Planning

Minutes HILLINGDON PLANNING COMMITTEE 14 July 2026 Meeting held at Committee Room 5 - Civic Centre Committee Members Present: Councillors Philip Corthorne (Chair), Darran Davies (Vice -Chair), James Bourke, Daniel Singham (in place of John Garner) , Ella Garelick, Jagji t Singh and Shehryar Ahmad-Wallana Also Present: Councillor Ekta Gohil – Ward Councillor for Northwood LBH Officers Present: Ed Laughton – Area Planning Service Manager Grace Liu – Area Planning Service Manager Chris Brady – Planning Team Leader Eoin Concannon – Planning Team Leader Mike Kemp – Deputy Team Leader Emile Bateman– Senior Planning Officer Dr Alan Tilly – Transport Planning and Development Team Manager Natalie Fairclough – Legal Advisor Anisha Teji – Democratic Services Chris Lamb – Planning Officer Christos Chrysanthou – Senior Planning Officer 176. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) Apologies for absence were received from Councillor John Garner with Councillor Daniel Singham substituting. 177. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS COMING BEFORE THIS MEETING (Agenda Item 2) Councillor Philip Corthorne declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 9 as he had made objections to the application. He left the room for discussion and voting of the item. 178. TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3) RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 4 June 2026 be agreed as an accurate record. 179. MATTERS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OR URGENT (Agenda Item 4) None. 180. TO CONFIRM THAT THE ITEMS OF BUSINESS MARKED PART I WILL BE CONSIDERED IN PUBLIC AND THE ITEMS MARKED PART II WILL BE CONSIDERED IN PRIVATE (Agenda Item 5) It was confirmed that all items would be heard in Part I. 181. 44 MURRAY ROAD, NORTHWOOD - 1787/APP/2025/1849 (Agenda Item 6) Demolition of existing dwellinghouse, and erection of two storey building containing 5no. self -contained flats with associated landscaping, parking, cycle and bin storage (revisions 19.06.26) Officers introduced the application, took Members through the plans and addendum. A recommendation for approval was made. A petitioner addressed the Committee and referred to photographs circulated prior to the meeting. It was submitted that, whilst there was support for additional housing, over 75 residents had objected to the proposal. Concerns were raised regarding the scale of the development, loss of garden space, impact on the character of the area, neighbour amenity, biod iversity, parking pressures and highway safety. Members were advised that objections had also been received from the local MP and the Northwood Residents’ Association. The agent addressed the Committee and submitted that the proposal would provide additional homes in accordance with planning policy. Members were advised that the scheme had been amended in response to feedback and would provide a high standard of accommodation, retain key landscaping features and deliver ecological enhancements. It was furt her noted that no objections had been raised by technical consultees, the Highway Authority had found the access arrangements acceptable and a Section 106 Agreement would be completed. Councillor Ekta Gohil, Ward Councillor for Northwood, addressed the Co mmittee in support of residents’ concerns. Reference was made to the petition signed by over 75 residents, changes to the character of the road, parking pressures and traffic issues. A site visit was requested to enable Members to better understand the imp act of the proposal. In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed that structural matters would be addressed through the Building Regulations process. Members were advised that each dwelling would have one parking space and that future occupiers wo uld be excluded from the local parking permit scheme through a legal agreement. Existing trees and hedging would be retained and protected by conditions. It was also noted that daylight and sunlight assessments had been undertaken and that revisions to the scheme had improved its impact with neighbouring properties. A motion to defer the application for a site visit was moved and seconded. The Legal Adviser reminded Members that a site visit should only be requested where they considered that there was ins ufficient information available to reach an informed decision. Members considered that a site visit would assist in assessing the impact of the development to neighbouring properties, parking conditions, daylight and sunlight impacts, and the character of the surrounding area. Following this advice, the motion was put to the vote and was unanimously approved. RESOLVED: That the application be deferred for a site visit. 182. 15 KEWFERRY ROAD, NORTHWOOD - 26090/APP/2024/813 (Agenda Item 7) Erection of first floor rear extension. RECONSULTATION 21 Days - Reason for consultation - Amended Plans uploaded 10/03/2026 with accurate dimensions and survey carried out which correspond with the revised Independent Daylight Sunlight Survey carried out on the 19th March 2025) Officers introduced the application, took Members through the plans and made a recommendation for approval. A petitioner addressed the Committee and referred to photographs that had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting. Concerns were raised regarding the accuracy of the submitted plans and the daylight and sunlight assessment, including the positioning of neighbouring windows and the reliability of the assessment conclusions. The Legal Adviser advised that any concerns r egarding the application process should be pursued through the Council’s complaints procedure and that speaking time should focus on the planning issues raised within the petition. The petitioner submitted that the assessment did not accurately reflect the level of daylight and sunlight currently received by neighbouring rooms and alleged that the proposal would result in a significant loss of light to the kitchen, conservatory and garden areas. It was further contended that the development would have an ov erbearing impact on neighbouring residential amenity and adversely affect the enjoyment of the adjoining property. In response to a Member question, it was confirmed that the daylight and sunlight assessment had been revisited. The petitioner maintained c oncerns regarding the accuracy of the plans and the positioning of windows used within the assessment. The agent nor applicant were in attendance. Councillor Ekta Gohil, Ward Councillor for Northwood, addressed the Committee and supported the petitioner 's concerns. It was submitted that the daylight and sunlight impacts had not been adequately reflected in the assessment and concerns were raised regarding the accuracy of the plans. A site visit was requested to enable Members to assess the relationship between the properties and the potential impact on neighbouring windows and amenity. During Members discussions officers advised that the daylight and sunlight assessments complied with the relevant standards and had been independently reviewed. It was confirmed that the plans had been re -surveyed and revised during the application process and were considered accurate. Members were also advised that, following concerns raised by the petitioner, specialist consultants had revisited the site and neighbouring property and confirmed that the proposal would continue to provide acceptable levels of daylight and sunlight to neighbouring habitable rooms. In response to Members’ questions, officers presented the daylight sunlight test results findings and clarified that all three assessed rooms Kitchen (Habitable), Reception (Habitable) and Utility (Non-Habitable) complied with the relevant BRE daylight sunlight guidance. Members acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns and the potential impact on residential amenity however noted that the proposal complied with the relevant planning policies. The officer recommendation was moved, seconded and , upon being put to the vote, was unanimously approved. RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation. 183. 8 KILN WAY, NORTHWOOD - 48867/APP/2025/3235 (Agenda Item 8) Conversion of front attached garage to a habitable use, front porch extension, proposed side windows and retention of the existing garage doors (14 -DAY RE- CONSULTATION FOLLOWING AMENDED PLANS) Officers introduced the application, took Members through the plans and made a recommendation for approval. Neither the petitioner, the applicant nor the agent was in attendance. Members were advised that the issues raised in the petition had been addressed through amendments made to the scheme during the application process. The officer recommendation was moved, seconded and, upon being put to the vote, was unanimously approved. RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation. 184. 54 HIGH STREET, RUISLIP, HA4 7AT - 14226/APP/2025/3062 (Agenda Item 9) 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 and installation of 7no. roof lights and associated fenestration changes, private balconies, together with bike and bin storage to provide an additional floor of residential (Tota l 5 flats Use Class C3). Councillor Corthorne left the room for this item. Officers introduced the application, took Members through the plans and made a recommendation for approval. Members were advised that, following further consultation with Highwa ys, the car -free nature of the development would be secured through a unilateral undertaking restricting future occupiers from applying for a Zone R1 parking permit. A petitioner addressed the Committee and advised that, whilst they did not object to the conversion of the existing building to residential accommodation in principle, concerns remained regarding the scale, height and intensity of the proposed development. It was submitted that the additional storey and roof -level balconies would result in overdominance, overshadowing, loss of daylight and increased overlooking of neighbouring properties, particularly the petitioner's flat and outdoor amenity space. Concerns were also raised regarding noise, light disturbance, privacy, parking pressures and the siting of the proposed cycle and refuse stores. The petitioner requested that suitable mitigation measures be secured should th e application be approved. The agent addressed the Committee and advised that the proposal would bring a vacant town centre bui lding back into use, providing five new homes whilst retaining a viable commercial unit at ground floor level. It was submitted that the scheme had been amended in response to local concerns and incorporated mitigation measures to protect neighbouring amen ity, including obscure glazing, screening to the proposed balconies and restrictions on overlooking. The agent advised that the proposal complied with relevant planning policy, would enhance the appearance of the building and conservation area, and would m ake effective use of a sustainable brownfield site without giving rise to unacceptable impacts on neighbouring amenity, highways or heritage assets. In response to Members' questions, it was confirmed that refuse and recycling facilities would be provided within an enclosed bin store adjacent to the building and that the cycle and refuse storage arrangements complied with policy requirements. Members noted that the proposal would provide much needed housing and that no unacceptable planning harm had been identified. The officer recommendation was moved, seconded and, upon being put to the vote, was unanimously approved. RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation. 