed residential units on the first and second floors. New shopfronts and signage would be provided for the retained four retail units. 3.3 The existing 5no 3bedroom first floor flats would be reconfigured as 1no 1bedroom flat and 4no 2bedroom flats. An upwards extension would be erected providing a further floor on the front section of the existing building to provide a further 5no 2bed units. A two -storey rear extension is also proposed, and this would accommodate a further 4no 3bed duplex apartments. The development would result in a net increase of 9no residential units and would re-provide a good proportion of family sized units. A total of 14no reside ntial units would be provided within the development. 3.4 Revised plans have been received to improve the design and layout of the scheme. The plant screens are now identical to the core/stair enclosures i.e. perforated metal. The metal balustrading has been adjusted to reflect the Yeading Lane façade. 3.5 The layout of the proposed 4no 3bedroom duplex flats in the new rear extension has been adjusted to ensure that their thir d bedrooms are provided with a direct outlook from a window instead of a rooflight. The rear of the building has been rationalised with more consistent use of materials. Glass opaque balustrading is utilised more extensively across the rear of the first floor to enhance occupants’ privacy on the terraces of the duplex flats. Figure 4: Proposed Front Elevation (please note – larger version of plans can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 5: Proposed Ground Floor Plan Figure 6: Proposed First Floor Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 7: Proposed Second Floor Plan Figure 8: Proposed Roof Plan 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 There is no relevant planning history for the development as proposed. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 19 neighbouring properties and the Willow Tree Lane Area Residents Association were consulted on 07-03-2025. A site notice was posted at the site on 10-03-25 and a newspaper advert was placed on 19-0325. 9 additional neighbours were consulted on 23-04-2026. Three letters of objection were received. 6.2 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response 6 individual letters of objection have been received. I. Extent of second floor II. Footprint and depth of the proposed first and second floors. III. Orientation of roof profile (not sloping towards the front). IV. Height and design detract from local aesthetic. Character and appearance considerations are discussed at paragrap hs 7.12 – 7.17 of this report. V. Decrease in sunlight and privacy. Neighbour amenity considerations are discussed at paragraph s 7.18 – 7.23 of this report. VI. Loss of Virginia Chicken shop. VII. Removal of active commercial frontage with residential entrance. VIII. Impact on character and viability of the parade. IX. Scale and density of the development. The principle of development is discussed at paragraph s 7.1 – 7.11 of this report. X. Impact on existing businesses at the site including ensuring continued operations and servicing etc. The applicant has indicated that they are the owner of the application site. There would be disruption to existing Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press operators and residents if the scheme is built out. This is not a planning consideration. XI. Parking, servicing and refuse demands of the additional residential units. These considerations are discussed at paragraph s 7.33 – 7.37 and 7.48 of this report. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses LBH Consultees and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Access Officer No objection subject to conditions to secure details of step free access and compliance with M4(2) Building Regulations . The recommended conditions are proposed to be attached should the application be determined for approval. Highways No objection subject to a s106 legal agreement to restrict residents from applying for parking permits and a contribution towards signage. Noted. These matters are discussed at paragraph s 7.33 – 7.37 of this report. The recommended planning obligation in relation to the control of parking permits is proposed to be secured should the application be determined for approval. Air Quality The development can be considered car free. Noted. Local Lead Flood Authority No objection subject to a condition to secure a scheme of Sustainable Water Management. The recommended conditions are proposed to be attached should the application be determined for approval. Noise Specialist No objection subject to a condition to restrict noise levels. The recommended condition is proposed to be attached should Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the application be determined for approval. Urban Design Concerns raised regarding the upper floor side windows; the ground floor setback on the flat in front of the staircase ; and a preference for metal railings. Noted. These matters are discussed at paragraph s 7.12 – 7.17 of this report. Waste Guidance received on refuse quantum and location of collection point. Noted. External Consultees and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Heathrow Aerodrome Safeguarding No objection. Noted. Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service (GLAAS) No comment. Noted. London Fire Brigade No objection. Noted. MOD Safeguarding - RAF Northolt No objection. Noted. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) No objection. Noted. Thames Water No objection. Noted. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development - Loss of retail floorspace 7.1 The proposal would retain 4no retail units on the ground floor. The floorspace of the unit that is proposed to be lost amounts to 88sq.m. That particular unit is currently occupied by a hot food takeaway. The loss of Virginia Chicken (the operator of the retail shop that would be lost) has been raised as a concern by a local resident who considers the shop to be valuable to the community. 7.2 As a relatively small space and being occupied by a non-retail use, the loss of this unit is not considered to impact on the viability of the designated Local Parade on Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Yeading Lane. The LPA is also unable to insist on the retention of the chicken shop or dictate which retail business decide to operate these shops in the future. Further, the repurposing of th e ground floor unit would facilitate the creation of additional residential units on the upper floors, which is strongly supported by policy . This consideration is discussed further in the paragraphs below. 7.3 The proposal would improve the quality of the retained retail shops which weighs in favour of the development. To ensure that the future uses of the 4no ground floor units are compatible with the retail function of the Local Parade, a condition is recommended to be attached in the event of an approval to restrict the use of these units under Class E of the Use Classes Order. - Intensification of Residential Use 7.4 There is a clear policy presumption in favour of redeveloping under-utilised land and buildings on brownfield sites to support new housing and retail developments, especially within existing built -up areas that have better supporting infrastructure and higher levels of public transport (in this instance a PTAL of 3). Recognising that the site is under-utilised and sustainably located within a designated Local Parade, it is considered that the principle of residential -led redevelopment (which re- provides the retail units) is acceptable in principle, in accordance with the general thrust of the NPPF, the London Plan and Hillingdon Local Plan, which require local planning authorities to promote resident ial developments in suitable locations and make the most efficient use of previously developed land. 7.5 It is acknowledged that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites (the most recent position statement published on 01/04/26 confirmed a 2.5 year supply). In accordance with Footnote 8 of the NPPF, the policies which are most important for determining the application are therefore considered out -of-date. Consequently, Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged, and the 'tilted balance' applies. This requires that planning permission be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The applicati on is considered to comply with the Development Plan in this case. In addition, when considered against the policies of the Framework (read as a whole), any adverse impacts of granting consent (as identified within this report) would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. In reaching this decision, positive weight is afforded to the modest contribution that the proposal makes towards the Borough’s housing supply. - Affordable Housing 7.6 Policy H2 of the Local Plan: Part One (2012) requires sites with a capacity of 10 or more units to provide an affordable housing mix to reflect the housing needs in the borough, particularly the need for larger family units. Policy H4 of the London Plan (Delivering affordable housing) sets the st rategic target of 50% of all new homes delivered across London to be genuinely affordable. As such, all developments that trigger the affordable housing requiremen ts (10 units or more) should provide affordable housing through the threshold ap proach. In accordance with Policy H5 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press of the London Plan, the threshold level of affordable housing for this development would be a minimum of 35 per cent. If this is not viable, the applicant must submit a financial viability assessment (FVA) that the Local Planning Authority robustly test. 7.7 The application is supported by a Financial Viability Assessment (FVA) which has been independently reviewed on behalf of the Council by an appointed viability assessor. The independent review concludes that whilst there are differences between the parties in terms of the relative assessments, it is not considered that the scheme is viable against the viability benchmark. Consequently, it is agreed that the scheme is unable to viably support the provision of affordable housing. Housing Mix 7.8 Policy H10 of the London Plan (Housing size mix) states that schemes should generally consist of a range of unit sizes, having regard to the requirement to deliver mixed and inclusive neighbourhoods, the ne ed to provide a range of unit types at different price points, the mix of uses, the range of tenures, the nature and location of the site, PTAL, the need for additional family housing and the role of one and two -bed units in freeing up existing housing by providing an alternative to conversions and subdivisions, to optimise a site's potential. Policy DMH2 of the Local Plan seeks a mix of units that reflects the latest information on need. The 2018 Strategic Housing Market Assessment identifies an overwhelming need for family-sized homes. 7.9 The 5no existing 3bedroom flats on the first floor would be remodelled as 4no 2bedroom flats and 1no 1bed flat and each unit would be provided with a balcony for use as a private amenity space. A further 5no 2bedroom flats are proposed above. The proposed two storey rear ex tension would provide an additional 4no 3bedroom duplex flats. The development would result in a total of 1no 1bedroom flat, 9no 2bedroom flats and 4no 3bedroom flats. The overall housing mix which comprises a mix of property sizes including a good proportion of family sized units, is considered to be acceptable and would broadly meet local demand. Density 7.10 All new residential development should take account of the Residential Density Matrix contained in Table 5.2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2. The characteristics of the site location would broadly fall into the category of a Residential area with a suburban character within 800m of a town centre with a PTAL 2- 3. Table 5.2 identifies a density range of between 50 - 110 units per hectare as being an acceptable for flatted developments in these locations. It should however be noted that Table 5.2 provides a guide and that in some cases, divergence from the stated density ranges may be acceptable as determined by a design-led approach. 7.11 The site area measures 0.15 hectares and 14no. units are proposed. As such, the development would have a density of 93.33 units per hectare. The proposed density falls within the mid-upper density range and is therefore considered to represent an Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press optimal use of the site which provides a good level of new housing, appropriate for the density of residential development in the area. Character and Appearance 7.12 When considering design options, regard should be had to Policy GG2 and SD1 of the London Plan, which requires proposals to make the most effective use of land to help boroughs achieve their annual hous ing targets, which often requires more intensive development in sustainable locations. 7.13 The proposed development would see the introduction of a three-storey building onto a plot with an existing two-storey building and would increase the built footprint within the site. It is noted that further south on the parade at Nos. 264-252 is a three- storey building. Whilst the building would be taller than the adjacent buildings, due to the side gaps and the overall scale and proportions of the development, the scheme responds well to the site context within a Local Parade, as indicated in the CGI below. Figure 9: Computer Generated Image of the Proposal 7.14 The proposed building would be characterised by a pitched roof design and visual interest is added through the provision of a series of balconies, contrasting materials (including facing brickwork, tile hanging , metal railings and bronze colour fenestration) and appropriate signage and awnings for the retail units. The proposal is considered to enhance the visual appearance of the application site. 7.15 The proposal includes a single storey element to the side of the main building which would be used to provide access to a secondary entrance and means of escape. Notwithstanding the comments raised by the Council’s Conservation and D esign Officer that the ground floor setback in front of the staircase appears discordant on the elevation as this feature is not carried over on the above level, the ground floor setback in front of the enclosed external staircase is considered acceptable. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Bringing it forward, flush with the sh op frontages or building the walls up to the upper floors would make this relatively minor element more prominent in the street scene and add unnecessary bulk to the proposal. 7.16 The private amenity spaces of the duplex flats to the rear of the development would be enclosed by metal railings, which was requested by the Council’s Conservation and Design Officer. This is considered to be an improvement over the glass balustrades. The rear of the site is more utilitarian in character, and the rear elevations would not be readily visible from the street scene of Yeading Lane. 7.17 The application form indicates that exterior materials would be brown/red brick to match the existing along with slate roofing and bronze coloured metal framed windows and doors. The surfacing of the rear service area is proposed to be Ulticolour porous tarmac in a Light Buff colour. Full details of the exterior materials and finishes including details of the balconies is recommended to be secured by condition to ensure harmonisation with the street scene of Yeading Lane and in particular the Local Parade. Figure 10: Computer Generated Image of the Proposal Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Residential Amenity 7.18 The front elevation windows of the building fronting Yeading Lane, would provide similar views to existing windows at the site and would therefore cause no harm to neighbouring amenities. 7.19 The separation distance between the development and neighbours to the east at Nos. 25-35 Reynolds Road would comply with the 21m separation distance policy guidance. The submitted Daylight & Sunli ght Report assesses the impact of the development on daylight provision for the rear windows in Nos. 25 -35 Reynolds Road. The report indicates that there would be a marginal reduction in Vertical Sky Component (VSC) however these neighbouring properties would retain a good level of daylight provision. 7.20 The development would retain the existing side gap to the neighbour No.340, located to the north, and the rear extension to the would be set away from the neighbouring property. Whilst the additional floor over the existing building would increase the height of the building alongside the neighbour, the retention of the existing 9.6m side gap is considered su fficient to avoid any undue overbearing effects. The flank wall of the neighbour is noted to have a ground floor door and first floor window facing towards the site. The side door is not the main entrance to the neighbouring property and levels of outlook and daylight provision from this secondary window would not be significantly reduced relative to the existing situation. The first and second floor secondary windows in the north elevation of the development would face towards the neighbour’s flank wall and over the roof of the neighbouring property. The impact on this neighbour is on balance considered to be acceptable. 7.21 The development would be 1.5m higher than the ridge of the neighbouring row of terraces to the south and it is noted that the flank wall of the neighbour at No.264 comprises a first floor obscure glazed window that faces onto the existing building. The retention of the 5.4m side gap to No.264 ensures that the impact on the neighbour ’s side window would be neutral re lative to the existing situation. The second floor side window would provide an element of surveillance over the play area and would not result in harmful loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers. 7.22 The development would not breach a line drawn at 45 degrees from any habitable room windows of the neighbouring properties and is therefore unlikely to cause any harmful loss of light and outlook to adjacent neighbours. Having regard to the built- up site context, the impact on the adjacent neighbours is considered to be acceptable. Noise 7.23 In support of the application, a Noise Impact Assessment has been submitted, which assesses the existing noise conditions at the site and the potential suitability of the noise environment for the proposed residential and retail uses. The report includes a number of recommendations including mitigation measures in the form of sound insulation within the external building fabric, glazing and mechanical Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press ventilation. Compliance with the report is recommended to be secured by condition. In addition, as recommended by the Council’s noise specialist, a condition to limit noise levels would be attached in the event of an approval to ensure that noise does not affect the amenity of future occupants. Quality of Residential Accommodation 7.24 In accordance with the London Plan, proposals should maximise the provision of dual aspect dwellings and normally avoid the provision of single aspect dwellings. Single aspect dwellings should only be prov ided where it is considered a more appropriate design solution as a result of site constraints which would mean dual aspect dwellings would severely restrict optimising the site's potential. The Support for Housebuilding London Plan Guidance published by the GLA in March 2026, states that flexibility should be afforded to the provision of dual and single aspect dwellings by decision makers. Where single aspect dwellings are proposed, it should be demonstrated by the applicant that they will have adequate passive ventilation, daylight and privacy, and avoid overheating. 7.25 Whilst the development would provide single aspect dwellings, the design has been influenced by the existing site constraint s and the quantum of private and shared amenity space that is proposed, including balconies for all residential units. It is important to note that there are no single-aspect north-facing units proposed as part of this scheme. It is also important to give consideration to all aspects of the design and achieve an appropriate balance between the different areas which create a residential environment such as the internal living spaces and external amenity spaces. It is considered that the proposed development provides good quality and usable amenity space whist proposing single aspect units. 7.26 A Daylight and Sunlight Report and Tech nical Note have been submitted in accordance with the 2022 BRE guidance. The reports indicate that all of the windows in the residential units at the rear of the proposed development are predicted to receive an adequate amount of daylight and sunlight and all windows exceed the BRE guidance levels based on VSC (Vertical Sky Component). The units at the front of the development would also benefit from adequate VSC levels. Whilst the windows behind the inset ba lconies in the front units would receive a VSC lower than the BRE 27% benchmark, the VSC for the other windows would be significantly higher than the benchmark, therefore on balance, the residential units at the front of the proposed development would receive an adequate amount of daylight and sunlight. 7.27 The gross internal areas (GIA) of the proposed flats would meet the minimum space standards. The floor to ceiling heights of the residential development also exceed 2.5metres throughout and the bedrooms ar e of a suitable size and benefit from adequate outlook. Overall, the development would provide good quality internal living accommodation for the future occupiers. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Overheating 7.28 The overheating assessment appended to the submitted Energy and Sustainability Statement envisages that mechanical ventilation with heat recovery is likely to be needed to limit unwanted solar gains and to allow for ventilation during times when windows need to remain closed due to external elements such as noise or air quality. The final details of the Overheating Strategy are recommended to be secured by condition. Subject to such a condition, the proposal would accord with Policy SI 4 of the London Plan (2021). Private Amenity Space 7.29 Private amenity space should be provided in accordance with the standards set out under Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 in Table 5.3. Table 5.3 states that 1, 2 and 3 bedroom flats should be provided with at least 20, 25 and 30 square metres of private amenity space, respectively. Applying the above, a total of 365 square metres would be required. A total of 135 squares metres of private amenity space in the form of independent balconies is provided. The London Plan has a lower requirement and Policy D6 stipulates a minimum of 5 sq.m. of private outdoor space for 1 -2 person dwellings and an extra 1 sq.m. should be provided for each additional occupant. The 1bedroom and 2bedroom flats would each be provided with a balcony measuring 6sq.m. In addition, the 3bedroom duplex flats would each be provided with a balcony measuring between approximately 16sq.m and 23sq.m. The quantum of private amenity space would broadly accord with the London Plan standards. A communal roof garden measuring 129.7sqm is also proposed, which is considered to represent a benefit of the scheme, as it would provide additional amenity space for use by future residents and should be considered as part of the overall planning balance. Taking a balanced view, the quantum and quality of private amenity space is considered to be acceptable. Open Space 7.30 It is important to highlight that the site does not contain any open space and the proposal does not result in the loss of any protected open space. The proposal would be providing a dedicated on-site communal play space which reduces the reliance on local parks and playgrounds, further details of which are provided in the following section of this report. Play Space 7.31 Using the GLA's child yield calculator, the proposed development is likely to house 5.4 children (aged 0 -17), which equates to a play space provision requirement of 54.2sq.m (10 sqm per child). A dedicated on-site communal play space measuring 76.9sq.m is proposed on the first floor, which exceeds the requirement. Air Quality 7.32 The site lies within Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). An Air Quality Assessment has been submitted in support of the application. As a car free Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press development (other than th e provision of 2no disabled car parking bays), the proposal is not considered to give rise to any significant air quality effects and would be air quality neutral. The proposal includes green measures and energy efficiency measures that would be secured by conditi on. In this instance, further air quality mitigation would not be required. Highways and Parking 7.33 Encouraging higher densities in approp riate locations means more people are within walking distance of local amenities and transport connections, which in turn reduces the need for private car ownership and supports the transition to a more sustainable city. Indeed, other than the provision of 2no disabled car parking spaces to the rear of the site, the development would be ‘car -free’ which is supported by the site’s PTAL 3 rating and location within a Local Parade and proximity to nearby parks and recreational facilities. 7.34 The applicant has agreed to enter a s106 legal agreement with the Council that prohibits future residents of the development from applying for a permit to join any parking management scheme in the vicinity of the site. 7.35 It has been observed that cars frequently park over the pavement and on the service road in front of the site which is creating parking stress and obstructing pedestrian access. The single yellow line parking restrictions along the service road in front of the site are not enforceable due to signage and road lining not meeting regulatory standards. A s a result, Civil Enforcement Officers cannot issue Penalty Charge Notices. The Highway Authority had requested a contribution to be paid towards signage h owever as this would be to solve a pre- existing parking enforcement issue, the LPA do not consider this contribution would pass the relevant tests as it is not directly related to the development nor reasonable or necessary to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms. 7.36 The disabled car parking spaces would be served by electric vehicle charging points, details of which are recommended to be secured by condition. The retail units would continue to be serviced from the rear of the site with vehicular access being provided as existing via a further service road off Willow Tree Lane. A secondary access to the south of the parade (between the application site and Nos. 262 -264) would be re-opened to provide a more convenient access via Yeading Lane. It is envisaged that deliveries to the residential units would be carried out from Yeading Lane via the service road in front of the building where the residential lobby is located. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 11: Proposed Site Plan (Parking, Servicing and Deliveries) 7.37 Cycle storage is proposed to the rear of th e site for use by future occupiers of the residential and commercial development. The plans also propose a Sheffield stand on Yeading Lane to provide further cyc le parking for 3no cycles that would be publicly accessible. The location of the Sheffield stand is however shown outside of the red line boundary on highway land. There appears to be limited scope to move the Sheffield stand within the red line in fron t of the building as this would obstruct pedestrian movements. The facility is not however considered to be required as sufficient cycle parking provision could be accommodated to the rear of the building. Full details of the on -site cycle storage are recommended to be secured within the landscaping condition. Landscaping 7.38 The landscaping proposed includes green roofs, green walls and planting at roof level. Indicative planting details are pr ovided within the submitted Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan which are broadly considered to be acceptable. A full hard and soft landscaping scheme including a schedule of implementation and maintenance is recommended to be secured by condition in the event of an approval. Urban Greening Factor 7.39 Policy G5 of the London Plan (Urban Greening) states that major developments should contribute to the greening of London by including urban greening as a fundamental element of site and buildin g design, and by incorporating measures such as high -quality la ndscaping (including trees), green roofs, green walls and nature-based sustainable drainage. The Mayor recommends that boroughs seek an Urban Greening Factor (UGF) target score of 0.4 for developments that are predominately residential, and a target sc ore of 0.3 for predominately commercial development (excluding B2 and B8 uses). In broad terms, the UGF is an Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press assessment of the amount, type and value of natural environment provided on site as a proportion of the overall site area. 7.40 The development will deliver a UFG of 0.104. It is important to highlight that despite the low UGF, urban greening would be improv ed within the site as a result of the development. There is limited scope to provide further planting and whilst the UGF falls significantly short of the policy benchm ark, the benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh the lack of UGF policy compliance. Biodiversity Net Gain 7.41 In England, biodiversity net gain is required under a statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by the Environment Act 2021). This statutory fram ework is referred to as 'biodiversity net gain' in Planning Practice Guidance to dist inguish it from other or more general biodiversity gains. Under the statutory fram ework for biodiversity net gain, subject to some exceptions, every grant of p lanning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met ("the biodiversity gain condition"). This objective is for development to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre -development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat. 7.42 The development would be occurring on previously developed land and no trees or hedgerows would be affected. Therefore, the development would not exceed the de minimis threshold and is considered BNG exempt and a biodiversity gain plan is not required. Ecology 7.43 The submitted Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan provides a list of ecological enhancements. These enhancements include at roof level, bat and bird boxes and insect hotels are proposed to provide a resource for local wildlife. In the event of an approval, the plan would be listed in the approved documents condition to ensure implementation. Flood Risk and Drainage 7.44 A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Dra inage Strategy has been submitted in support of the application. The site is broadly located withi n a Flood Zone 1 (low flood risk) however part of the application site to the south including the secondary service road, the refuse area to the rear and approximately half of the double size retail unit are located within a Flood Zone 2 (medium flood risk). Retail shops are categorised in the NPPG as less vulnerable uses and according to the submitted FRA and drainage strategy the finished ground floor levels are to remain as existing. Safe access and egress into the more vulnerable residential uses is achieved within the part of the site that is located within Flood Zone 1. The FRA and drainage strategy recommends that Site management and residents sign up to EA Flood Warnings to receive updates on flood events in the wider area along with other recommendations to verify the drainage design. The Local Lead Flood Authority Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press (LLFA) have reviewed the submitted FRA and drainage strategy and do not raise an objection subject to a condition to secure a final scheme of sustainable water management. This condition is recommended to be attached should the application be determined for approval. Accessibility 7.45 Conditions are proposed to be attached should that application be determined for approval that would secure details of step free access via all points of entry and exit and compliance with the technical specifications for an M4(2) dwelling . Subject to these conditions the development wou ld be accessible and inclusive and accord with relevant policy requirements. Secure By Design 7.46 Development will be required to comprise good design and create inclusive environments whilst improving safety and se curity by incorporating the following specific measures: i) providing entrances in visible, safe and accessible locations; ii) maximising natural surveillance; iii) ensuring adequate defensible space is provided; iv) providing clear delineations between public and private spaces; and v) providing appropriate lighting and CCTV. 7.47 The submitted Design and Access Statement lists a set of features including secure entrances, windows and balconies in addition to secure access in and out of the building to assist in a development that ac cords with secure by design principles. Any grant of planning permission would be subject to a secure by design condition to achieve appropriate accreditation. Waste Management 7.48 Refuse collection points are proposed on-sit e at the rear of the building and the collections will be carried out in conjunct ion with existing arrangements. Further details regarding the refuse storage arrangements are proposed to be secured by the landscaping condition in the event of an approval. A Waste Management Plan is also recommended to be secured by condition to approve details of the quantum of refuse storage and collection arrangements. Energy and Sustainability 7.49 In accordance with Policy SI2 of the London Plan, Major development should be net zero carbon. A minimum on -site reduction of at least 35 per cent beyond Building Regulations is re quired for major developme nt. Where it is clearly demonstrated that the zero -carbon target cannot be fully achieved on- site, any shortfall should be provided, in agreement with the borough, through a cash in lieu contribution to the borough’s carbon offset fund. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.50 An Energy and Sustainability Statement has been submitted in support of the application. To meet the required reduction in carbon emissions associated with the development, the proposal includes energy efficiency measures including green roofs, roof mounted Air source heat pumps (ASHPs) and Solar PV Panels along with mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) and electric vehicle charging points. Following the implementation of these measures along with improvements to the fabric energy efficienc y the development will achieve the following: - 64.89% overall regulated CO2 reduction by renewable sources (‘Be green’) - 27.36% overall regulated CO2 reduction by efficiency measures (‘Be Lean’) 7.51 Whilst the Energy and Sustainability Statement demonstrates how the target onsite carbon reduction of 35% will be achieved, there is no conclusive information to determine what level of carbon offset c ontribution should be secured to reach the zero-carbon target. It is therefore recommended t hat an updated Energy Assessment be secured by condition and an obligation included within any associated legal agreement to provide the mechanism to secure a cash in -lieu contribution that may be required to achieve a zero-carbon development. Fire Safety 7.52 London Fire Brigade have been consul ted and do not raise any concerns. Notwithstanding, in accordance with Policy D12 of the London Plan, a Fire Safety Strategy is recommended to be secured by condition which should include the details of the materials to be used and the means of escape for future residents including an evacuation strategy, evacuation lifts, fire -protected stairways and evacuation assembly points, active fire sa fety measures including fire detection alarm systems and automatic water fire suppression systems. Planning Obligations 7.53 On the basis of the NPPF and the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulation 2010, it is only considered appropriate to requ est planning obligations relating to the following: i. Parking Permits: Residential Parking Pe rmits restriction (excluding Blue Badge holders). ii. Carbon Offset Contribution: A Carbon Offset sum based on an Updated Energy Strategy to be submitted to discharge Condition 19, with the offset calculation based on £95 per tonne of CO2 over a 30 year period. iii. Project Management & Monitoring Fee: A financial contribution equal to 5% of the total cash contributions. 7.54 The applicant has agreed in writing to the above obligations which would be secured by a s106 legal agreement. All financial cont ributions will be required prior to the commencement of the development Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 7.55 The scheme would be liable for payments under the Community Infrastructure Levy. If approved, the final CIL liability would be set out in the CIL Liability Notice following determination of the application in line with the CIL Regulations. This would be issued following a full review of all the material available to the Council's Planning Obligations Team at that time. 8 Other Matters Human Rights 8.1 The development has been assessed against the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and in particular Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the Act itself. This Act gives further effect to the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to the applicant's reasonable development rights and expectations which have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance. Equality 8.2 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the assessment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The proposal is considered to comply wi th 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 (below). 