185. PREMIER INN, 3 RIVERSIDE WAY, UXBRIDGE, UB8 2YF - 79146/APP/2024/2943 (Agenda Item 10) 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. Officers introduced the application, took Members through the plans and made a recommendation for approval. Members sought clarification on the policy justification for the proposal and were advised that the site formed part of the existing hotel's o perational parking area. Clarification was also sought regarding fire safety, and officers confirmed that a Fire Statement had b een submitted and that they were satisfied the matter had been adequately addressed. It was further confirmed that a condition r estricting the duration of stays formed part of the recommended planning conditions. The officer recommendation was moved, seconded and upon being put to the vote was unanimously approved. RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation. 186. 266-278 YEADING LANE, HAYES, UB4 9AX - 3723/APP/2024/2902 (Agenda Item 11) Partial demolition of existing building, construction of a two storey upward extension and internal works to provide 14 residential units, enhancem ent 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. Officers introduce d the application, took Members through the plans and a recommendation for approval was made. Members sought clarification on sustainability measures, parking provision and the impact of the proposal on the street scene. Officers advised that the scheme incorporated a range of energy efficiency measures and that an updated energy strategy would be secured by condition. It was confirmed that the development would be largely car-free, with two disabled parking bays provided, and that no objections had been raised by the Council's Air Quality Officer. Following concerns about traffic during construction, Members agreed that Conditi on 18 should be strengthened to restrict construction and delivery vehicles during peak periods and prevent vehicle waiting and engine idling near the site. Officers also advised that, despite the increase in height, the design and roof form would reduce the visual impact and improve the appearance of the parade. With the agreed amendment to Condition 18, the officer recommendatio n was moved, seconded and when put to the vote was approved, with five votes in favour and one abstention. RESOLVED: That the a pplication be approved as per officer recommendation subject to the amendment to condition 18. 187. FORMER NCP CAR PARK, BATH ROAD, SIPSON, UB7 0DU - 41632/APP/2025/2468 (Agenda Item 12) Hybrid application consisting of Phase (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 Phase (2) Outline planning permission for a future extension to the facility, with all associated matters reserved except for access. Officers introduced the application, took Members through the plans and addendum. A recommendation for approval was made. Members welcomed the proposal and sought clarification on the Section 106 contributions, noise, dust and landscaping measures. Officers advised that the financial contributions would be used for air quality improvements and healthy streets measures connected to the development. It was also confirmed that landscaping, noise mitigation and dust management would be secured through planni ng conditions and the Construction Management Plan. The officers’ recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to the vote, was unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation. 188. 107 NEWDIGATE ROAD EAST, HAREFIELD, UB9 6ES - 59842/APP/2026/575 (Agenda Item 13) Demolition of existing detached storage building and erection of single storey side extension. The officers’ recommendation was moved, seconded and when put to the vote, was unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation. 189. HAYES HAWKS BMX TRACK, LAKE FARM COUNTRY PARK, DAWLEY ROAD, HAYES, UB3 1EJ - 23589/APP/2025/3164 (Agenda Item 14) Erection of new floodlighting to the perimeter of the existing BMX Track. The officers’ recommendation was moved, seconded and when put to the vote, wa s unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation. The meeting, which commenced at 7.00 pm, closed at 9.23 pm. These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of the resolutions please contact Anisha Teji on ateji@hillingdon.gov.uk. Circulation of these minutes is to Councillors, Officers, the Press and Members of the Public.

Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Dimitra Angelopoulou 7969/APP/2024/2451 Date Application Valid: 02.10.2024 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 16.09.2026 Application Type: Full Ward: Ruislip Manor Applicant: Chase New Homes Ltd Site Address: The Barn Hotel, West End Road, Ruislip Proposal: Partial demolition of 1no. Grade II Listed Building and conversion of Listed Buildings to provide 3no. dwellings. Demolition and redevelopment of the remainder of the site (hotel - C1 Use Class) for residential use (Class C3) with associated access, infrastructure and landscaping. (Planning Application linked to LBC Reference 7969/APP/2024/2452). ( Amended plans and description of development change 24/04/26) 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 – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory section 106 legal agreement to secure the heads of terms set out below, and subject to the conditions as set out in Appendix 1. S106 Legal Agreement Heads of Terms It is recommended that delegated powers be given to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth to grant planning permission subject to the following: A) That the Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or any other legislation to secure the following: i. Affordable Housing: The obligation shall include an Early and Late- Stage Viability Review mechanism. ii. Delivery of approved listed building works: - Before the completion of all of Blocks A-C, the overall approved listed building works under this current application 7969/APP/2024/2451 and listed building application reference 7969/APP/2024/2452 shall have been completed. iii. London Healthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU) financial contribution of £94,106 to fund enhanced or new health facilities within the London Borough of Hillingdon. iv. Air Quality Mitigation contribution of £62,106. v. Carbon Offset Contribution of £64,889. vi. Public Open Space Contribution: A financial contribution of £95,000 for new, enhanced or improved access to open space within the London Borough of Hillingdon. vii. Employment/Construction Training Scheme: An Employment/ Construction Training Scheme secured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD. viii. Residential Parking Permits restriction (excluding Blue Badge holders). ix. Project Management and 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 application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in prepar ing the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press C) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreement and conditions of approval. D) That, if the Legal Agreement has not been finalised within 6 months (or such other time frame as may be agreed by the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth ), delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth to refuse planning permission for the following reason: 'The applicant has failed to mitigate the impacts posed by the proposed development (in respect of Affordable Housing, Health, Delivery of the listed buildings conversion, Air Quality, Carbon Emissions, Public Open Space and Employment). The scheme therefore conflicts with Policies DMH7, DMHB 1, DMEI 2, DMEI 14, DMCI 4, DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020); the adopted Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2014); Policies H2, H4, H5, H6, HC1, E11, G4, SI1, SI2, DF1 of the London Plan (2021); and the National Planning Policy Framework (2026).' 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 originally submitted proposal has been revised during the course of the application, following a process of consultation with Council’s Officers. The revised application seeks full planning permission for the partial demolition of 1no. Grade II Listed Building and conversion of Listed Buildings to provide 3no. dwellings, along with demolition and redevelopment of the remainder of the site (hotel - C1 Use Class) for residential use (Class C3), incorporating new building blocks and dwellings that would range between two and four storeys in height to accommodate a total of 71 residential units. This would comprise 26x 1-bedroom homes (37%), 30x2 -bedroom homes (42%), 14x3- bedroom homes (20%) and 1x4-bedroom homes (1%), with no affordable housing provision. 1.2 A total of 22 no. car parking spaces of active electric vehicle charging, including 2-7 disabled spaces are proposed, alongside provision of a new primary access off Garden Close, whilst maintaining th e existing West End Road as dedicated access provision for emergency and pedestrian access purposes only with bollards demountable for fire vehicle access (with the exception of two houses of Block A). Improvements and activation to the norther n public footpath are also proposed. 1.3 The application site measures 0.96 hectares in area and comprises the former ‘Barn Hotel’ with several buildings. It is situated to the south of Ruislip station and to the east of West End Road. Within the centre of the site are Grade II Listed Buildings consisting of Sherley's Farmhouse, the Leaning Barn and the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Oak Room. It has a Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) of 4, on a scale of 0 to 6b where 6b is the highest. 1.4 The application site does not fall within a Town Centre or dedicated area identified for hotel growth within the Local Plan and, therefore, no objection is raised to the principle of the change of use from hotel to residential accommodation. It should be noted that the s ite has historically been used to provide residential accommodation according to the heritage listings. The proposals represent an efficient and appropriate re-use of previously developed land, and the principle of the proposed residential use is therefore supported. 1.5 The proposal for 21% family housing (equal to 14x3-bed houses and 1x4-bed house) contributes to meeting related housing needs within the borough and is a benefit of the scheme. However, following viability testing by the Council's third-party consultants, no affordable housing is proposed, subject to securing a legal agreement for Early and Late -Stage Viability Review mechanisms in the event that affordable housing could be provided in the future. In addition, the proposal would not meet the communal and pr ivate amenity space and on -site play space requirements. 1.6 The latest revision is an improvement to the original scheme in its character, appearance, connectivity and relationship to its immediate surroundings. It makes good use of a well -located site through a car- lite, residential-led redevelopment that maximises housing, brings the listed buildings back into viable use, and provides improvements in wider connectivity and wayfinding. It is also considered that the scheme as amended would not result in any significant impact to the amenity of surrounding residential properties. 