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents taken into account in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential information) are available on the Council's website here, by entering the planning application number at the top of this report and using the search facility. Planning applications are also available to inspect electronically at the Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW upon appointment, by contacting Planning Services at planning@hillingdon.gov.uk. AAPPENDICES Planning Application 3723/APP/2024/2902 Hillingdon Planning Committee - 14th July 2026 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 19 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. RES3 T Time Limit The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. RES4 A Accordance with Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers: - 718-CDA-ZZ-00-DR-A-00-0100-REV 01 - 718-CDA-ZZ-00-DR-A-02-0100-REV 01 - 718-CDA-ZZ-01-DR-A-02-0101-REV 01 - 718-CDA-ZZ-XX-DR-A-02-0200-REV 01 - 718-CDA-ZZ-XX-DR-A-02-0201-REV 01 - 718-CDA-ZZ-00-DR-A-05-0100-REV 01 - 718-CDA-ZZ-00-DR-A-05-0101-REV 01 - 718-CDA-ZZ-01-DR-A-05-0102-REV 02 - 718-CDA-ZZ-02-DR-A-05-0103-REV 02 - 718-CDA-ZZ-03-DR-A-05-0104-REV 02 - 718-CDA-ZZ-XX-DR-A-05-0105-REV 01 - 718-CDA-ZZ-XX-DR-A-05-0106-REV 01 - 718-CDA-ZZ-01-DR-A-05-0107-REV 01 - 718-CDA-ZZ-XX-DR-A-05-0200-REV 02 - 718-CDA-ZZ-XX-DR-A-05-0201-REV 02 - 718-CDA-ZZ-XX-DR-A-05-0202-REV 01 - 718-CDA-ZZ-XX-DR-A-05-0203-REV 01 - 718-CDA-ZZ-XX-DR-A-05-0400-REV 01 - 718-CDA-ZZ-XX-DR-A-05-0401-REV 01 - 718-CDA-ZZ-01-DR-A-09-0100-REV 01 - 718-CDA-ZZ-01-DR-A-09-0101-REV 01 - 718-CDA-ZZ-03-DR-A-09-0101-REV 01 - 718-CDA-ZZ-XX-DR-A-09-0102-REV 01 and shall thereafter be retained/maintained for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON Hillingdon Planning Committee - 14th July 2026 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 19 To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012), Part 2 (2020) and the London Plan (2021). 33. COM5 G General compliance with supporting documentation The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the following has been completed in accordance with the specified supporting plans and/or documents: - Air Quality Assessment, October 2024, Delta Simons - Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan, October 2024, Delta Simons - Carbon Whole Life Cycle Assessment, Pre-Application Stage, October 2024, Delta Simons - Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), October 2024, Create Planning - Daylight & Sunlight Report, October 2024, Delta Simons - Daylight & Sunlight Technical Note, 14th October 2025, Lucion Delta Simons - Environmental Noise Survey and Noise Impact Assessment Report, 20 August 2024, Hann Tucker Associates - Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, October 2024, Delta Simons - Fire Statement, 1st August 2024, Nadim Choudhary - Structural Engineering Loading Assessment, 3rd of September 2024, Axiom Structures - Urban Greening Factor Report, October 2024, Delta Simons Thereafter the development shall be retained/maintained in accordance with these details for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012), Part 2 (2020) and the London Plan (2021). 4. COM11 R Restrictions on Changes of Uses (Class E Retail) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any orders revoking and re-enacting either of these orders with or without modification), the retail units hereby approved shall only be used for retail uses falling within Use Class E. REASON To safeguard the vitality and vibrancy of the local parade and to ensure that retail uses remain prominent within the area, in accordance with Policies DMHB 11 and DMTC 3 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and Policy E9 of the London Plan (2021). 5. COM22 O Operating Hours The Class E retail units at ground floor level shall only operate between the following hours: 08:00 and 23:00 Mondays - Fridays Hillingdon Planning Committee - 14th July 2026 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 19 08:00 and 23:00 Saturdays 08:00 and 18:00 Sundays, Public or Bank Holidays. No customers shall be permitted on the premises outside these times. REASON To protect the amenities of nearby residential occupiers in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021). 6 6. COM12 R Restrictions on Changes of Uses (Class C3 Residential) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any orders revoking and re-enacting either of these orders with or without modification), the residential units hereby approved shall be used only as dwellings within Use Class C3. REASON To ensure the development is used for residential purposes only and to allow the Local Planning Authority to retain control over any future change of use in the interests of residential amenity, in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 7. RES7 M Materials (Submission) Notwithstanding the approved plans, no development (excluding demolition and works below slab level) shall take place until details of all materials and external surfaces, including details of windows, doors and balconies have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and be retained as such. Details should include information relating to make, product/type, colour and photographs/images. REASON To ensure that the development presents a satisfactory appearance in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 8. RES9 L Landscaping (car parking & refuse/cycle storage) Notwithstanding the approved plans, no development (excluding demolition and works below slab level) shall take place until a landscape scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include: 1. Details of Soft Landscaping 1.a Planting plans (at not less than a scale of 1:100), 1.b Written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken, 1.c Schedule of plants (including pollution absorbing plants) giving species, plant sizes, and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate Hillingdon Planning Committee - 14th July 2026 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 19 2. Details of Hard Landscaping 2.a Refuse Storage 2.b Cycle Storage and allocation plan 2.c Hard Surfacing Materials 2.d External Lighting 2.e Other structures (such as wayfinding, signage, play equipment and furniture) 2.f Details of the electric vehicle charging points 3. Details of Landscape Maintenance 3.a Landscape Maintenance Schedule for a minimum period of 5 years. 3.b Proposals for the replacement of any tree, shrub, or area of turfing/seeding within the landscaping scheme which dies or in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority becomes seriously damaged or diseased. 4. Schedule for Implementation. Thereafter the development shall be carried out and maintained in full accordance with the approved details. REASON To ensure that the proposed development will preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and provide adequate facilities in compliance with Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 12, DMHB 14, DMEI 1, DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and Policy G5 of the London Plan (2021). 9 9. M5 W Waste Management Plan Prior to first occupation of the residential units, a Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include: - 1x refuse 1100L and 1x 1100L recycling should be appropriate alongside a communal 140L food waste wheelie bin. - Details of the location and method of collection which should include a drag distance of no more than 10 metres and path between should be smooth, impermeable, 2m wide and have gradient no greater than 1.2. REASON To ensure that the proposed development complies with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 10. HH-RPD2 SSecured by Design The dwellings shall achieve 'Secured by Design' accreditation awarded by the Hillingdon Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Design Adviser (CPDA) on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). No dwelling shall be occupied until accreditation has been Hillingdon Planning Committee - 14th July 2026 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 19 achieved. REASON In pursuance of the Council's duty under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to consider crime and disorder implications in excising its planning functions; to promote the well being of the area in pursuance of the Council's powers under section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, to ensure the development provides a safe and secure environment in accordance with Policy DMHB 15 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and Policy D12 of the London Plan (2021). 1 11. COM10 S Sustainable Water Management (submission) No development (excluding demolition and works below slab level) shall take place until a scheme for the provision of sustainable water management has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the relevant stakeholders. The scheme shall clearly demonstrate how it manages water and demonstrate ways of controlling the surface water on site by providing information on: a) Sustainable Drainage features: i. Surface water discharge - the submitted drainage strategy must identify the proposed method and location of discharging collected surface water from the site in accordance with the hierarchy set out in Policy SI 13 of the London Plan (2021). Where the proposal does not utilise the most sustainable solution, justification must be provided. ii. SuDS - the submitted drainage strategy should incorporate Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) elements that are embedded, where practicable, within the landscaping plan for the development. Preference should be given to above-ground SuDS elements that control water at source and provide wider biodiversity, water quality and amenity benefits. iii. Runoff rates - provide the greenfield and proposed runoff rates for a variety of return periods including 1 in 1 year, 1 in 30, 1 in 100, and 1 in 100 plus 40% climate change. Developments should aim to meet greenfield runoff rates unless a suitable justification can be provided. iv. Drainage calculations - include calculations to demonstrate that the volume of storage and size of drainage features provided is adequate to control surface water for a range of storm duration and rainfall intensities for the entire site area for events up to and including the critical 1 in 100 plus 40% climate change rainfall event. v. Exceedance routes - provide a plan showing the route surface water will take through the development for rainfall events exceeding the 1 in 100-year event. Where it is intended to store water on the ground surface, the

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Christos Chrysanthou 41632/APP/2025/2468 Date Application Valid: 19-09-26 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 17-07-26 Application Type: Hybrid (Full and Outline) Ward: Heathrow Villages Applicant: LPH UK 1 Site Address: NCP Car Park, Bath Road, Sipson, UB7 0DU Proposal: Hybrid application consisting of (1) Full planning permission for the creation of a mixed use sustainable vehicle parking facility (Sui Generis) and food and beverage unit (Class E), alongside ancillary welfare and staff buildings, and other supporting infrastructure and site levelling; and (2) Outline planning permission for a future extension to the facility , with all associated matters reserved except for access. 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 – 14 July 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. A) That the Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or any other legislation to secure the following: - Air Quality Mitigation Contribution of £39,481. - A Healthy Streets/Active Travel Zone contribution of £35,000. - A Project Management and Monitoring Fee, equalling 5% of the total financial contributions to be paid under this agreement. B) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in preparation of the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed. C) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreement and conditions of approval. D) That, if the Legal Agreement has not been finalised within 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 provide contributions towards the improvement of services and facilities as a consequence of demands created by the proposed development (in respect of Air Quality and Health Streets). The scheme therefore conflicts with Polici es DMCI 7, DMEI 14, DMT 1 and DMT 5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020), the adopted Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2014), and Policies DF1, SI1 and T2 of the London Plan (2021).' 1 Executive Summary 1.1 This hybrid application seeks (1) full planning permission for the creation of a mixed use sustainable vehicle parking facility (Sui Generis) and food and beverage unit (Class E), alongside ancillary welfare and staff buildings, and other supporting infrastructure and site levelling (Phase 1); and (2) Outline planning permission for a future extension to the facility, with all associated matters reserved except for access (Phase 2). 1.2 The development would optimise the use of an existing car park and provide infrastructure to support the borough’s carbon reduction and sustainability Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press objectives. The proposed Food and Beverage (F&B) unit is of limited scale and not considered to compromise the viability of designated town centres and shopping areas within the Borough. 1.3 The development would be sympathetic to the scale and proportions of the surrounding area and would not be considered harmful to the character and appearance of the locality. Whilst the Phase 1 development would result in the loss of a group of trees, which is regrettable, this factor alone is not considered to warrant a recommendation for refusal. Moderate weight is also given to the enhancing of the visual amenity of the site through the improved urban greening and soft landscaping along with the Biodiversity Net Gain that would be delivered. 1.4 Subject to conditions and planning obligations, there are no undue impacts identified to the local highway network or neighbouring amenity. A s106 legal agreement would secure contributions towards air quality mitigation and healthy streets improvements. 1.5 It is concluded that the proposal complies with the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. The planning application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 and s106 obligations outlined in this report. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site is currently operated by NCP as an open-air car park, providing circa 630 parking spaces, operating on a 24hour basis. The overall site area extends to circa 1.639 Hectares and is currently accessed via a bridge and service road adjacent to the Raddison Hotel to the east, with Sipson Road providing access to the A4 (Bath Road). 2.2 The site is identified as being located within the Bath Road Employment Area with the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and the Heathrow Opportunity Area within the London Plan (2021) The site is located within the Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area, the A4 Corridor Air Quality Focus Area, the Heathrow Archaeological Priority Area, a Critical Dr ainage Area and Flood Zone 1. The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 3. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figure 2: Aerial View Image of the Application Property Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Street View Image of the Application Property Figure 4: Aerial View Image of the Application Property Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 This hybrid application seeks (1) full planning permission for the creation of a mixed-use sustainable vehicle parking facility (Sui Generis) and food and beverage unit (Class E), alongside ancillary welfare and staff buildings, and other supporting infrastructure and site levelling; and (2) Outline planning permission for a future extension to the facility, with all associated matters reserved except for access. 3.2 Phase 1 has a site area of 0.702ha and would deliver a total of 66no car parking spaces, comprising 56no EV charging bays (including 2no accessible spaces) and 8no standard (non -EV) car parking spaces (including 2no accessible spaces) and 4no standard enlarged spaces. A food and beve rage unit (195sq.m floor area) is proposed in the southwest corner of the site. 3.3 Phase 2 has a site area of 0.937ha and would deliver a further 129no car parking spaces, comprising 118no EV charging bays (including 3no accessible spaces), 8no standard enlarged car parking spaces and 3no standard accessible parking spaces. Across both phases, the overall car parking provision is 195no car parking spaces (174no EV bays and 21no standard spaces. 3.4 The submitted site phasing plan provides an indicative timeframe for the completion of the proposal. It is envisaged that works would start on Phase 1 this year (2026) and be completed within 1 year (2027). As detailed in the Site Phasing Plan, following the determinatio n of the Reserved Matters application in 2028, works are expected to start on Phase 2 in the same year and be completed in 2029. The indicative timeframe demonstrates a clear intention by the applicant for the hybrid proposal to be fully implemented within a three-year timeframe, which would ensure the prompt delivery of the public benefits associated with the proposal in respect of sustainability/carbon reduction, landscaping and BNG. It is recognised that these timescales are indicative and where reasonable, conditions are recommended to bring forward Phase 2. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 5: Proposed Plans – Phase 1 (please note – larger version of plans can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Figure 6: Proposed Plans – Phase 2 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 Planning permission ref: 41632/APP/2025/1320 approved an electric unit area comprising a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and associated infrastructure. These elements are located within Phase 1 and are shown in the proposed plans. 4.3 Certificate of Lawfulness application ref: 41632/APP/2025/717 approved the erection of 1no. substation and 1no. feeder pillar. These elements are located within Phase 1 and are shown in the proposed plans. 4.4 Planning application ref: 41632/APP/2022/2301 proposed the Demolition of existing car park and redeve lopment for industrial (Use Class B2); storage or distribution (Use Class B8); and/or light industrial (Use Class E(g)(iii)) purposes, with ancillary office space, landscap ing, car parking, servicing and access arrangements. (AMENDED PLANS 18.05.23). This application was withdrawn prior to determination. 4.5 Planning permission ref: 41632/APP/2021/1301 approved the Vehicular access from Bath Road which would be utilised for this proposal as the main access. Implementation of the access was confirmed by the approval of Certificate of Lawfulness application ref: 41632/APP/2024/847. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to t he consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 31 neighbouring properties and the Harmondsworth and Sipson Residents Association were consulted on 06 -10-25. A newspaper advert was placed on 24- 06-26. One letter was received from Heathrow Villages Conservation Area Advisory Panel. 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 – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response Letter from Heathrow Villages Conservation Area Advisory Panel. No objection in principle however the following concerns raised are raised: I. Noise and dust from site levelling infilling. II. Southern fence should be retained along with tree belt on Bath Road. III. Siting of F&B Unit in proximity to neighbouring dwellings. IV. Another drive-thru not needed and would impact on other local businesses. Neighbouring amenity considerations are discussed at paragraphs 7.15 - 7.17 of this report. The principle of development including the Food and Beverage Unit is discussed at paragraphs 7.1 – 7.4 of this report. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses LBH Consultees and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Access No objection subject to a condition to secure details of access to building entrances. The recommended condition is proposed to be attached should the application be determined for approval. Air Quality The development is not air quality positive and an air quality mitigation contribution of £39,481 is required. The contribution is proposed to be secured within a s106 legal agreement should the application be determined for approval. Contaminated Land Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press No objection subject to a condition to secure a land contamination scheme. The recommended condition is proposed to be attached should the application be determined for approval. Highways No objection subject to conditions to secure the travel plan, a demolition/construction management plan, internal layout design and a £35,000 Healthy Streets/ Active Travel Zone contribution. The recommended conditions are proposed to be attached and the contribution secured within a s106 legal agreement should the application be determined for approval. Noise Specialist No objection subject to a condition to restrict noise levels. The recommended condition is proposed to be attached should the application be determined for approval. Urban Design Objection on the grounds of visual impacts and insufficient justification for the loss of trees. These matters are discussed at Paragraphs 7.5 – 7.14 of this report. External Consultees and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Heathrow Airport Safeguarding No objection subject to a condition to secure a Bird Hazard Management Plan. The recommended condition is proposed to be attached should the application be determined for approval. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Historic England (GLASS) No objection subject to a condition to secure a Stage 1 Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI). The recommended condition is proposed to be attached should the application be determined for approval. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) No objection. Noted. National Highways No comments received. It is noted that National Highways had previously raised safety concerns regarding the closing of the bridge access. A grampian condition is recommended to be attached should the application be determined for approval. The matter is discussed at paragraphs 7.19 – 7.20 of this report. Thames Water No comments received. Noted. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development - Electric vehicle charging hub 7.1 The development proposed would promote the Development Plan's strategic objective of carbon reduction and establishing future energy infrastructure requirements through the provision of an electric vehicle charging hub. The use of the site as a car park has been establ ished through the planning history which would be retained as the primary use of the site. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.2 Noting the low-density nature of the site and the current use, there would be a net reduction in parking spaces within the site and moderate weight is given to the sustainability/carbon reduction improvements associated with the proposal. It is considered that the proposal represents an appropriate optimisation of a brownfield site and supports wider sustainability goals. Taking the above factors into the planning balance, the principle of development is considered acceptable subject to the relevant material planning considerations being satisfactorily addressed. - Food and Beverage (F&B) unit 7.3 In order to protect the Borough's shopping hierarchy and the integrity of local parades, the Local Plan Part 1 notes that the Council will require an impact assessment for any retail proposal in an edge of centre or out of town centre location, which exceeds 200 square metres gross retail space. As the 167sq.m floor area of the F&B unit is lower than the 200sq.m threshold, a retail sequential test is not required. It is considered that due to the limited scale of the F&B unit , it would not impact on the viability of the designated shopping areas in the borough. 7.4 As permitted development rights allow Class E premises to change between a variety of uses, a condition would be attached in the event of an approval to restrict the use of the F&B unit under Class E(b) of the Use Classes Order. This is to ensure that other incompatible uses within Class E are not introduced into the site at a future date that could potentially have gr eater material planning impacts than the proposed F&B unit. Taking the above into consideration, the principle for a small- scale F&B unit in this location is, in this instance, considered to be acceptable. Character and Appearance 7.5 The principle of development for a car pa rk has been established on the site through its historic and current use as a car park. The layout of the car park would be amended and the proposal includes associated development including the introduction of soft landscaping and the erection of a F&B unit, welfare buildings, a staff building, a smoking shelter, solar panelled canopies over the parking bays, cycle storage, refuse storage, power unit s, substations and feeder pillars. The existing bridge that provides access to the site would be subject to a management plan as detailed in paragraph 7.19 of this report. 7.6 The F&B unit, the canopies and other structures would have a neutral visual impact and the development would be read in the context of the existing car park use and the surrounding commercial area. A computer generated image of the proposal is provided below which demonstrates the scale and appearance of the development being appropriate within the site surroundings. Figure 7: Computer Generated Image of the Proposal Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.7 A totem sign is shown indicatively on the proposed plans in the southwest corner of the site in front of the F&B unit, howev er this element is not listed in the description of development and detailed elevations have not been provided. A separate grant of Advertisement Consent would be required for this element and any signage associated with the F&B unit. An informative advising of such is recommended to be attached in the event of an approval. Trees and Landscaping 7.8 The submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment identifies a Grade U2 Sycamore (ref. T8) that would be removed. The tree is located on the western boundary and would be removed to provide secondary/emergency access via Sipson Way. There is no objection to the removal of this tree given its condition. 7.9 The 2021 planning permission for the proposed vehicular access off Bath Road retained the two groups of trees on both sides of the access. The current proposal also involves the removal of a group of Grade B2 Maple, Sycamore and Cotoneaster trees located adjacent to the vehicular access at the southwest corner of the site (ref. G7). Their removal is required to accommodate the proposed F&B unit. It is accepted that the removal of these trees would lead to a minor change in landscape character as it would open views of the car park from Bath Road. It is however important to highlight the predominantly commercial character of this part of Bath Road and that these trees are not protected via a TPO. Whilst the LPA would have preferred to secure replacemen t tree planting within Phase 1, it is acknowledged that due to operational reasons there is limited space within Phase 1 to provide replacement tree planting th at would offset the loss of this group of trees. The introduction of soft landscaping and urban greening within Phase 1 is Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press however considered sufficient to offset the loss of the group of trees. As such a refusal on the grounds of loss of trees would be difficult to sustain. 7.10 The development in Phase 2 would also result in the creation of a significant expanse of woodland at the rear of the site. The delivery of Phase 2 is also accompanied by an extensive soft landscaping scheme including new areas of grassland and tree planting. Subject to deta ils regarding the type of tree planting which would be secured by condition, the overall landscaping of the site would be significantly enhanced. It is important to note that although this is a phased development the overall landscaping provision would not only be an improvement upon the existing landscaping onsite at present, but also an improvement to that which was approved by committee when voting in favour of officers recommendation to approve application reference 41632/APP/2022/2301. While this application was not formally approved as the former Applicant withdrew the application post committee, it does bear some material weight in the assessment of this application. Figure 8: Site Plan Approved by Committee for ref: 41632/APP/2022/2301 7.11 The application had proposed the removal of the group of Grade B2 Sycamore trees adjacent to the vehicular access at the southeast corner of the site (ref. G6). The LPA have negotiated the retention of this group of trees as their removal was deemed to be unnecessary. Revised plans have been submitted to show their retention. An updated Tree Protection Plan is recommended to be secured by condition should the application be determined for approval. 7.12 A full hard and soft landscaping sche me including a schedule of implementation and maintenance is also recommended to be secured by condition in the event of an approval. Urban Greening Factor Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.13 Policy G5 of the London Plan (Urban Greening) states that major developments should contribute to the greening of London by including urban greening as a fundamental element of site and buildin g design, and by incorporating measures such as high -quality landscaping (including trees), green roofs, green walls and nature-based sustainable drainage. The Mayor recommends that boroughs seek an Urban Greening Factor (UGF) target score of 0.3 for predominately commercial development (excluding B2 and B8 uses). In broad terms, the UGF is an assessment of the amount, type and value of natural environment provided on site as a proportion of the overall site area. 7.14 The development will deliver a UGF of 0.19 for Phase 1, 0.58 for Phase 2 and 0.43 overall which exceeds the London Plan benchmark. The proposal would contribute significantly to improve urban greening within the site which enhances the visual amenity of the site. In considering the landscaping impacts discussed in the previous paragraphs, the UGF is considered to represent a benefit of the scheme and attracts moderate weight in support of the proposal. Residential Amenity 7.15 The nearest residential properties are located to the west of the site on Sipson Way and Bath Road . The separation distance between the flank wall of the adjacent neighbour No. 6 Dorton Villas (located to the west of the site on Bath Road ) and the side elevation of the F&B unit is approximately 12m. The F&B unit would have a height of 5.26m (including the parapet). Due to the acceptable separation, the relatively limited scale of the F&B unit and its juxtaposition with the neighbour, it is not considered that there would be any undue loss of daylight/sunlight or harmful impacts on amenity. In Phase 1, the 4.29m high EV canopies have been sited 10m parallel to the line of trees along the shared western boundary, which reduces visibility from dwellings on Sipson Way. The staff and welfare blocks , which are 3.5m in height, would be sited more centrally wi thin the site and away from neighbouring dwellings. It is noted that d wellings on Sipson Road are set approximately 17m from the shared western boundary by their rear gardens. The line of trees along the shared western boundary would be retained and these trees would continue to provide a natural screen of the site when viewed from the rear gardens of these neighbouring d wellings. Due to the satisfactory separation distance between the neighbouring residential properties and the development, there would not be any loss of outlook or overbearing effects. Notably, the current proposal would result in significantly less built development than the recent planning consent under ref: 41632/APP/2022/2301 which approved 4no industrial sheds measuring up to 11.7m in height that occupied over half of the overall site area. Details of e xternal lighting would be secu red within the landscaping conditions for both phases. In the interests of preserving neighbouring amenity, it is recommended that the opening hours of the F&B unit are restricted by condition. As recommended by the Highway Authority, a Demolition and C onstruction Management Plan which also includes consideration of dust and air quality mitigation is recommended to be secured by condition to minimise disruption to the local area. Noise impacts are discussed below. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Noise 7.16 The existing car park has a total capacit y of 630 parking spaces whereas the proposal would provide 199 parking spaces. As detailed in the Transport Assessment, there would be a net reduction in trip generation which points to fewer comings and goings to and from the site. Further, as the proposed development would be used primarily by electric ve hicles, which are inherently quieter than petrol/diesel cars, there would likely be a further reduction in noise associated with site operation. In support of the application, a Noise Impact Assessment has been submitted, which assesses the existing noise conditions at the site (which includes noise from road and frequent aircraft traffic) and the potential suitability of the noise environment including consideration of plant noise and noise associated with the car park. The report considers the impact of noise on occupiers of the neighbouring residential properties on Sipson Way to the west and the Radisson Hotel to the east. 7.17 The report concludes that noise levels would be within the BS 8233:2014 criteria which indicates that the development would not be generating a significant level of noise that would be harmful to the amenity of the area. As recommended by the Council’s noi se specialist, a condition to limit noise levels is recommended to be attached in the event of an approval in the interests of preserving the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers. Air Quality 7.18 The development would promote the De velopment Plan's strategic carbon reduction objective by providing electric vehicle charging points. Coupled with the reduction in trips, there would be a benefit in terms of local air quality. The site lies within Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and within the A4 Corridor Air Quality Focus Area (AQFA). An Air Quality Assessment and Air Quality Positive Statement have been submitted in support of the application. The Council’s air quality officer has reviewed the submission and has concluded that an air quality mitigation contribution is required to offset the traffic emissions associated with the F&B Unit. A contribution of £39,481 which includes discounts applied for the Travel Plan and green measures has been agreed with the applicant. The contribution would be paid to the Council to deliver its air quality action plan and/or implement site specific emission reducing measures and would be secured by a s106 legal agreement. Highways and Parking 7.19 Vehicular access would be taken directly from Bath Road which has been implemented under planning permission ref: 41632/APP/2021/1301. The existing access into the site via the bridge and service road adjacent to the Raddison Hotel to the east off Sipson Road would be closed off upon completion of Phase 2 at which point it is suggested in the Design and Access Statement that the bridge would be decommissioned. It is noted that during the determination of planning application reference 41632/APP/2022/2301 that National Highways had raised concerns regarding the safety of the bridge if it were to become redundant following Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the provision of a new access off Bath Road. The LPA consider the decommissioning of the bridge could raise public safety risks including the potential for anti-social behaviour, crime and danger to life. The LPA have consulted National Highways however no comments have been received despite multiple attempts to contact them. Notwithstanding the absence of the statutory consultee’s comments on the proposal, officers consider there to be a requirement for engagement between the Applicant and National Highways in order to agree responsibilities. 7.20 As it stands the sole purpose for the bridge is to serve the car park, and the proposal would result in the closure of the bridge but only from within the application site, thus creating the potential for vehicles to enter the bridge from the opposite side of the M4 and cross the bridge without a purpose. Moreover, no details to demonstrate an adequate turning head should this situation arise have been submitted. While it is understood that the bridge itself may not be within the Applicants ownership officers cannot ignore that granting permission without a plan to deal with these matters appropriately being compiled by all interested parties, could result in harm. As such a grampian condition is suggested to be imposed which requires the Applicant to compile a management agreement within National Highways to ensure the bridge is appropriately managed and ma intained. As the bridge would not be commissioned until the commencement of Phase 2, the condition will need to be discharged prior to the commencement of this phase only. 7.21 Following comments by the Highway Authority, revised plans have been received that amend the internal layout to move the delivery bay away from the access and to the internal F&B unit access road. The Highway Authority have reviewed the revised site plans and no objection is raised, subject to a condition to approve a final internal layout design that also includes road markings and measures such as waiting restrictions to ensure that delivery bays and waiting bays are prevented from being used as car parking spaces. A parking management plan has been suggested in the Transport Assessment, which is recommended to be secured by condition in the event of an approval. 