1.7 Historic England is supportive of the scheme and commends the thoughtful response to context and the collaborative approach that has been taken. The densification of development around the Gr ade II listed buildings could make it more difficult to understand them as once rural buildings set in a spacious landscape . The proposal is therefore considered to cause less than substantial harm to the listed buildings, mainly through changes to their setting. In accordance with Policy HE6 of the NPPF (2026), where harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset is identified, that harm must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing the long-term reuse of the listed building, which this proposal would provide. 1.8 Planning obligations are proposed to secure early and late-stage affordable housing viability review mechanisms and delivery of the listed building works to safeguard the heritage assets and ensure their viable use. Contributions are secured towards health infrastructure, air quality mitigation, carbon offsetting and public open space enhancement. An employment strategy and construction training scheme are to be secured alongside restricting parking permit allocations. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 1.9 Subject to the planning conditions and obligations recommended, the proposed development is considered, on balance, acceptable with respect to design, heritage, residential amenity, environmental issues, transport, and sustainability. When weighed against the less than substantial harm identified to the setting of the listed buildings, the public benefits of the proposal are considered to outweigh that harm. In reaching this decision, significant weight is afforded to the contribution that the proposal makes towards the Borough’s housing supply (a net contribution of 71 residential units). This is particular important because the Council has an evidenced unmet housing need as it cannot currently demonstrate a five -year supply of deliverable housing sites (the most recent position statement published on 1st April 2026 confirmed a 2.5 year supply). 1.10 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compu lsory Purchase Act 2004 states that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the reasons outlined above and within the main body of the report, the application is considered to broadly comply with the Development Plan. Where there are minor conflicts with the Development Plan, there considered to be sufficient mitigating factors and benefits which outweigh such conflicts. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to securing the planning conditions set out in Appendix 1 and a Section 106 legal agreement. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site, as outlined in red in Figure 1 below, measures 0.96 hectares in area and comprises the former ‘Barn Hotel’ with several buildings. It is currently used as temporary accommodation. It is situated to the south of Ruislip station, where a public footpath to the north offers connection via stairs, and to the east of West End Road. Within the centre of the site are Grade II Listed Buildings consisting of Sherley's Farm house, the Leaning Barn and the Oak Room. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Aerial Site Location Plan (application site edged red) 2.2 The northern part of the site adjacent to the Metropolitan Underground line is occupied by two buildings that are arranged in long blocks ("I" and "T" blocks). These provided the main accommodation for the hotel. The listed farmhouse, shown in Figure 2 below, were also used for accommodation purposes. To the south of the farmhouse, are the listed barn and its outbuildings - Leaning Barn and Oak Room, shown in Figure 3 below with their recent extensions - that were used as dining and reception areas . The hotel accommodation comprised 73 bedrooms. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Photograph of the Sherley’s Farmhouse (Grade II listed) (sourced from the Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment) Figure 3: Photograph of the Barn and outbuildings to south-east of Sherley’s Farmhouse (Grade II listed) (sourced from the Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment) 2.3 The site lies within the Ruislip Town Centre Air Quality Focus Area. It has a Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) of 4, on a scale of 0 to 6b where 6b is the highest. Immediately to the south are 1-38 Gardens Close, part three and part four storey Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press residential apartment blocks, and to the east are the rear gardens of the dwellings in Eversley Crescent. Immediately to the north is Ruisli p Station with associated footbridge and signal box of Grade II listed and further to the north-west is Ruislip Village Conservation Area. A four- storey flatted development is located at Sherleys Court on the west side of West End Road. 3 Proposal 3.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the partial demolition of 1no. Grade II Listed Building and conversion of Listed Buildings to provide 3no. dwellings , along with d emolition and redevelopment of the remainder of the site (hotel - C1 Use Class) for residential use (C lass C3) with associated access, infrastructure and landscaping . Figure 4 below shows the proposed site plan of the proposal. Figure 4. Proposed landscaped site plan: please note – larger versions of plans can be found in the Committee Plan Pack Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3.2 In particular, the proposal as amended would involve converted and new building blocks and dwellings that would range between two and four storeys in height to accommodate a total of 71 residential units together with associated landscaping, provision of a new access off Garden Close, car parking (including disabled parking bays), cycle parking, refuse stores and servicing arrangements. 3.3 The proposed layout would comprise the following (from south to north): - Block A on the entrance off West End Road: 2x2-storey semi- detached houses, - Block B, facing West End Road: 4-storey building to provide 8 flats, - Block C: 3-storey building to provide 15 flats, - Block D: 2x 2-storey semi- detached houses, to the south of the listed barn, - Block E: 2x 2-storey semi- detached houses, to the south of the listed Sherley’s Farmhouse, - Block F - listed barn converted to 2x houses; a two storey 2-bedroom house and a single storey 2-bedroom house, - Block G – listed farmhouse converted to 1x4-bedroom house, - Block H located to the rear ga rdens of Eversley Crescent: 2-storey terrace of 8 houses, and - Block K to the rear of the Ruislip station: 4- storey building to provide 31 flats. 3.4 The proposal would provide a mix of 26x1-bedroom homes (37%), 30x2-bedroom homes (42%), 14x3-bedroom homes (20%) and 1x4-bedroom homes (1%). As set out within the report there is no affordable housing proposed within the development due to viability. 3.5 Regarding the access, the proposal would be accessed for pedestrians, cyclists and, where necessary, emergency vehicles from the existing access West End Road (A4180) via the existing Wood Lane/West End Road mini-roundabout .This access would be controlled through the installation of retractable bollards across a 4.5m wide level surface. Limited vehicular access would be provided solely to serve the two units within Block A, located at the West End Road junction. Garden Close would form the main vehicular access to the development (Blocks B to K). There would be 22 car parking spaces within the centre of the site (2 of them in front of Block A, to be accessed via West End Road only). A total of 134 residents’ cycle parking spaces and 3 short-stay spaces would be provided within the site. 3.6 The proposal would involve private garden s or balconies for all new residential units. Two landscaped open spaces would be provided; one close to the new access via Garden Close and one in front of Block K (the railway block). 3.7 The proposed appearance, materials and elevations are shown in Figures 5, 6, 7 and 8 below and would mainly involve brick in a range of brick tones to subtly differentiate between buildings, and metal balconies. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 5: Illustrative Proposed Aerial view highlighting the proposed material palette – edged in red Figure 6: Proposed Long Elevations 1 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 7: Proposed Long Elevations 2 Figure 8: Proposed Long Elevations 3 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3.8 During the course of the application, full amendments were agreed and submitted as part of a revised proposal . In particular, a new layout was submitted, involving fully revised blocks in shape, height and siting, and a new main access from Garden Close. The previous proposal was for 72 residential units with main access from West End Road. For completeness, Figure 9 below, shows the originally proposed site plan. 3.9 Figure 9: SUPERSEDED – Originally proposed site plan 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 – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4.2 Of note is the associated Listed Buil ding Consent application referenced 7969/APP/2024/2452 which relates to the current application and is reported to the Planning Committee simultaneously. The description is as follows: ‘Listed Building Consent for the partial demolition of Grade II Listed Building and conversion of the two listed buildings from hotel (C1 Use Class) to accommodate three residential dwellings (C3 Use Class) (LBC linked to planning application reference 7969/APP/2024/2451 for the rede velopment of the remainder of the site). 4.3 Also of particular relevance is a listed building application referenced 7969/APP/2023/1833 was consented on 2 October 2023 for the following: ‘Listed Building Application for the partial demolition an d conversion of existing Grade II Listed Buildings for residential use with associated landscaping and parking’. 4.4 However, this 2023 Listed Building Cons ent was associated with Full Planning Application referenced 7969/APP/2023/1473 for: ‘Redevelopment of the site for residential use involving the partial demolition of the existing Grade II Listed Building and conversion to 2 new residential units, demolition of surrounding buildings and erection of 2 new residential blocks with associated amenity space, landscaping and parking.’ 4.5 The scheme proposed 96 residential units across 2 six storey blocks, 7 terraced properties and the converted listed buildings. The application was refused on 15 September 2023 for the following reasons: 1. ‘ The proposed development by reason of its size, scale, bulk, massing, siting and design would be an inappropriate, over-development of the site that would be detrimental to the setting of these Grade II listed buildings, thus resulting in less than substan tial harm to these heritage assets. Furthermore, the proposal lacks necessary detail in respect to the physical impact on and treatment of the historic fabric of the listed buildings. Thus, the level of harm to the fabric of the listed buildings, whilst less than substantial, cannot be fully determined. Consequently, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the benefits of the proposal would outweigh the identified and potential harms. The application is therefore contrary to Policies HE1 of the Hilling don Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), Policies DMHB 1, DMHB 2 and DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020), Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and Chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021). 2. The proposed development by reason of its size, scale, bulk, massing, design, appearance, layout and visual prominence would result in a visually dominant, overdevelopment of the site, that would be at odds with the distinctive suburban character of the su rrounding area, harming the visual amenity and character of the ar ea. As such the proposal fails to accord with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One (November Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2012), Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Development Management Polices (2020), Policies D3 and D8 of the London Plan (2021) and Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) including paragraphs 130 and 134. 3. The proposed unit mix fails to provide sufficient family sized units, as required by the latest information on housing need in the Borough. The proposed development fails to contribute towards mixed and balanced communities and the range of housing types required within the Borough contrary to Policy DMH 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) and Policy H10 of the London Plan (2021). 4. The proposed cycle parking design does not conform to the London Cycling Design Standards which would result in the impractical design of cycle parking, thus reducing the level of cycle use. The application submission is therefore contrary to Policy DMT 5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020) and Policy T5 of the London Plan (2021). 5. The application fails to demonstrate that the scheme provides the necessary level of overheating mitigation to prevent the unnecessary overheating of the proposed residential units, thus resulting in poor quality and unsustainable living conditions for pro spective residents. The application submission is therefore contrary to Policy SI4 of the London Plan (2021). 6. The application fails to demonstrate that the proposed development would be provided with adequate levels of daylight and sunlight amenity, thus resulting in poor quality living conditions for prospective residents. The application submission is therefore contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One (2012) and Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020), Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021), and the BRE Guidelines: Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight (2022). 7. The application fails to demonstrate that suitable and appropriate sustainable drainage systems have been incorporated into the design. The application submission is therefore contrary to Policy DMEI 9 and DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020), Policy EM6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (2012), London Plan Policies SI 5, SI 12 and SI 13 (2021) and paragraph 169 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021). 8. The submitted ecology report fails to provide adequate information to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in detrimental harm to bat roosts. The application submission therefore fails to demonstrate the protection of bats and is cont rary to Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy EM7 and DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Parts 1 (2012) and 2 (2020) respectively. 9. The proposal fails to provide adequate provision of disabled units designed to accessible standards and th erefore fails to adhere to the requirements of inclusive design. As such, the proposed development fails to accord with Poli cies D5 and D7 of the Lond on Plan (2021) and Chapters 8 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 10. The application fails to provide adequate levels of amenity space to serve the occupants of the development, resulting in poor quality living conditions for prospective residents, contrary to Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 11. In the absence of a completed section 106 agreement, the applicant has failed to provide contributions towards the improvement of services and facilities as a consequence of demands created by the proposed development (air quality mitigation, employment an d construction training, carbon offset, health, travel plan and monitoring, public open space, highway improvement wo rks, affordable housing and the prevention of future occupiers from joining the local parking management scheme). The scheme therefore conf licts with Policy DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020), the London Borough of Hillingdon Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations (2014) and Policy DF1 of the London Plan 2021).’ 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. Emerging Planning Policies 5.2 Policy DM4, paragraph 1, of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2026 states: “1. When preparing and considering development proposals, relevant policies in emerging development plans may be given weight according to: a. The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); b. The extent to which there are unresolv ed objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objection s, the greater the weight that may be given); and c. The degree of compliance of the relevant policies in the emerging plan with the policies for plan -making in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework, the greater the weight that may be given to them).” Draft London Plan (July 2026) 5.2 The GLA are consulting on a draft new London Plan between 16th July and 15th October 2026 with the intention of replacing the previous version of the existing London Plan. Following the consultation, the draft London Plan will be subject to an independent Examination in Public before final adoption, expected in early 2028. 5.3 As the unresolved objections have not yet been submitted and published for decision-makers to review, limited weight can be afforded to the Draft London Plan (July 2026) at present. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 A total of 122 no. letters were sent to neighbouring properties, site notices were displayed and an advert was posted in the local paper. The original neighbour consultation process expired on 25th October 2024, and 149 objections were received from residents. A petition in objection was also received with 66 valid signatures, from the residents of Eversl ey Crescent and Willow Grove. The Ruislip Residents' Association (RRA) , the Ruislip, Northwood and Eastcote Local History Society and two Local Ward Councillors also submitted letter s of objection. 6.2 Following receipt of full amended drawings and reports in 2026, full re- consultation was carried with all neighbouring properties previously notified, along with those who also responded, whilst amended site notices were posted and the application was re -advertised in the local newspaper. The revised neighbour consultation process expired on 2 nd June 2026 and 67 responses were received; 66 objecting and 1 in support. A petition in objection was also received with 26 valid signatures, from the residents of the retirement Sherley’s Court. The Ruislip Residents' Associatio n (RRA), the Ruislip, Northwood and Eastcote Local History Society and two Local Ward Councillors also submitted letters of objection. 6.3 Representations received in response to the public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee response s 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 First Consultation (October 2024) 149 objections received Petition in objection received with 66 valid signatures. Ruislip Residents' Association Overdevelopment of the site, inappropriate scale, massing and design to respond to the local character . This matter is addressed in Paragraphs 7.9 to 7.12, and 7.26 and 7.37 of the report. The proposal is not sympathetic to the historic buildings. At least Historic England and GLAAS should be consulted and their conditions attached. Open sightlines, heritage sensitive landscaping, and This matter is addressed in Paragraphs 7.66 to 7.78 of the report. Please refer to Conditions 12 (Materials), 14 (Landscape), 8 (Written Scheme of Investigation) and 29 (Signage and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press (RRA), the Ruislip, Northwood and Eastcote Local History Society and Councillors Mills and O’Brien also submitted letters of objection. Second consultation (May 2026) 66 objections and 1 in support received Petition in objection received with 26 valid signatures. Ruislip Residents' Association (RRA), the Ruislip, Northwood and Eastcote Local History Society and Councillors Mills and O’Brien also submitted letters of objection. interpretive signage to preserve the historic legibility of the barns should be proposed. Wayfinding Strategy) as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. Loss of privacy and overlooking of neighbouring gardens . This matter is addressed in Paragraphs 7.81 to 7.89 of the report. Boundary Fencing should be conditioned. Please refer to Condition 14 (Landscape) as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. Loss of light. This matter is addressed in Paragraphs 7.90 to 7.93 of the report. Noise and disturbance on neighbouring amenities. The proposal would be for residential use in a residential area. As such, no unusual or harmful noise and disturbance would be expected as a result of this residential development. The revised scheme relies mainly on private gardens and balconies, with limited communal space. This matter is addressed in Paragraphs 7.49 to 7.59 of the report. Parking overspill and increased traffic concerns resulting to harmful highway safety due to the new main entry being from Garden Close. Proposal should adjust to allow vehicle access from West End Rd and updated parking demand The impact of the development on the surrounding highways network is addressed in Paragraphs 7.117 to 7.141 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press assessment should be provided. Construction traffic should be via the West End Rd access, concerns over dust and pollution from works . A condition requiring the submission of a Construction Management and Logistics Plan would be secured by Condition 4 as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. Pressure on local services - Financial contributions, (CIL/S.106) to support the development of health services at the Pembroke Centre in Pembroke Rd, Ruislip and to youth recreation for neighbours, Wealdstone Youth FC and Ruislip Rugby Club. A contribution of £94,106 would be secured through the S106 agreement towards improving local healthcare provision. A contribution would also be secured through CIL towards community infrastructure. Concerns over removal of trees in relation to nature and wildlife. This matter is addressed in Paragraphs 7.105 to 7.108 of the report. Updated drainage and flood risk modelling should be provided to confirm that the proposed attenuation and discharge arrangements will not exacerbate flooding in surrounding streets. This matter is addressed in Paragraphs 7.111 to 7.114 of the report. Fire safety and emergency access should be provided. This matter is addressed in Paragraphs 7.64 to 7.65 of the report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Robust and ongoing pest control management plan should be conditioned . This matter is covered by Environmental Health and it is not planning related. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response External Consultation Airport Safeguarding - Heathrow No objection, subject to cranes informative. The Heathrow Airport Safeguarding comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. The recommended informative has been included in Appendix 1 of the report. Thames Water No objection subject to an informative regarding Groundwater Risk Management Permit. The Thames Water comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. NATS (National Air Traffic Services) No objection The NATS comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Historic England No objection – in particular they are supportive of the proposal, considering that the application presents a good solution for the site from a heritage perspective and recommend that the Council should approve this application as any harm to significance would be limited and could be balanced favourably by the wider heritage benefits that the proposals could deliver. They recommended high quality materials condition and securing the listed building works. The Historic England comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Please refer to Condition 12 (Materials) as set out in Appendix 1 of the report, and S106 Head of Term (ii) for securing listed building works. Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) The GLAAS comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press No objection subject to a two-stage archaeological condition, including a public engagement, and a historic building recording condition. Please refer to Conditions 8 (Written Scheme of Investigation) and 9 (Historic Building Recording) as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. Transport for London (TfL) The site is not in close proximity to Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) or Strategic Road Network (SRN). However, the site borders TfL land, and falls directly south of Ruislip Station. Access The revised proposals reduce the vehicle dominance on the access roads into the site, which is welcomed. However, TfL have concerns regarding the northern pedestrian access and footway, particularly in relation to safety, inclusivity, and overall user experience, especially during night -time conditions. Healthy Streets TfL states that the conclusion of the Active Travel Zone (ATZ) assessment that no improvements are required on assessed routes are not sufficiently justified and should be revisited. The ATZ assessment does not adequately assess the northern stepped access route, which is likely alternative route to the station. An updated assessment should be completed. Cycle Parking The proposed quantum of cycle parking complies with relevant London Plan standards. Clarifications on the store locations for each block is required, as well as the split of cycle parking stands including the minimum 5% of stands for adapted or larger cycles as required in the LCDS (London Cycle Design Standards). The TfL comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Access & Healthy Streets The applicant has submitted a response regarding the comments over the access and Active Travel Zone assessment, by stating that they are providing significant improvements in relation to the northern footpath, compared to the existing situation. This is accepted and this matter is addressed in detail in Paragraphs 7.117 to 7.125 of the report. Cycle parking This matter can be conditioned accordingly. Please refer to Condition 14 (Landscape) as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. Car Parking Noted. Please refer to Condition 1 9 (Parking Design and Management Plan) as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Car Parking TfL welcome the reduction in car parking at the site. A CPMP (Car Parking Management Plan) should be secured, to ensure appropriate enforcement of car parking. Delivery-Servicing & Construction A Delivery and Servicing Plan and a detailed C onstruction Logistics Plan should be secured by conditions. Delivery-Servicing & Construction Please refer to Conditions 20 (Delivery and Servicing Plan) and 4 (Construction Logistics Plan) as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. Transport for London (TfL) - Infrastructure Protection They have no objection in principle, but they have requested two conditions to ensure that the redevelopment of the site situated close to London Underground railway infrastructure would not have a detrimental impact on this infrastructure. These comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Please refer to Conditions 1 0 and 15 as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. Environment Agency No objection subject to unidentified contamination, piling and SuDS Infiltration conditions. Their comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Please refer to Conditions 5 (Contamination), 41 (SuDS Infiltration) and 42 (Piling) as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. Designing Out Crime Officer Recommendation that that a Secured by Design condition be attached to the development. Please refer to Condition 26 (Secured by Design) as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. Internal Consultation Contaminated Land Officer No objection subject to a condition requiring the submission of a scheme to deal with unacceptable contamination, to be submitted prior to the commencement of development. The Contaminated Land Officer comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Please refer to Condition 5 (Contamination) as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Noise Officer No objection subject to conditions to secure appropriate levels of noise for residential occupiers. The Noise Officer comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Please refer to Condition 32 (Noise Levels) as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) The LLFA noted that the proposal has sufficiently demonstrated the use of the London Plan’s drainage hierarchy but requested further information from the applicant to demonstrate that the full site area of the development has been included in the drainage calculations and to provide the greenfield and existing runoff volumes. The LLFA comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. It is considered reasonable to assume that a sufficient and acceptable drainage strategy could be secured at the detailed design stage of the planning process. Accordingly, a revised final D rainage Strategy is proposed to be secured by Conditions 6 (Sustainable Drainage Scheme Details) and 23 (Sustainable Drainage Scheme Verification) as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. Air Quality Officer No objection subject to conditions securing i) control of dust ii) control of emissions from Non -Road Mobile Machinery, and legal agreement for contribution of £62,106 to be paid for Hillingdon to deliver its air quality local action plan and or implement specific measures on/along the road network affected by the proposal. The Air Quality Officer comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Please refer to Conditions 4 (Construction Logistics and Management Plan), 27 (Low Emission Strategy) and 33 (Non -Road Mobile Machinery) as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. Please refer to the planning obligation proposed to be Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press secured under S106 Head of Term (iv). Highways Authority The proposal's likely activity is considered relatively absorbable in generation terms and can be accommodated within the local road network without notable detriment to traffic congestion and road safety and therefore does not raise concern or specific iss ue. The submitted Active Travel Zone (ATZ) assessment is accepted, and no further action is therefore recommended. The proposal complies with car and cycle parking standards. Conditions regarding Parking Design Management Plan, Travel Plan, and Construction Management Plan should be attached to any decision. The Highways Authority comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Please also refer to Conditions 4 (Construction Logistics and Management Plan), 1 4 (Landscape Scheme), 19 (Parking Design and Management Plan) and 21 (Travel Plan) as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. Planning Policy Officer Loss of hotel accommodation is accepted and the gain of residential accommodation is welcomed. The revised housing mix would be slightly in excess of 20% of units being family sized and would be deemed acceptable given close proximity to Ruislip Station. Regarding affordable housing, the submitted viability assessment should be tested by a third-party consultant. The Planning Policy Officer comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Urban Design Officer No objection subject to conditions securing detailed landscaping strategy, boundary treatments, materials and detailing, traffic control, play space strategy detailing and lighting strategy. The Urban Design Officer comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Please refer to Conditions 12 (Materials), 14 (Landscape scheme), 16 (Play Strategy), 20 (Delivery and Servicing Plan), and 28 (External Lighting Strategy) as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Conservation Officer No objection subject to a planning obligation secured to ensure that the approved works are undertaken to the historic buildings and that they are restored so that the heritage benefits of the scheme are realised. The Conservation Officer comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Please refer to the planning obligation proposed to be secured under S106 Head of Term (ii). Waste Officer Following clarification received regarding the waste and recycling capacity and collection point distance, no objection is raised. The Waste Officer comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Please refer to Conditions 14 (Landscape scheme) which includes refuse storage and capacity) as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. 7 Planning Assessment Land Use Principles Loss of Hotel 7.1 Policy E10 of the London Plan (2021) outlines that in outer London, serviced accommodation should be promoted in town centres and within Opportunity Areas. The Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) outlines in Policy DME 5 that visitor accommodation is supported in accessible sustainable locations as defined in the Site Allocations and Designations document. This document identifies Hotel Growth locations in both Hayes and Uxbridge. Paragraph 2.24 also notes that, in accordance with national planning policy, hotel development of an appropriate scale will also be acceptable in other town centres. 7.2 The proposal seeks to change the use of the site from Hotel (Use Class C1) to residential (Use Class C3). A s such, the proposal would result in a loss of the hotel and its ancillary uses, such as the on-site restaurant and bar. Although the proposal is not in accordance with the wider strategic objective to increase hotel accommodation across the borough, it is noted that the application site does not fall within a Town Centre or dedicated area identified for hotel growth within the Local Plan. As a result , no objection is raised to the principle of the change of use from hotel to residential accommodation. Residential Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2026) requires the Local Planning Authorities to promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguardin g and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions , in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously developed land. 7.4 The London Plan 2021 encourages intensification and optimising of land subject to justification within the local context. Policies GG2 and H1 of the London Plan support the need for additional residential development within London and also encourage optimising the potential of brownfield sites for residential use, where they are compatible with the surrounding development context. In particular, Policy H1 states that this is particularly the case on sites with existing or planned public transport access levels (PTALs) 3- 6 or which are located within 800m distance of a station, such as the application site, or town centre boundary. 