7.22 The F&B unit would be provided with limited car parking spaces; however, the unit would not be a stand-alone ‘drive-thru’, rather a facility that patrons of the car park could utilise while their cars are charging. It is accepted that the F&B unit would attract some trips that are not assoc iated with the EV car park. According to the submitted Transport Assessment, the anticipated vehicle generation associated with the F&B unit would be approximately 10% of the total two -way transport movements for the whole development which represents a relatively low proportion of vehicle generation. 7.23 The Transport Statement identifies daily we ekday vehicle trip attraction for the existing car park use to be a total of 1,105 two -way trips. The proposed development is estimated to generate a total of 1,089 daily two -way trips (weekday). The proposed trip generation figure comprises 868 two-way daily trips associated with the EV hub and 221 two-way daily trips with the F&B unit (of which 50% is linked to the EV hub). Notably, th e Transport Statement indicates that the overall two-way trip generation for the pr oposal would be lower than the existing Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press carpark use. As such, it is not considered that the development would have an impact on the local highway network despite the changes to the access arrangements. 7.24 The Transport Statement also estimates that based on TRICS data, the proposed F&B unit would attract 102 pedestrian, 9 public transport and 4 cycle movements per day. In order to encourage walking, cycling and further supporting the transition to a more sustainable city, the application is accompanied by a Travel Plan Statement which outlines an action plan with various measures including promoting sustainable modes of travel to staff in an effort to reduce private car travel. The Highway Authority have rec ommended that real- time signage and a booking system be incorporated to manage travel demand to reduce congestion risk and promote sustainable transport choices. It is recommended that an updated full Travel Plan should be secured by condition in the event of an approval. A booking system is not considered to be reasonab ly necessary to make the development acceptable. The real -time signage would be erected in proximity to the site entrance and would assist in diverting cars away from the site at times wh en the car park is at full capacity. 7.25 The London Plan requires that 5% of all car parking spaces are designated disabled parking bays and a further 5% being enlarged bays. Of the 66no parking spaces within Phase 1, there would be 4no accessible bays and 4no enlarged bays. Of the 129no parking spaces within Phase 2, there would be 7no accessible bays and 7no enlarged bays. Taken together, the to tal quantum of accessible and enlarged parking bays is considered to be acceptable. 7.26 Cycle parking spaces are provided in the form of secure cycle storage for 2no cycles for use by staff located at the rear of the F&B unit, 5no Sheffield stands for use by customers at the side of the F&B unit and a cycle shelter located next to the vehicle access exit. The quantum of cycle provision is considered to be acceptable and in the event of an approval, full details are recommended to be secured by condition. 7.27 The Transport Assessment (at Paragrap h 3.27) submitted in support of the application identifies 7no locations in the vicinity of the site that currently have deficient pedestrian facilities . To address the identified barrier to accessibility and active travel, the applicant has agreed to a £35,000 Healthy Streets contribution. Archaeology 7.28 The application site lies within Heathrow Archaeological Priority Area (APA) and there is an overall medium potential for archaeological remains that may exist at the site. An Archaeological Desk Based Assessment has been submitted in support of the application. Historic England (GLAAS) have been consulted and have requested a Stage 1 Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) to be secured by condition in the event of an approval. Subject to attaching this condition, which is recommended, the proposals are deemed acceptable from an archaeological perspective. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Biodiversity Net Gain 7.29 In England, biodiversity net gain is required under a statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by the Environment Act 2021). This statutory framework is referred to as 'biodiversity net gain' in Planning Practice Guidance to distinguish it from other or more general biodiversity gains. Under the statutory framework for biodiversity net gain, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met ("the biodiversity gain condition"). This objective is for development to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre -development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat. 7.30 The development would be occurring on previously developed land. Through the purchase of off-site statutory biodiversity credits, and habitat creation in Phase 2, the development would achieve a net gain significantly exceeding the 10% minimum objective. In the event of an approval, the standard BNG condition would be attached. Ecology 7.31 A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report provides a survey of the site and concludes that there no important habitats within the site, there may be habitats adjacent to the site that offer opportunities for bats and birds may be nesting within trees at the site. Recommendations are listed with regards to timings of works and lighting design. The report also details various ecological enhancements including bird boxes, bat boxes , invertebrate boxes, planting and a management and monitoring plan. In the event of an approval, the report would be listed in the approved documents condition to ensure implementation. Flood Risk and Drainage 7.32 The site is located within Flood Zone 1 (l ow flood risk). A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted in support of the application. The FRA identifies no flood risk from reservoir flooding or canals or surface water or groundwater flood risk. The FRA states that the proposals shall decrea se runoff from the site due to the partial replacement of impermeable asphalt surfacing with permeable surfacing which would improve drainage within the site. 7.33 The submitted Sustainable Drainage Strategy states that site levels would be kept close to existing levels but raised slight ly and that the proposals will result in a reduction in site runoff due to the reduction in hardstanding areas and use of permeable surfacing. A Drainage Maintenance and Management Plan is detailed within the strategy. In the event of an approval, the strategy would be listed in the approved documents condition to ensure implementation. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Accessibility 7.34 A condition is proposed to be attached should the application be determined for approval that would secure details of step free access for the proposed building. Subject to this condition the development would be accessible and inclusive and accord with relevant policy requirements. Secure By Design 7.35 Development will be requir ed to comprise good design and create inclusive environments whilst improving safety and se curity by incorporating the following specific measures: i) providing entrances in visible, safe and accessible locations; ii) maximising natural surveillance; iii) ensuring adequate defensible space is provided; iv) providing clear delineations between public and private spaces; and v) providing appropriate lighting and CCTV. 7.36 Any grant of planning permission is recommended to be subject to a Secure by Design condition to achieve appropriate accreditation. Waste Management 7.37 The submitted Refuse Management Plan provides relevant details regarding waste management. A designated refuse store is proposed on the southwest corner adjacent to the F&B unit. Collections would be undertaken privately. Further details regarding the ref use storage are recommended to be secured within the landscaping condition. Energy and Sustainability 7.38 An Energy Statement has been submitted in support of the application. The statement assesses the feasibility of means to improve energy efficiency and identifies PV solar panels and air source heat pumps as being viable options for the F&B Unit which is the part of the dev elopment that would be subject to the policy. It is unclear what carbon reduction beyond building regulations would be achieved , therefore in the event of an approval, a condition is recommended to secure a 15% on-site reduction for the F&B Unit as would be required under Policy SI 2 Part C of the London Plan (2021). 7.39 The canopies over the electric vehicle charging spaces would utilise solar panels and the development would provide infrastructure to support the use of electric powered vehicles. There are wider sustainability benefits arising from the proposal which are given moderate weight in the planning balance. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Airport Safeguarding 7.40 A Solar Glare Assessment has been submitted in support of the application. Heathrow Airport Safeguarding and National Air Traffic Services (NATS) have been consulted and no objection has been raised. 7.41 In the event of an approval, a Bird Hazard Management Plan is also recommended to be secured by condition as requested by Heathrow Airport Safeguarding. Fire Safety 7.42 The submitted Fire Safety Statement provides the relevant details regarding means of warning and escape including an evacuation regime, fire resistance and fire stopping measures, the use of suitable materials, emergency access and fire safety management. However it is not based on the latest revision site plan , therefore in the event of an approval, an updated fire safety statement is recommended to be secured by condition and would be subject to consultation with London Fire Brigade. Land Contamination 7.43 The site is located within a designated potentially contaminated area and a Phase I Geoenvironmental Site Assessment has been submitted in support of the application. Having reviewed the assessment, the Council’s Land Contamination Officer has no objection to the proposal. As recommended, in the event of an approval a condition would be attached to secure a scheme to deal with contamination. Planning Obligations 7.44 On the basis of the NPPF and the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulation 2010, it is only considered appropriate to request planning obligations relating to the following: i. Air Quality Mitigation Contribution of £39,481. ii. A Healthy Streets/Active Travel Zone contribution of £35,000. iii. A Project Management and Monitoring Fee, equalling 5% of the total financial contributions to be paid under this agreement. 7.45 The applicant has agreed to the above Heads of Terms and a s106 legal agreement with the Council is in preparation. All financial contributions will be required prior to the commencement of the development. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 7.46 The scheme would be liable for payments under the Community Infrastructure Levy. If approved, the final CIL liability would be set out in the CIL Liability Notice following determination of the application in line with the CIL Regulations. This Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press would be issued following a full review of all the material available to the Council's Planning Obligations Team at that time. 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 ri ghts included in the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to the applicant's reasonable development rights and expectations which have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance. Equality 8.2 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the asse ssment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. 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 su bject to a s106 legal agreement and the conditions set out in Appendix 1 (below). 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents taken into account in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential information) are available on the Council's website here, by entering the planning application number at the top of this report and using the search facility. Planning applications are also available to inspect electronically at the Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW upon appointment, by contacting Planning Services at planning@hillingdon.gov.uk. AAPPENDICES Planning Application 41632/APP/2025/2468 Hillingdon Planning Committee - 14th July 2026 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 23 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. COM3 T Time Limit Full Planning Permission (Phase 1): The development subject to Full Planning Permission hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Outline Planning Permission (Phase 2): The development subject to Outline Planning Permission hereby permitted shall begin either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the reserved matters to be approved for each phase, whichever is the later. REASON To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. COM2 O Outline Reserved Matters 2 For the land identified as Phase 2 as hatched in green on drawing number 7935 - SMR - 00 - ZZ - DR - A - 2014 - S3 - P2 (revised), the submission of applications for the reserved matters (being scale, layout, appearance and landscaping) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of one year from the date of this permission and approved in writing before any development on that phase begins. REASON To comply with Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended). 3. COM4 A Accordance with Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers: - 7935 - SMR - 00 - ZZ - DR - A - 2001 - S3 - P4 - 7935 - SMR - 00 - ZZ - DR - A - 2003 - S3 - P18 (revised) - 7935 - SMR - 00 - ZZ - DR - A - 2004 - S3 - P19 (revised) - 7935 - SMR - 00 - ZZ - DR - A - 2005 - S3 - P6 (revised) - 7935 - SMR - 00 - ZZ - DR - A - 2006 - S3 - P8 (revised) - 7935 - SMR - 00 - ZZ - DR - A - 2007 - S3 - P6 (revised) - 7935 - SMR - 00 - ZZ - DR - A - 2008 - S3 - P6 (revised) - 7935 - SMR - 00 - ZZ - DR - A - 2011 - S2 - P3 (revised) - 7935 - SMR - 00 - ZZ - DR - A - 2012 - S2 - P4 (revised) - 7935 - SMR - 00 - ZZ - DR - A - 2013 - S2 - P1 (revised) - 7935 - SMR - 00 - ZZ - DR - A - 2014 - S3 - P2 (revised) Hillingdon Planning Committee - 14th July 2026 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 23 - 7935 - SMR - 01 - ZZ - DR - A - 2101 - S3 - P4 (revised) - 7935 - SMR - 01 - ZZ - DR - A - 2102 - S3 - P4 - 7935 - SMR - 02 - ZZ - DR - A - 2103 - S3 - P3 - 7935 - SMR - 03 - ZZ - DR - A - 2104 - S3 - P4 - 7935 - SMR - 03 - ZZ - DR - A - 2105 - S3 - P3 - W.003850 - RED - XX - XX - DR - M - 2010 T1 - W.003850 - RED - XX - XX - DR - Z - 2000 T1 - W.003850 - RED - XX - XX - DR - E - 2300 P3 - 0586 - WSP - XX - XX - DR - L - 1001 P07 (revised) - 0586 - WSP - XX - XX - DR - L - 1011 P02 - 0586 - WSP - XX - XX - DR - L - 1012 P02 - 242120 - ECE - ZZ - XX - DR - C - 5211 P5 - 242120 - ECE - ZZ - XX - DR - C - 9001 P4 and shall thereafter be retained/maintained for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012), Part 2 (2020) and the London Plan (2021). 4 4. COM5 G General compliance with supporting documentation The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the following has been completed in accordance with the specified supporting plans and/or documents: - Active Travel Zone Assessment, 12th March 2025, Mayer Brown - Air Quality Positive Statement, 784-B070271, 16th January 2026, Tetra Tech - Archaeological assessment, 11 August 2025, RPS Group - Energy Statement Rev. R002, 18/06/2025, RED - Flood Risk Assessment, Rev. P4, 08/09/25, EirEng - Noise Impact Assessment, September 2025, Tetra Tech - Phase 1 Geo-environmental Assessment Desk Top Study, V1 - Final, June 2025, Tetra Tech - Planning Fire Safety Statement, Rev. 2, 17/06/25, Socotec UK - Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report, Ref. No. 001, September 2025, WSP - Refuse Management Strategy, Rev. V3, September 2025, Tetra Tech - Solar Glare Assessment, 06 June 2025, Hollis - Sustainable Drainage Strategy, Rev. P3, 08.08.25, EirEng - Technical Note - TN02, 14th November 2025, Mayer Brown - Transport Assessment, 17th September 2025, Mayer Brown - Travel Plan Statement, 8th August 2025, Mayer Brown Thereafter the development shall be retained/maintained in accordance with these details for as long as the development remains in existence. Hillingdon Planning Committee - 14th July 2026 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 23 REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012), Part 2 (2020) and the London Plan (2021). 5 5. COM11 R Restrictions on Changes of Uses (Part 3, Sch. 2 GPDO 1995 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any orders revoking and re-enacting either of these orders with or without modification), the Food and Beverage unit hereby approved shall only be used for retail uses falling within Use Class E(b) and for no other purpose. REASON To safeguard the vitality and vibrancy of nearby town centres, shopping areas and local parades and to protect the amenities of nearby residential occupiers, in accordance with Policies DMHB 11, DMTC 1, DMTC 2 and DMTC 3 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and Policy E9 of the London Plan (2021). 6. COM22 O Operating Hours The Class E(b) Food and Beverage unit shall only operate between the following hours: 08:00 and 23:00 Mondays - Saturdays 08:00 and 18:00 Sundays, Public or Bank Holidays. No customers shall be permitted on the premises outside these times. REASON To protect the amenities of nearby residential occupiers in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and Policies D13 and D14 of the London Plan (2021). 7. COM9 L Landscaping (car parking & refuse/cycle storage) Prior to commencement of each phase development (excluding demolition and works below slab level), a landscape scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include: - 1. Details of Soft Landscaping 1.a Planting plans (at not less than a scale of 1:100), 1.b Written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken, 1.c Schedule of plants giving species, plant sizes, and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate 2. Details of Hard Landscaping 2.a Refuse Storage Hillingdon Planning Committee - 14th July 2026 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 23 2.b Cycle Storage 2.c Means of enclosure/boundary treatments 2.d Car Parking Layouts 2.e Hard Surfacing Materials 2.f External Lighting 2.g Detailed internal layout plan including swept path analysis 3. Details of Landscape Maintenance 3.a Landscape Maintenance Schedule for a minimum period of 5 years. 3.b Proposals for the replacement of any tree, shrub, or area of surfing/seeding within the landscaping scheme which dies or in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority becomes seriously damaged or diseased. 