7.5 Policy H1 (Housing Growth) of the Hillingdon Local Pl an: Plan 1 - Strategic Policies (2012) requires that the borough meets and exceed its minimum strategic dwelling requirement in accordance with other Local Plan policies. The Borough's target was increased as part of the London Plan (2021). 7.6 In line with the NPPF and Policy H1 of the London Plan, the site would represent a suitable site for the delivery of residential development which optimises the potential for housing delivery. Moreover, 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). This contributes to an evidenced unmet housing need within the Borough. In accordance with Policy HO7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026), substantial weight should be given to the benefits of providing homes that contribute towards meeting identified housing needs. 7.7 For the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework, the application site is located within a settlement. Accordingly, the proposal requires to be assessed against Policies S3 and S4 of the Framework. Policy S4 states that development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies of the Framework. 7.8 The proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan. Furthermore, when assessed against the national decision-making policies of the Framework taken as a whole, the identified adverse effects would not substantially outweigh the benefits of the development. Signific ant weight is therefore afforded to the proposal's contribution towards addre ssing the Borough's identified housing needs, and the development is considered acceptable in principle. It is therefore considered that the proposals represent an efficient and appropriate re -use of previously developed land, and that the principle of the proposed residential use is therefore supported in general terms, subject to all wider implications which are assessed further below. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Density 7.9 Policy DMHB 17 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) states that all new residential development should take acco unt of the Residential Density Matrix contained in Table 5.2. Paragraph 5.67 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) states that Hillingdon will apply the density standards set out in the London Plan in a flexible manner, according to local circumstances. Large parts of the borough, including many areas in proximity to town centres, are suburban in character and will lean heavily towards the applications of lower to mid -range density scales. Table 5.2 represents a starting point for discussions on the issue of residential density, which should ultimately be determined by a design led approach. 7.10 Policy D3 (Optimising Site Capacity thr ough the Design-led Approach) of the London Plan (2021) further requires all development to make the best use of land following a design -led approach that optimises the capacity of sites, including site allocations and offers no density matrix figures. The policy further states that higher density develop ments should generally be promoted in locations that are well connected to jobs, services, infrastructure and amenities by public transport, walking and cycling. 7.11 The PTAL rating for the site is 4, which identifies the area as having a good level of public transport accessibility. Table 5.2 indicates that sites within 4- 6 rating should provide between 495 - 1,100 habitable rooms per hectare and between 165 - 405 units per hectare if the scheme proposes mostly flats. Using an approximate site area of 0.96 hectares, the site should provide 475- 1,056 habitable rooms or 158-389 units. The proposal would provide 203 new habitable rooms and 71 new units. Whilst the development pr ovides a density which is lower than the guidance set out within Table 5.2, the site accommodates Grade II listed buildings which makes this a very sensitive location. Significant weight is afforded to protecting the setting of the heritage assets, thus a design led approach is required, rather than a scheme which achieves the density guidelines. 7.12 It is also noted that these standards are only intended as a guide and density guidance has largely been superseded by the design -led approach taken by Policy D3 in the latest London Plan (March 2021). The design -led approach requires consideration of design options to determine the most appropriate form of development that responds to a site's context and capacity for growth and existing and planned supporting infrastructure. The policy then goes on to highlight the relevant considerations which would contribute to defining an appropriate density such as site context, amenity considerations etc. These aspects of the proposal are considered in detail within the relevant sections of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Housing Mix 7.13 The London Plan (2021) outlines in Poli cy H10 that schemes should generally consist of a range of unit sizes and sets out a number of factors which should be considered when determining the approp riate housing mix on a particular scheme. This includes local evidence of need. Policy DMH 2 of Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) requires the provision of a mix of housing units of different sizes in schemes of residential develop ment to reflect the Council's latest information on housing need. Paragraph 4.6 outlines that there is a substantial borough -wide requirement for larger affordable and private market units, particularly three-bedroom properties. 7.14 In terms of factors specific to a site, Policy H10 also includes a need to consider the mix of uses in the scheme, the range of tenures in the scheme and the nature and location of the site, with a higher proportion of one and two bed units generally more appropriate in locations which are closer to a town centre or station or with higher public transport access and connectivity, such as the application site. 7.15 Family housing is defined within the glossary of the London Plan and outlines it must generally be of a size that has three or more bedrooms. It is worth noting that the Secretary of State directed chang es to Policy H10, in order to address the need for new family housing, to prev ent families from being forced to move outside of London. These changes are incorporated into the London Plan (2021). 7.16 The unit mix proposed is summarised below: - 26x 1-bedroom homes (37%), - 30x2-bedroom homes (42%), - 14x3-bedroom homes (20%), - and 1x4-bedroom homes (1%). This mix includes some dwellinghouses; 14x3-bedroom dwellinghouses, 2x2- bedroom dwellinghouses and 1x4-bedroom dwellinghouses. It is of note that the revised housing mix is considered to repr esent a betterment from the previous scheme. There are no longer any studio units within the scheme and a lower overall provision of 1 -bed homes proposed, with a higher proportion of 2- bedroom units. 7.17 The site’s family housing provision would therefore be 21% which is acceptable, contributing to meeting related housing needs within the borough and is a benefit of the scheme . The remaining units would be 1 and 2 bedroom , which is appropriate within this location of PTAL 4 . The development is therefore considered to comply with Policy DMH 2 of th e Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) and Policy H10 of the London Plan (2021). Affordable Housing 7.18 As per Policy DMH 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan (2020) and Policies H5 and H6 of the London Plan (2021), the development will need to provide affordable housing. Policy DMH 7 states that development with a capacity to provide 10 or Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press more units will be required to maximise the delivery of on-site affordable housing. Subject to viability, and if appropriate in all circumstances, a minimum of 35% of all new homes on sites of 10 or more units should be delivered as affordable housing, with a tenure split of 70% social/affordable rent and 30% intermediate, as set out in Policy H2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012). 7.19 Where an application does not meet the requirements set out in Policy H5, Part C, of the London Plan (2021) it must follow the viability tested route. Policy H4, Part B, of the London Plan (2021) also states that affordable housing should be provided on si te and only provide off- site or as a cash in lieu contribution in exceptional circumstances. This is also supported by Policy DMH 7. 7.20 The revised scheme does not provide any affordable housing (similarly the original scheme did not include any affordable housing) and was accompanied by a Financial Viability Assessment (FVA). This FVA concluded that providing a scheme of 100% private housing falls short of delivering a recognised acceptable level of profit, and any on-site affordable housing would only reduce this profit level further, rendering the proposals unviable. This has been subject to viability testing by the Council's third-party consultants. 7.21 Following such assessment, there was disagreement between parties regarding the Existing Use Value (EUV) of the site. To this end, the applicant on 7 August 2026 provided a new assessment of EUV by another independent valuer . This was assessed by the Council's third -party consultants who concluded that the proposed development with 100% priv ate housing generates a deficit of - (negative) £402,966. Given this, it is accepted that the proposal cannot provide any affordable housing. However, in the event of an approval, it is recommended that a planning obligation be secured to include an early and late stage review of the viability of the site to uplift the provision of affordable housing if shown to be viable, as defined by Policy H5 of the London Plan (2021). This is proposed to be secured under S106 Head of Term (i). 7.22 This policy conflict attracts negative weight in the planning balance, which must be weighed against the planning benefits of the scheme, including the provision of a range of market housing with a policy compliant mix of housing to best meet needs within the Housing Market Area. Employment Use 7.23 The Barn Hotel is currently closed as a conventional hotel business and the supporting documents which include various commercial reports evidence that there is no realistic option for the conv entional hotel use to resume. However, the site is currently being used as temporary accommodation within its existing lawful use class. The site accommodates designated heritage assets, and it is not uncommon for owners to utilise meanwhile uses to protect these assets from deteriorating by having them occupied. While there would have been a level of employment associated with the hotel use which will be lost, the site has no prospect of re-opening as conventional hotel and is not within a designated Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press employment area. As a result, the loss of employment is accepted in principle in this instance. 