4. Schedule for Implementation 5. Other 5.a Existing and proposed functional services above and below ground 5.b Proposed finishing levels or contours The Class E(b) Food and Beverage unit shall not be occupied until the approved landscaping for Phase 1 has been implemented in full. Thereafter the development shall be carried out and maintained in full accordance with the approved details. REASON To ensure that the proposed development will preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and provide adequate facilities in compliance with Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 14, DMEI 1 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 8 8. COM8 T Tree Protection Notwithstanding the approved plans, prior to commencement of each phase development, the following details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority with respect to: 1. A method statement outlining the sequence of development on the site including demolition, building works and tree protection measures. 2. Detailed drawings showing the position and type of fencing to protect the entire root areas/crown spread of trees, hedges and other vegetation to be retained shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. No site clearance works or development shall be commenced until these drawings have been approved and the fencing has been erected in accordance with the details approved. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority such fencing should be a minimum height of 1.5 metres. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. The fencing shall be retained in position until development is completed. The area within the Hillingdon Planning Committee - 14th July 2026 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 23 approved protective fencing shall remain undisturbed during the course of the works and in particular in these areas: 2.a There shall be no changes in ground levels; 2.b No materials or plant shall be stored; 2.c No buildings or temporary buildings shall be erected or stationed. 2.d No materials or waste shall be burnt; and. 2.e No drain runs or other trenches shall be dug or otherwise created, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. 3. Where the arboricultural method statement recommends that the tree protection measures for a site will be monitored and supervised by an arboricultural consultant at key stages of the development, records of the site inspections / meetings shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. REASON To ensure that trees and other vegetation can and will be retained on site and not damaged during construction work and to ensure that the development conforms with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 9 9. COM10 T Trees to be retained Trees, hedges and shrubs shown to be retained on the approved plan(s) shall not be damaged, uprooted, felled, lopped or topped without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. If any retained tree, hedge or shrub is removed or severely damaged during (or after) construction, or is found to be seriously diseased or dying, another tree, hedge or shrub shall be planted at the same place or, if planting in the same place would leave the new tree, hedge or shrub susceptible to disease, then the planting should be in a position to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and shall be of a size and species to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be planted in the first planting season following the completion of the development or the occupation of the buildings, whichever is the earlier. Where damage is less severe, a schedule of remedial works necessary to ameliorate the effect of damage by tree surgery, feeding or groundwork shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. New planting should comply with BS 3936 (1992) 'Nursery Stock, Part 1, Specification for Trees and Shrubs' Remedial work should be carried out to BS BS3998:2010 'Tree work - Recommendations' and BS 4428 (1989) 'Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations (Excluding Hard Surfaces)'. The agreed work shall be completed in the first planting season following the completion of the development or the occupation of the buildings, whichever is the earlier. REASON To ensure that the trees and other vegetation continue to make a valuable contribution to the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and to comply with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 10. COM7 P Parking design and management plan Hillingdon Planning Committee - 14th July 2026 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 23 Notwithstanding the approved plans, prior to commencement of each phase development (excluding demolition and works below slab level), a Parking, Design and Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Highway Authority. The plan shall detail car parking provision, indicating how the car parking will be designed and managed. Thereafter the development shall be implemented and operated in accordance with the approved details. REASON To allow sufficient space for all vehicles to access the application site and neighbouring sites, and to safeguard the safety of highway users, in accordance with Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) and Policies T4 and T6 of the London Plan (2021). 1 11. SUS6 T Travel Plan Prior to commencement of Phase 1 development (excluding demolition and works below slab level), a Travel Plan incorporating real-time signage to manage travel demand to reduce congestion risk and promote sustainable transport choices shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Highway Authority. The real-time signage shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved and shall thereafter be retained and maintained. REASON To mitigate traffic impacts and promote sustainable transport modes in accordance with Policies DMT 1 and DMT 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 12. OM19 D Demolition and Construction Management Plan Prior to commencement of each phase development (excluding demolition and works below slab level), a demolition and construction management plan to the Local Planning Authority for its approval. The plan shall detail: (i) The phasing of development works (ii) The hours during which development works will occur (please refer to informative 4 for maximum permitted working hours). (iii) A programme to demonstrate that the most valuable or potentially contaminating materials and fittings can be removed safely and intact for later re-use or processing. (iv)Measures to prevent mud and dirt tracking onto footways and adjoining roads (including wheel washing facilities). (v) Traffic management and access arrangements (vehicular and pedestrian) and parking provisions for contractors during the development process (including measures to reduce the numbers of construction vehicles accessing the site during peak hours). (vi) Measures to reduce the impact of the development on local air quality and dust through minimising emissions throughout the demolition and construction process. (vii) The storage of demolition/construction materials on site. Hillingdon Planning Committee - 14th July 2026 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7 of 23 The approved details shall be implemented and maintained throughout the duration of the demolition and construction process. REASON To safeguard the amenity of surrounding areas in accordance with Policies DMHB 11 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 1 13. COM22 I Internal Layout Design Prior to commencement of each phase development (excluding demolition and works below slab level), detailed plans of the internal layout design (including gradients, footways, tactile paving, dropped kerbs, pedestrian crossing, secure and sheltered cycle parking, waiting restrictions, road markings etc) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Highway Authority. These works shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with the approved plans, agreed details and completed prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved and shall thereafter be retained and maintained. REASON To ensure construction of a satisfactory development and to promote sustainable development in accordance with Policy T2 and T4 of the London Plan (2021). 14. COM8 B Bird Hazard Management Plan Prior to commencement of each phase development (excluding demolition and works below slab level), a Bird Hazard Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Part 2 – Application Report Case Officer: Samuel Patten 79950/APP/2026/575 Date Application Valid: 20/03/2026 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 31/07/2026 Application Type: Householder Ward: Harefield Village Applicant: Ms Suzanne Clarke Site Address: 107 Newdigate Road East, Harefield, UB9 6ES Proposal: Rebuilding of single storey store with cavity wall and increasing height to create wet room. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 6 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (the Council is the Applicant) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Planning permission is sought for the rebuild ing of single storey store with cavity wall and increasing height to create wet room. The application is brought forward for Committee determination due as the Council has a financial liability in the property and as such in accordance with the current Hillin gdon Constitution is required to be determined by Committee. No representations have been received from the public 1.2 The character and appearance of the dwellinghouse and surrounding area would not be impacted by the proposal due to its modest scale. The development proposed involves a like for like replacement footprint to the storeroom to create a wet room for the current occupant. 1.3 For this same reason the amenities of the neighbouring property would not be detrimentally impacted. Officers also to into consideration the need for provision of accessible homes, when considering the planning balance 1.4 On the basis of the assessment carried ou t, it is concluded that the proposal complies with the Development Plan, and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. The planning application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site consists of a semi-detached two storey dwellinghouse and is located on the northern side of Newdigate Road, East, Harefield. To the front is a garden, and to the rear is a medium sized garden. This property and the neighbouring property at No. 109 Newdigate Road East both have stores that adjoin each other over the boundary between the two properties. 2.2 The surrounding local area is resid ential in character and is made up of dwellinghouses of similar designs. To the North of Newdigate Road, East is the school grounds of The Harefield Academy. 2.3 There is no planning restrictions applied to this site that would impact this proposal Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application Property 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the rebuild ing of single storey store with cavity wall and increasing height to create wet room. The proposal will replace an existing store of similar footprint. The relevant dimensions of the proposal are listed below. 3.2 Existing Store Depth – 6.00m Width – 2.00m Maximum Height – 1.25m Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3.3 Proposed Shower Room Depth – 6.00m Width – 2.00m Maximum Height – 2.85m Figure 3: Proposed Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 No relevant planning history for this site. 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 Six neighbouring properties were consulted on the application by letter dated 25- 03-2026. The consultation period expired 17-04-2026 6.2 No representations were made to this application. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The application site is located in an ar ea of existing residential development. Alterations and extensions to properties are considered acceptable in principle within these locations. Character and Appearance 7.2 Policy BE1 (Built Environment) of The Hi llingdon Local Plan: Part One Strategic Policies (2012) seeks a quality of desig n in all new development that enhances and contributes to the area in terms of form, scale and materials; is appropriate to the identity and context of the townscape; and would improve the quality of the public realm and respect local character. 7.3 Policy DMHB 11 (Design of New Development) of Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) advises that all development will be required to be designed to the highest st andards and incorporate principles of good design. It should take into account aspects including the scale of the development considering the height, mass and bulk of adjacent structures; building plot sizes and established street patterns; building lines and streetscape rhythm and landscaping. It should also not have an adverse impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. 7.4 Policy DMHD 1 (Alterations and Extensions to Residential Dwellings) requires that alterations and extension of dwellings would not have an adverse cumulative impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and should appear subordinate to the main dwelling. It also requires that there is no unacceptable loss of outlook to neighbouring occupiers. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.5 The proposal being assessed involves th e partial demolition of the existing attached store located to the rear north-eastern corner of the property, in order to rebuild the structure with a flat roof an d insulated walls for use as an accessible wet room. The footprint and size of the structure would not be significantly different to what is already existing on site, with the proposed maximum height being 2.85m compared to the current 2.50m. The location of the structure to the area of the property also reduces its potential impact upon the character and appearance of the wider street scene. The proposed ma terials will be matching or similar to those of the existing store and dwellinghous e, and the similar appearance of the materials will be secured by condition to ensure compliance for the lifetime of the development. 7.6 Overall, Officers consider that the proposal is acceptable with respect to its design and impact upon the character and appear ance of the dwelling and surrounding local area. This is in accordance with the objectives of Policies DMHB 11 and DMHD 1 of Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Accessibility 7.7 In considering this application, the propos ed wet room is seen as a package to improve to habitability of the property for a person with disabilities. Whilst directed at larger scale developments, Policy D5 (Inclusive Design) of the London Plan 2021 is relevant in this instance as it encourages Local Authorities to promote designs that improve access to properties for those with disabilities. 7.8 Officers therefore consider that in this instance any harm caused by appearance would be outweighed by the need to improve access to the property to allow a disabled person to live in the property comfortably. Residential Amenity 7.9 Polices DMHB 11 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) seeks to ensure that development proposals do not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. 7.10 The proposal would not result in detrimental levels of harm to the amenities of the neighbouring properties due to its modest size and the proposed use as an accessible shower wet room being considered acceptable for a residential property. 7.11 Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development would not lead to detrimental harm of the adjacent properties amenities and therefore accords with Policies DMHB 11 and DMHD 1of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Private Outdoor Amenity Space Provision 7.12 In terms of private outdoor amenity space at the property, circa 110 sqm would be retained if the proposal was built. This is above the minimum required private outdoor amenity space standards for a 4+ bed dwellinghouse as set out in Table 5.3 (Private Outdoor Amenity Space Standards) of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part Two: Development Management Policies (2020). Therefore, the proposal is considered to meet the objectives set out in Hillingdon Local Plan Part Two: Development Management Policies (2020) Policy DMHB 18 Private Outdoor Amenity Space. Parking Provision and Highway Safety 7.13 Existing parking arrangements would not be impacted as a result of the proposal being built out. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not result in a significant increase in pressure for street parking or prejudice highway safety, in accordance with Policy DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two: Development Management Policies (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. Equality 8.2 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the assessment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.3 Not applicable. The proposed development is not CIL liable. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 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 (below). 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents taken into account in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential information) are available on the Council's website here, by entering the planning application number at the top of this report and using the search facility. Planning applications are also available to inspect electronically at the Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW upon appointment, by contacting Planning Services at planning@hillingdon.gov.uk. AAPPENDICES Planning Application 79950/APP/2026/575 - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 5 11. 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: Site Location Plan PROJ/3231/102 Rev A (Proposed Floor Plans) PROJ/3231/103 (Proposed Elevations and Sections AA) 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. HO7 N No roof gardens 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 policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Informatives - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 5 11. I52 C Compulsory Informative (1) The decision to GRANTplanning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act (1998) (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 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 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. I53 C Compulsory Informative (2) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020) set out below, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and to all relevant material considerations, including The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London consolidated with alterations since 2011 (2016) and national guidance. DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 18 Private Outdoor Amenity Space DMHD 1 Alterations and Extensions to Residential Dwellings DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP D5 (2021) Inclusive design NPPF12 -24 NPPF12 2024 - Achieving well-designed places NPPF4 -24 NPPF4 2024 - Decision making - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 5 AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 5 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 DMT 6 Vehicle Parking DMHD 1 Alterations and Extensions to Residential Dwellings LPP D5 (2021) Inclusive design NPPF4 -24 NPPF4 2024 - Decision making NPPF12 -24 NPPF12 2024 - Achieving well-designed places - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 5

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Rhian Thomas 23589/APP/2025/3164 Date Application Valid: 24-03-26 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 21-07-26 Application Type: Full Ward: Hayes Town Applicant: Paul Adams Site Address: Hayes Hawks BMX Track, Lake Farm Country park, Dawley Road, Hayes, UB3 1EJ. Proposal: Erection of new floodlighting to the perimeter of the existing BMX Track. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 6 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (the Council is the Applicant) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 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 The application seeks full planning permission for the installation of 6 no. 15m high floodlighting columns around the existing BMX track at Lake Farm Country Park, Hayes. The proposal is intended to support the continued and extended use of this established recreational facility, pa rticularly during evening periods and the winter months. 1.2 The key planning considerations relate to the principle of development, impact on the Green Belt, design and visual impact , residential amenity, highways, ecology and biodiversity, as well as technical matters including flooding, contaminated land and other environmental considerations. 1.3 The proposal is considered acceptab le in principle as an enhancement to an existing community recreational facility and is supported by national, regional and local planning policy. It is not inappropr iate development within the Green Belt, would preserve openness, and would not give rise to unacceptable impacts in respect of character and appearance, neighbouring amenity, highway safety, or environmental factors. 1.4 Due regard has been given to all material planning considerations and the submitted supporting information. It is concluded that the proposal complies with the Development Plan, and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. The planning application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site relates to an existing BMX track located within Lake Farm Country Park, Hayes. The site forms part of a large area of public open space characterised by grassland, recreational uses and associated infrastructure, including a skate park and ancillary structures connected to the BMX facility. 2.2 The site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt. A small portion of the site is identified as being at risk of surface water flooding. The site is also located within the Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and within the defined buffer zone of a landfill site Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2.3 The character of the surrounding area is defined by open space, with residential properties located at a significant distance from the BMX track along Dawley Road and surrounding streets. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application Site Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the installation of 6 x 15 metre floodlights to the perimeter of the existing BMX Track. Figure 3: Proposed Flood Light Arrangement (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4: Proposed Scale Plan (height of pole) Figure 5: Proposed Layout and Lighting Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 6: Proposed lighting plan 4 Relevant Planning History A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Four neighbouring properties were consulted on the application by letter dated 25- 03-26. The consultation period expired 17-04-26. 6.2 A site notice was displayed 26-03-26 and expired 19-04-26. A press advertisement was also displayed on 15-04-26 and expired 07-05-26. 6.4 No public representations have been received. 6.5 Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 1 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Table 1: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Contaminated Land Officer No objection in relation to the application on land contamination , subject to land contamination informative. This is noted and the relevant informative note added. Highway Authority No objection, subject to a condition to ensure lighting is shielded to prevent glare or light spillage onto the adjacent public highway. This is noted and a compliance condition has been added to ensure the lighting is carried out in accordance with the submitted details. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the installation of floodlighting around the existing BMX track at Lake Farm Country Park, Hayes. The proposal comprises 6 x 15m raise -and-lower lighting columns fitted with LED luminaires positioned around the perimeter of the established track. 7.2 The BMX track is a long-standing use within the park, leased from the Council and operated by a community sports club. The proposal does not involve a change of use or loss of open space, but instead represents ancillary development to support and enhance an existing recreational use 7.3 At a national level, the NPPF (2024) su pports the retention and enhancement of sports and recreational facilities. Paragraph 96 encourages planning decisions that enable and support healthy lifestyles, including through access to high quality open space and opportunities for sport and recreation. Paragraph 103 also supports the protection and continued us e of existing sports facilities. The proposed lighting would enable safe, extended use of the track during evenings and winter months, increasing accessibility and community participation. 7.4 At the strategic level, the London Plan (2 021) supports improvements to social infrastructure. Policy S1 (Developing Lo ndon’s social infrastructure) seeks to ensure infrastructure meets community needs, while Policy S5 (Sports and recreation facilities) supports the retentio n and enhancement of existing sports facilities. The proposal would improve the us ability of an established facility and increase its availability to the local community. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.5 At local level, the proposal accords with Policies DMCI 1 and DMCI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Policy DMCI 1 (Infrastructure Provision) supports the provision and enhancement of community infrastructure, while Policy DMCI 2 (Open Space, Sport and Recreation) supports improvements to existing recreational facilities and resists their lo ss. The proposal would not result in any loss of open space and instead represents a n enhancement to an established sporting use. 7.6 Accordingly, the development is considered to represent a proportionate enhancement to an existing community facility and is acceptable in principle, subject to other material planning considerations. Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.7 The application proposes the installation of 6 no. 15m high floodlighting columns positioned around the perimeter of the existing BMX track within Lake Farm Country Park. The columns are of a simp le, functional design and incorporate modern LED luminaires designed to direct light downwards onto the track. 7.8 The site forms part of a large area of open space characterised by expansive grassland, recreational uses and associated infrastructure. The BMX track itself, along with other features such as the adjacent skate park and ancillary equipment, already introduces elements of built form and activity within this part of the park. In this context, the proposed lighting co lumns would read as ancillary features associated with an established sporting use, rather than incongruous structures. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 7: Areal Image of Site (Search Google Earth) 7.9 Whilst the columns would have a height of 15m, their slender profile and limited number (6 in total) would ensure that they do not appear overly dominant or visually intrusive within the wider open landscape. The spacing of the columns around the track, together with the presence of surrounding vegetation and existing recreational infrastructure, would further reduce their visual prominence. The development would therefore not result in an overbearing form of development or materially detract from the open character of the park. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 8: View of the site from southeast corner Figure 9: View of site from northwest corner Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 10: View of centre of the site 7.10 In policy terms, the proposal accords with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020), which seeks to ensure that new development is appropriately designed and respects the character and a ppearance of the surrounding area. Similarly, Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) requires development to respond positively to its context and be of a high -quality design, while Policy D8 supports the provision of well-designed public realm and recreational spaces. 7.11 Taking these considerations into account, the proposed floodlighting is appropriately sited, of an appropriate scale and designed such that it would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. The development is therefore compliant with the above policy framework. Impact on the Green Belt 7.12 Paragraph 153 of the NPPF (2024) stat es that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 7.13 Paragraph 154 of the NPPF (2024) goes on to state that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of a number of exceptions applies, including the provision of appropriate facilities (in conn ection with the existing use of land or a change of use), including buildings, for ou tdoor sport and recreation, as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. 7.14 At the regional level, London Plan (2021) Policy G2 (London’s Green Belt) confirms that the Green Belt should be afforded the strongest protection and that inappropriate development should be refused except in very special circumstances, in line with national policy. 7.15 At the local level, Policy EM2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 and Policy DMEI 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) seek to protect the openness and permanence of the Green Belt, resisting inappropriate development unless it falls within an identified exception or very special circumstances are demonstrated. 7.16 The proposed development comprises the installation of 6 no. 15m high floodlighting columns to serve an existing BMX track, which is an outdoor sports facility within a public park setting. Th e lighting is directly related to, and functionally necessary for, the continued and enhanced use of the track, particularly during evenings and winter months when daylight is limited. The proposal is therefore considered to repres ent an appropriate ancillary facility to support outdoor sport. 7.17 In assessing whether the development sa tisfies the requirements of Paragraph 154(b), regard must be had to its impact on the openness of the Green Belt, which has both spatial and visual dimensions. 7.18 In spatial terms, the development would result in a negligible impact on openness, as the proposal does not involve the erection of buildings or substantial structures that would enclose or occupy significant space. The lighting columns have a limited physical footprint and are distribute d around the perimeter of the existing track, which is already in active recreational use. 7.19 In visual terms, it is acknowledged that the columns would have a height of 15 metres and would be visible within the surrounding open landscape. However, the structures are of a slender, utilitarian de sign and limited in number (6 in total), ensuring that they do not appear unduly prominent or overbearing when viewed within the context of a large and active recreational space. The siting of the columns adjacent to an existing BMX facility, together with surrounding vegetation and established recreational features, ensures that they are read as part of the existing sporting infrastructure rather than as isolated or intrusive elements within the wider Green Belt. Furthermore, the lighting units are designed to be directional and used only during defined hours, thereb y limiting wider visual effects and avoiding unnecessary light spill into the surrounding Green Belt. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.20 Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal would preserve the openness of the Green Belt and would not conflict with the purposes of including land within it, particularly given that the site would remain in its established use for outdoor recreation and would continue to contribute to the openness and function of the wider Green Belt. 7.21 Accordingly, the development is considered to fall within the exception set out in Paragraph 154(b) of the NPPF (2024) and is therefore not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As such there would not be a requirement for the applicant to demonstrate very special circumstances in justifying the development. Residential Amenity 7.22 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) seeks to ensure that development does not adversely impact the amenity of neighbouring occupiers by reason of, among other matters, dominance, visual intrusion, noise, light pollution or other disturbance. 7.23 The application site is located within Lake Farm Country Park and is well separated from surrounding residential properties. The nearest residential properties along Dawley Road are approximately 290 metres from the site, whilst properties along Botwell Common Road ar e approximately 258 metres away. In addition, Lake Farm Park Academy is located approximately 330 metres from the site. These separation distances are subs tantial and provide a significant buffer between the development and any sensitive receptors. 7.24 The proposed development comprises the installation of 6 no. 15m floodlighting columns around an existing BMX track. In terms of their physical presence, the columns would be located within an established recreational area and, given the distances involved, would not give rise to any overbearing impact, loss of outlook, loss of light or sense of enclosure for neighbouring occupiers. 7.25 The submitted lighting specification confirms that the proposed luminaires are designed with strong directional control, with fittings angled downwards towards the track to minimise upward light spil l. The scheme utilises specialist sports lighting equipment with beam control to ensure that illumination is contained within the site. The supporting lighting assessment demonstrates compliance with recognised standards for obtrusive light (CIE 150:2017), with testing confirming no unacceptable glare or light spill towards surrounding receptors or the adjacent highway. These measures ensure that the proposed lighting would not result in significant light intrusion or glare. 7.26 Furthermore, the lighting would only be used during defined operational hours associated with training sessions and wo uld be switched off when not in use, thereby limiting the duration of any illumination. Should the application be determined f or approval, a condition a condition is recommended restricting the hours the floodlighting can be used to 9:30pm. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.27 In terms of noise and activity, whilst the provision of lighting would allow for use of the BMX track during darker periods, particularly in winter months, the site would continue to operate as an established recre ational facility. Given the significant separation distances to the nearest residential properties, it is not considered that the proposal would result in any material increase in noise or disturbance that would harm neighbouring amenity. 7.28 Overall, having regard to the siting of the development, the substantial distances to neighbouring properties, and the controlled lighting design, the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. The development is therefore considered to comply with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Highways and Parking 7.29 Policy DMT 2 (Highway Impacts) of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) seeks to ensure that development would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the efficient operation of the highway network. 7.30 Policy DMT 5 (Pedestrians and Cyclists) supports proposals that do not prejudice the safety of non-motorised users. 7.31 At a strategic level, Policy T2 (Healthy Streets) of the London Plan (2021) requires development to ensure safe and efficient movement of people and vehicles, including avoiding impacts that could compromise highway safety. 7.32 Paragraph 116 of the NPPF (2024) similarly requires that development should only be prevented or refused on high ways grounds where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or where the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. 7.33 The application relates solely to the installation of floodlighting to an existing BMX track and does not involve any alterations to access arrangements, parking provision or the overall use of the site. As such, the proposal is not expected to materially increase trip generation or place additional demand on the highway network. 7.34 The Council’s Highway Authority has revi ewed the submitted details, and it is noted that the luminaires are angled downw ards with strong directional control, and the columns are positioned such that they do not align with the adjacent highway. The submitted modelling demonstrates that there would be no direct glare or light spill affecting the highway, and no adverse impact on driver visibility. 7.35 The Highway Authority is satisfied that the proposal would not give rise to glare or distraction to road users and would not adversely affect highway safety or the operation of the network during evening hours. Furthermore, given that the proposal does not intensify the use of t he site beyond its existing lawful use, no material increase in traffic generation is anticipated. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.36 Accordingly, the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal, subject to a condition requiring the lighting to be installed and operated in accordance with the approved details and to prevent glare or light spill onto the highway. 7.37 Having regard to the above, the propos al is considered acceptable in highways terms and compliant with Policies DMT 2 and DMT 5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020), Policy T2 of the London Plan (2021), and the relevant provisions of the NPPF (2024). Noise 7.38 Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021) seeks to ensure that development does not result in unacceptable noise impacts on surrounding land uses. 7.39 The proposal relates to the installation of floodlighting to an existing BMX track and does not introduce any new noise-generating equipment. Whilst the provision of lighting would enable the continued use of the facility during darker hours, particularly in winter months, the use of the site for recreational purposes is already well established. 7.40 The site is located within a large area of open space and is separated from the nearest residential properties, such that any noise associated with the use of the BMX track would dissipate over distance. The proposal is not expected to materially increase the intensity or frequency of use beyond its existing operation, and any activity would remain consistent with the established use of the site. 7.41 Furthermore, the use of the lighting wou ld be limited to defined hours, which can be controlled by condition, ensuring that activity does not extend to late night periods. 7.42 Having regard to the above, the proposal is not expected to give rise to unacceptable noise impacts and is considered to comply with Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021). Air Quality 7.43 The site is located with in the Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), where development is expected to minimise emissions and avoid adverse impacts on local air quality. 7.44 The proposal relates solely to the installat ion of floodlighting to an existing BMX track. The development would not materially increase traffic generation or introduce combustion sources and therefore would not result in any measurable impact on local air quality. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Accessibility 7.45 Policy D5 of the London Plan (2021) (I nclusive Design) seeks to ensure that development is designed to be inclusive and accessible to all users. The proposal does not involve any alterations to the layout, access arrangements or usability of the existing facility. As such, it would no t prejudice inclusive access to the site, and the BMX track would remain accessible to all users in the same manner as existing. The development is therefore considered to comply with Policy D5 of the London Plan (2021). Trees and Landscaping 7.46 Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) seeks to ensure that development protects and enhances existing trees, hedgerows and landscaping features. 7.47 The proposed development involves the installation of 6 no. floodlighting columns positioned around the existing BMX track. The columns would be sited within areas of existing soft landscaping (grass) associated with the established recreational use of the site. 7.48 The proposal would not result in the removal of any trees or significant vegetation. The lighting columns would be supported by small-scale foundations with a limited physical footprint, and as such would not result in any material harm to the surrounding landscaped environment. 7.49 It is acknowledged that some minor ground disturbance would be required to facilitate the installation of the columns and associated foundations. However, this would be localised and temporary in nature and can be appropriately controlled through the use of planning conditions requiring the reinstatement of any disturbed land to its existing condition following completion of the works. In addition, a condition can secure the removal of the floodlighting and restoration of the land should the structures become redundant in the future. 7.50 Given the nature and scale of the proposal, and its siting within an established area of managed open space, it is c onsidered that the development would not adversely impact existing landscaping feat ures or the wider green setting of the park. T he development would therefore comp ly with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Ecology 7.51 A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) has been submitted in support of the application, based on a site survey undertaken in October 2025. 7.52 The site comprises managed grassland, hardstanding associated with the BMX track, and boundary hedgerows, which form part of a wider green corridor within Lake Farm Country Park. These habitats are considered common and of low intrinsic ecological value, although they provide some opportunities for wildlife. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.53 The assessment confirms that there ar e no statutory ecological designations within 2km of the site, and no evidence of protected species being present on the site that would be directly affected by the proposal. 7.54 The site and surrounding parkland may provide commuting and foraging habitat for bats, particularly along boundary hedgerows, and may also support species such as breeding birds, reptiles and hedgehogs. However, the report concludes that the proposed development would not result in significant impacts on these species, given the limited scale of works and the absence of habitat loss. 7.55 In relation to the proposed lighting, the PEA identifies a potential for minor disturbance to bats but concludes that impacts would be limited due to the seasonal and restricted use of the floodlighting, with most usage occurring during winter months when bat activity is low. Furthermore, the lighting design and specification is intended to limit light wider spillage beyond the site, thereby limiting wider ecological impact. 7.56 Overall, the PEA concludes that the development would not give rise to significant ecological harm, subject to the implementation of standard good practice measures during construction. Officers therefore consider that the development would comply with Policy DMEI 7 of the Hill ingdon Local Plan Part 2 and Policy G6 of the London Plan 2021. Biodiversity Net Gain 7.57 Biodiversity net gain is a way of creating and improving biodiversity by requiring development to have a positive impact ('net gain') on biodiversity. In England, biodiversity net gain is required under a statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by the Environment Act 2021). This statutory framework is referred to as 'biodiversity net gain' in Planning Practice Guidance to distinguish it from other or more general biodiversity gains. 7.58 Under the statutory framework for biod iversity net gain, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning per mission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met ("the biodiversity gain condition"). This objective is for development to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat. 7.59 In this instance, the proposal is considered to fall within the de minimis exemption, as the development would result in only a very small -scale loss of non- priority habitat associated with limited ground works for the installation of lighting columns. The submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal confirms that the proposal would not result in any significant habitat loss and therefore a requirement to deliver 10% biodiversity net gain would not be triggered. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Flooding and Drainage 7.60 The application site is not located within Flood Zone 2 or Flood Zone 3, and is therefore at low risk of fluvial flooding. Whil st a small part of the wider site lies within an area identified as being at risk of surface water flooding, the proposed floodlighting columns are not positioned within this area. 7.61 The proposal relates to the installation of lighting columns only and would not introduce significant areas of hardstanding or alter existing ground levels. As such, the development would not affect surfac e water drainage patterns or increase flood risk on or off site. Accordingly, the proposal is considered acceptable in flood risk and drainage terms. Land Contamination 7.62 The application is supported by a Phase II Contamination and Geotechnical Assessment (Land Science Ltd, November 2025). The investigation comprised intrusive ground works including boreholes and laboratory testing of soil samples across the site. 7.63 The assessment found: - No evidence of significant contamination within the soils, with no visual or olfactory indicators recorded during site investigation. - Laboratory analysis confirmed that contaminant concentrations do not exceed relevant human health or environmental screening levels, and no significant risks to end users or controlled waters have been identified. - No ground gas risks or radon issues were identified, and no specific gas protection measures are required. - All soils were classified as non-hazardous, with materials suitable for reuse on site or disposal as inert waste. 7.64 The report concludes that no remediat ion measures are necessary and that the site is suitable for the proposed development. 7.65 The Council’s Contaminated Land Officer has reviewed the submitted information and raises no objection to the proposal. However, given the site’s proximity to a landfill buffer area, an informative is recommended to ensure appropriate construction techniques are employed to minimise potential ground gas ingress during any groundworks. 7.66 Having regard to the above, the proposal would be acceptable where assessed in relation to Policies DMEI 11 and DMEI 12 of the Local Plan Part 2 , subject to the recommended informative. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 8 Other Matters Human Rights 8.1 The development has been assessed against the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and in particular Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the Act itself. This Act gives further effect to the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to the applicant's reasonable development rights and expectations which have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / the Devel opment Plan and Central Government Guidance. Equality 8.2 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the assessment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.3 Not applicable as the proposed development is not CIL liable. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The proposal seeks to enhance an existing BMX facility within Lake Farm Country Park through the provision of floodlighting, enabling its contin ued and extended use during evenings and winter months. The development is supported in principle by national, London Plan and local p lanning policies which seek to promote participation in sport and the provision and enhancement of community infrastructure. 9.2 The proposal has been carefully assessed against all relevant material considerations. It is considered acceptable in Green Belt terms, falling within the exception set out in Paragraph 154(b) of the NPPF (2024), and would preserve the openness and function of the Green Belt. Furthermore, the development would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, nor would it give rise to unacceptable impacts on neighbour ing amenity, highway safety, ecology, or other environmental considerations. 9.3 Overall, the proposal represents a proportionate and appropriate enhancement to an established recreational use, providing community benefits without giving rise to material harm. 9.4 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 (below). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 14 July 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents taken into account in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential information) are available on the Council's website here, by entering the planning application number at the top of this report and using the search facility. Planning applications are also available to inspect electronically at the Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW upon appointment, by contacting Planning Services at planning@hillingdon.gov.uk. AAPPENDICES Planning Application 23589/APP/2025/3164 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 9 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. COM3 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. COM4 A Accordance with Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers: Proposed Site Plan Rev B dated 10/02/2025 Proposed Site Plan p4f/uk/1396182/1870257 dated 24 March 2026 Lighting Plan Rev B dated 21/02/2025 OLKF-15LDBH dated 11/09/2022 15BHFPAL Scale Drawing dated 02/02/2026 Issue A and shall thereafter be retained/maintained for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions Hillingdon Local Plan Parts 1 (November 2012) and 2 (January 2020) and the London Plan (2021). 3. COM5 G General compliance with supporting documentation The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the details, methodologies, specifications and recommendations contained within the following supporting documents: Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report by Start Ecology Ltd dated November 2025 LED Lighting Installation Hayes Hawks BMX Race Club by Kingfisher Sport Phase II Contamination and Geotechnical Assessment reference LS8892 Version A dated 26th November 2025 Thereafter the development shall be retained/maintained in accordance with these details for as long as the development remains in existence REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions Hillingdon Local Plan Parts 1 (November 2012) and 2 (January 2020) and the London Plan (2021). Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 9 44. NONSC F Floodlighting Restriction The floodlighting hereby approved shall only operate during the following hours: Monday to Sunday 09:00 - 21:30 The lighting shall not operate at any other times. REASON To safeguard the amenity of surrounding properties in accordance with policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020); and to protect the ecological value of the area, in accordance with Policy DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 5. NONSC R Reinstatement of Landscaping The development hereby permitted shall be carried out so as to minimise disturbance to the existing ground conditions. Any areas of land disturbed during the installation of the floodlighting, including excavations for foundations, shall be reinstated to their former condition (or as close as reasonably practicable) within 3 months of the completion of the development. REASON To safeguard the visual amenities of the area and the character of the open space in accordance with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 6. NONSC R Removal of Floodlighting In the event that the floodlighting is no longer required, the columns, foundations and associated infrastructure shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition (or as close as reasonably practicable). REASON To safeguard the visual amenities of the area and the character of the open space in accordance with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Informatives 1. The Council's records show that the development site is directly adjacent to a potentially contaminated land identified as within 250 metres of a landfill buffer and or may have ground conditions which suggest possible ground gas risks.. Construction Techniques - It is recommended that the ground penetrating structures are designed and constructed to prevent/minimise the possible entry of any migrating landfill gas/ground gas. Please contact your building surveyor and/or architect if you require advice concerning suitable construction Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 9 techniques. 22. 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. 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 9 44. I52 C Compulsory Informative (1) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act (1998) (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). I53 C Compulsory Informative (2) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020) set out below, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and to all relevant material considerations, including The London Plan (2021) and national guidance. DMCI 1 Retention of Existing Community Sport and Education Facilities DMCI 2 New Community Infrastructure DMCI 7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy DMEI 12 Development of Land Affected by Contamination DMEI 4 Development on the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land DMEI 6 Development in Green Edge Locations DMEI 7 Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists LPP D14 (2021) Noise LPP D3 (2021) Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach LPP D5 (2021) Inclusive design LPP D8 (2021) Public realm LPP G2 (2021) London's Green Belt LPP G6 (2021) Biodiversity and access to nature LPP S1 (2021) Developing London's social infrastructure LPP S5 (2021) Sports and recreation facilities LPP T2 (2021) Healthy Streets LPP T4 (2021) Assessing and mitigating transport impacts Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 9 NPPF12 -24 NPPF12 2024 - Achieving well-designed places NPPF13 -24 NPPF13 2024 - Protecting Green Belt land NPPF4 -24 NPPF4 2024 - Decision making H Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 9 AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History 23589/A/99/0760 Lake Farm Botwell Lane Hayes Change of use from agricultural land to public open space, erection of a boundary fence and associated landscaping Decision: 03-06-1999 Approve Deemed Hill. 23589/APP/2000/1705 Lake Farm Botwell Lane Hayes PROVISION OF CAR PARK AND NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS TO DAWLEY ROAD PLUS DETAILS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED LANDSCAPING, SITE LEVELS AND SERVICE ROUTING, DETAILS OF NATURE CONSERVATION ENHANCEMENT, MEANS OF ENCLOSURE AND SCHEME OF PROPOSALS FOR USE OF THE SITE AS PUBLIC OPEN SPACE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS 2,4,5,6 AND 7 OF PLANNING PERMISSION REF.23589A/99/760 DATED 03/06/99 Decision: 22-09-2000 Approved 23589/APP/2000/215 Land At Lake Farm Botwell Lane Hayes ERECTION OF A COMBINED VEHICLE AND HEIGHT BARRIER AND BOLLARDS Decision: 22-03-2000 Approve Deemed Hill. 23589/APP/2006/600 Lake Farm Park Dawley Road Hayes INSTALLATION OF SKATE RAMPS AND CREATION OF SUNKEN SKATE AREA ADJACENT TO EXISTING BMX TRACK. Decision: 29-12-2006 Approved 23589/B/99/1755 Lake Farm Botwell Lane Hayes Details of boundary treatment involving erection of fencing and bollards with associated landscaping in compliance with condition 6 of planning permission ref.23589A/99/760 dated 03/06/99; Change of use from agricultural land to public open space Decision: 02-11-1999 Approved Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7 of 9 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 PT1.CI1 (2012) Community Infrastructure Provision PT1.EM2 (2012) Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Green Chains PT1.EM7 (2012) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Part 2 Policies: DMCI 1 Retention of Existing Community Sport and Education Facilities DMCI 2 New Community Infrastructure DMCI 7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy DMEI 4 Development on the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land DMEI 6 Development in Green Edge Locations DMEI 7 Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement DMEI 12 Development of Land Affected by Contamination DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists LPP D3 (2021) Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach LPP D5 (2021) Inclusive design Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 8 of 9 LPP D8 (2021) Public realm LPP D14 (2021) Noise LPP G2 (2021) London's Green Belt LPP G6 (2021) Biodiversity and access to nature LPP S1 (2021) Developing London's social infrastructure LPP S5 (2021) Sports and recreation facilities LPP T2 (2021) Healthy Streets LPP T4 (2021) Assessing and mitigating transport impacts NPPF12 -24 NPPF12 2024 - Achieving well-designed places NPPF13 -24 NPPF13 2024 - Protecting Green Belt land NPPF4 -24 NPPF4 2024 - Decision making H Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 9 of 9