7.24 Policy E11 of the London Plan (2021) states that development proposals should support employment, skills development, apprenticeships, and other education and training opportunities in both the construction and end -use phases, including through Section 106 obligations where appropriate. In accordance with this, the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2014) requires that developments with estimated construction costs of over £2 million and a construction period of three months or more deliver an in-kind employment and training scheme or financial contributions towards training and employment in the borough. The applicant has agreed to provide a n employment strategy and construction training scheme which is proposed to be secured by a Section 106 legal agreement under Head of Term (vii). Economy 7.25 Chapter 7 of the NPPF (2026) states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and prod uctivity. It is agreed that there would be some economic benefits arising from the proposed scheme and weight is afforded to such benefits. Design Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.26 Policies D3 of the London Plan (2021), BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) are all directly relevant to the proposal. These policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Pa rt 3 - Policy Appendix, and in summary, seek to secure a high quality of design that enhances and contributes to the area in terms of form, scale and materials, is appropriate to the identity and context of the townscape and would improve the quality of the publ ic realm and respect local character. These aims are also supported by the NPPF (2026) at chapter 14. 7.27 It should be noted that heritage matters are assessed in a subsequent section of this report, and therefore this section and assessment that follows focuses on urban design, townscape and character impact. 7.28 The application site is located within a mixed character area. To the north and west is an area comprising buildings of greater scale and height, located near Ruislip station and the railway line. Sherleys Court and Masters Court comprise two large blocks of retirement housing, of 4 storeys and are located immediate to the west. This area is further charac terised by transport routes, with wide roads, the railway line and the road bridge forming a substantial part of the built environment. West End Road provides both a principal transport route and line of sight through the area.

Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Dimitra Angelopoulou 7969/APP/2024/2452 Date Application Valid: 02.10.2024 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 17.07.2026 Application Type: Listed Building Consent Ward: Ruislip Manor Applicant: Chase New Homes Ltd Site Address: The Barn Hotel, West End Road, Ruislip Proposal: Listed Building Consent for the partial demolition of Grade II Listed Building and conversion of the two listed buildings from hotel (C1 Use Class) to accommodate three residential dwellings (C3 Use Class) (LBC linked to planning application reference 7969/APP/2024/2451 for the redevelopment of the remainder of the site). (A mended plans 24/04/26) Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 8 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (associated Planning Application being reported to Committee) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 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 site comprises the former ‘Barn Hotel’ (now closed). Within the centre of the site are Grade II Listed Buildings consisting of Sherley's Farmhouse, the Leaning Barn and the Oak Room. The proposal seeks to partially demolish and convert these Grade II Listed Buildings to form 3no. residential dwellings. 1.2 The proposal involves the removal of some of the latter additions / extensions to the listed buildings, which would be beneficial to the preservation of the heritage assets, by helping to better reveal their significance, historic fabric and form. 1.3 The proposals for the Barns include the erection of a new single storey extension to the north. Regarding Farmhouse only minor alterations are proposed. The Council's Conservation Officer raise no obj ection to these, subject to detailed conditions which are recommended accordingly as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. 1.4 Historic England is supportive of the proposal and noted that the removal of existing unsympathetic extensions and their sensitive conversion would have a clear positive effect. In particular, Historic England recommended the approval of the proposal as the application presents a good solution for the site from a heritage perspective and any harm to significance would be limited and could be balanced favourably by the wider herit age benefits that the proposals could deliver. 1.5 In accordance with Policy HE6 of the NPPF (2026), where harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset is identified, that harm must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, these benefits relate to the long-term retention and repair of the listed buildings though a viable reuse for residential and removal of the latter intrusive modern extensions/additions for the preservation of the heritage assets. It is therefore considered that the public benefits associated with the Listed Building Consent application would outweigh the less than substantial harm arising from it. 1.7 Subject to the planning conditions, the proposed development is considered, on balance, acceptable with respect to heritage. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the reasons outlined above and within the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press main body of the report, the application is considered to broadly comply with the Development Plan. Where there are minor conflicts with the Development Plan, there considered to be sufficient mitigating factors and benefits which outweigh such conflicts. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to securing the planning conditions set out in Appendix 1. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site, as outlined in red in Figure 1 below, measures 0.96 hectares in area and comprises the former ‘Barn Hotel’ (now closed) with several buildings. It is situated to the south of Ruislip station, where a public footpath to the north offers connection via stairs, and to the east of West End Road. Within the centre of the site are Grade II Listed Buildings consisting of Sherley's Farmhouse, the Leaning Barn and the Oak Room. Figure 1: Aerial Site Location Plan (application site edged red) 2.2 The northern part of the site adjacent to the Metropolitan Underground line is occupied by two buildings that are ar ranged in long blocks ("I" and "T" blocks). These provided the main accommodation for the hotel. The listed farmhouse, shown in Figure 2 below, were also used for accommodation purposes. T o the south of the farmhouse, are the list ed barn and its outbuildings - Leaning Barn and Oak Room, shown in Figure 3 below with their recent extensions- that were used as dining and reception areas. The hotel accommodation comprised 73 bedrooms. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Photograph of the Sherley’s Farmhouse (Grade II listed) (sourced from the Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment) Figure 3: Photograph of the Barn and outbuildings to south-east of Sherley’s Farmhouse (Grade II listed) (sourced from the Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment) 2.3 The site lies within the Ruislip Town Centre Air Qualit y Focus Area. It has a Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) of 4, on a scale of 0 to 6b where 6b is the highest. Immediately to the south are 1 -38 Gardens Close, part three and part four storey residential apartment blocks, and to the east are the rear gardens of the dwellings in Eversley Crescent. Immed iately to the north is Ruislip Station Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press with associated footbridge and signal box of Grade II listed and further to the north-west is Ruislip Village C onservation Area. A four- storey flatted development is located at Sherleys Court on the west side of West End Road. 3 Proposal 3.1 The application seeks Listed Building consent for the partial demolition and conversion of existing Grade II Listed Buildings from hotel (C1 Use Class) to accommodate three residential dwellings (C3 Use Class). The proposed plans indicate that the later additions to the two Grade II Listed Buildings would be demolished and a new lightweight extension is proposed to the Leaning Barn and Oak Room. Further works are proposed internally and externally to facilitate the conversion of the buildings to three dwellinghouses. It is noted that this application is linked to a residential redevelopment planning application referenced 7969/APP/2024/2451 reported to the Planning Committee. Figure 4 below shows the proposed overall site plan and floor plan of the listed buildings in particular . Figures 5-8 below show the proposed elevations of the listed buildings. Figure 4: Proposed landscaped overall site plan – Blocks F and G show the listed buildings edged in rectangle within the centre of the site (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 5: Proposed East and South Elevations of converted listed barn Figure 6: Proposed West and North Elevations of converted listed barn Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 7: Proposed South and East El evations of converted Sherley’s farmhouse Figure 8: Proposed North and West El evations of converted Sherley’s farmhouse Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3.2 During the course of the application, full amendments were agreed and submitted as part of a revised proposal for the whole redevelopment scheme as assessed under application ref: 7969/APP/2024/2451. Regarding the listed building consent application, the main changes compared to the originally submitted scheme relate to the internal layout. 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 note is the associated Planning application referenced 7969/APP/2024/2451 which relates to the current application and is also reported to the Planning Committee. The description is as follows: ‘FORMAL DESCRIPTION Partial demolition of 1no. Grade II Listed Building and conversion of Listed Buildings to provide 3no. dwellings. Demolition and redevelopment of the remainder of the site (hotel - C1 Use Class) for residential use (Class C3) with associated access, infrastructure and landscaping. (Amended plans and description of development change 24/04/26) DETAILED DESCRIPTION The partial demolition of 1no. Grade II Listed Building and conversion of the Listed Buildings to accommodate 3 no. dwellings and the replacement of the existing hotel buildings (C1 Use Class) with new building blocks and dwellings that would range between two and four storeys in height to accommodate 68 residential units (a total of 71 resi dential dwellings within the development) together with associated landscaping, pr ovision of a new access off Garden Close, car parking (including disabled parking bays), cycle parking, refuse stores and servicing arrangements (Planning Application linked to LBC Reference 7969/APP/2024/2452). (Amended plans and description of development change 24/04/26)’ 4.3 Of particular relevance is a listed building application referenced 7969/APP/2023/1833 which was consented on 2 October 2023 for the following similar development: ‘Listed Building Application for the partia l demolition and conversion of existing Grade II Listed Buildings for residential use with associated landscaping and parking ’. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4.4 However, this 2023 Listed Building Co nsent was associated with the Full Planning Application referenced 7969/APP/2023/1473 for: ‘Redevelopment of the site for residential use involving the partial demolition of the existing Grade II Listed Building and conversion to 2 new residential units, demolition of surrounding buildings and erection of 2 new residential blocks with associated amenity space, landscaping and parking.’ This application was for 96 residential units across 2 six storey blocks, 7 terraced properties and the converted listed buildings, and was refused on 15 September 2023 for 11 reasons. These related to overdevelopment of the site, visually dominant development, which would result in harm to visual amenity of the area and setting of the listed buildings, lack of sufficient family units, lack of cycling to specific London design standards, lack of a legal agreement with the relevant planning obligations, and that the proposal failed to demonstrate that it would have adequate overheating mitigation, would provide adequate levels of daylight and sunlight amenity to neighbours, would incorporate appropriate sustainable drainage systems, protection of bats, provision of disabled units designed to accessible standards, and provision of adequate levels of amenity space to serve the future occupants. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. Emerging Planning Policies 5.2 Policy DM4, paragraph 1, of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2026 states: “1. When preparing and considering development proposals, relevant policies in emerging development plans may be given weight according to: a. The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); b. The extent to which there are unresolv ed objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objection s, the greater the weight that may be given); and c. The degree of compliance of the relevant policies in the emerging plan with the policies for plan -making in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework, the greater the weight that may be given to them).” Draft London Plan (July 2026) 5.3 The GLA are consulting on a draft new London Plan between 16th July and 15th October 2026 with the intention of replacing the previous version of the existing London Plan. Following the consultation, the draft London Plan will be subject to Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press an independent Examination in Public before final adoption, expected in early 2028. 5.4 As the unresolved objections have not yet been submitted and published for decision-makers to review, limited weight can be afforded to the Draft London Plan (July 2026) at present. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 A total of 122 no. letters were sent to neighbouring properties, site notices were displayed and an advert was posted in the local paper. The original neighbour consultation process expired on 25th October 2024 and 11 objections were received from residents. The Ruislip Residents' Association (RRA) , and the Ruislip, Northwood and Eastcote Local History Society also submitted letters of objection. 6.2 Following receipt of full amended drawings and reports in 2026, full re- advertisement was carried with all neighbouring properties previously notified, along with those who previously objected, whilst amended site notices were posted and the application was re -advertised in the local newspaper. The neighbour consultation process expired on 2nd June 2026 and 7 objections were received. The Ruislip Residents' Association (RRA), and the Ruislip, Northwood and Eastcote Local History Society also submitted letters of objection. 6.3 It should be noted that almost all the matters raised relate to the wider redevelopment of the site that is currently assessed under planning application referenced 7969/APP/2024/2451 reported to the Planning Committee, and these have been addressed at Table 1 of that Committee Report . The o nly matter relevant to the determination of the listed building consent application , namely the impact of the proposed physic al works to the listed buildings , received in response to the public consultation is 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 First Consultation (October 2024) 11 objections received. Ruislip Residents' Association Harm to the Grade II Listed Buildings via their demolition and rebuilding them. At least Historic England should be consulted and their conditions attached. This matter is addressed in Paragraphs 7.1 to 7.19 of the report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press (RRA), and the Ruislip, Northwood and Eastcote Local History Society also submitted letters of objection. Second consultation (May 2026) 7 objections received. Ruislip Residents' Association (RRA), and the Ruislip, Northwood and Eastcote Local History Society also submitted letters of objection. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response External Consultation Historic England No objection – in particular they are supportive of the proposal, considering that the application presents a good solution for the site from a heritage perspective and recommend that the Council should approve this application as any harm to significance would be limited and could be balanced favourably by the wider heritage benefits that the proposals could deliver. They recommended securing the listed building works. The Historic England comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Please note that the listed building works are secured via legal agreement associated with the application referenced 7969/APP/2024/2451 reported to the Planning Committ ee as per S106 Heads of Term (ii) for Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press securing listed building works. Conservation Officer No objection subject to conditions and a planning obligation is secured to ensure that the approved works are undertaken to the historic buildings and that they are restored so that the heritage benefits of the scheme are realised. The Conservation Officer comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Please note that the listed building works are secured via legal agreement associated with the application referenced 7969/APP/2024/2451 reported to the Planning Committee as per S106 Heads of Term (ii) for securing listed building works. The conditions are recommended as set out in Appendix 1 of this report. 7 Planning Assessment 7.1 The planning issues to consider under this application for Listed Building Consent relate to the impact that the proposed works to convert the Grade II Listed Buildings would have on the historic fabric and significance of the heritage assets. 7.2 It should be noted that the submission includes a number of plans which are not relevant to the assessment of this application. A full planning application was submitted under reference 7969/APP/2024/2451, in tandem to this application, for the wider redevelopment of the site which is also reported to the Planning Committee, and a number of plans relevant to that application were included in this submission. However, an application for Listed Building Consent relates to the works undertaken to the heritage asset only. Matters such as the impact the wider development may have on the setting of the listed building have been assessed as part of the full planning application. 7.3 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buil dings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes a statutory duty on the Local Planning Authority, requiring that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the Local Planning Authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.4 The NPPF (2026) states that when considering the impact of the proposal on the significance of a heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset's conservation and the more important t he asset, the greate r the weight should be. London Plan Policy HC1 states that proposals affecting heritage assets, and their settings should conserve their significance, avoid harm, and identify enhancement opportunities. 7.5 Policy DMHB 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) states that the Council will expect development proposals to avoid harm to the historic environment. Development that has an effect on heritage assets will only be supported where, among others, it will not lead to a loss of significance or harm to an asset, unless it can be demonstrated that it will provide public benefit that would outweigh the harm or loss, in accordance with the NPPF. 7.6 The site accommodates the Grade II listed Sherley's Farmhouse, which dates back to the early 17th Century. The historic farmstead at the heart of the site is an important remnant of the medieval village of Ruislip prior to the arrival of the railway and subsequent Metro-land development in the early twentieth century. It is of a traditional timber-framed cons truction that is 2-storey in height with a single storey extension with catslide roof to its south-eastern side, and L-shaped in plan with irregular fenestration. The external framing has been painted black with the masonry infill painted white. The building is finished with an old, tiled roof. Internally, the building still retains much of its original timber framing and its bay configuration can still be clearly discerned along with other features of interest. The asset derives significance from its architectural and historic interest as a seventeenth -century farmhouse. This interest is limited, however, by the extensive evidence of alteration to the asset’s historic fabric, layout and use. 7.7 There are two Grade II Listed barns to the southeast of the farmhouse which are believed to date back to the late 16th or early 17th Century. The 'Leaning' Barn formed of two-bays and constructed from traditional timber framing with queen strut roof truss has been restored. The other barn (the Oak Room) is also a traditional timber -framed construction and has had a later floor installed. The roofs are also finished in old clay tiles. The barns have been extended and joined extensively with later single-storey extensions of little or no architectural interest to provide facilities and function rooms for the running of the hotel. The asset derives significance from its architectural and historic interest as a pair of seventeenth-century farm buildings. This interest is severely limited, however, by the extensive alteration to the asset’s historic fabric and layout, and, most notably, its near complete envelopment by unattractive and poor quality modern extensions. 7.8 The proposal seeks to partially demolish and convert the Grade II Listed Buildings to form 3no. residential dwellings. The change of use (in planning terms) of the buildings fr om hotel to residential is a matter for the associated planning application which is also reported to the Planning Committee . It is the physical alterations to the listed buildings that are for consideration in this Listed Building Consent application. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.9 The proposal involves the removal of some of the later additions / extensions to the listed buildings. The removal of the extensions is considered to be acceptable in principle, as they are of little architectural significance and detract from the earlier phases of development. It is recognised that the removal of the later additions has the potential to better reveal the historic significance of the buildings and would be considered as a heritage benefit. 7.10 The proposals for the Barns include the erection of a new single storey extension to the north. The Council's Conservation Officer is satisfied that this is acceptable and welcome the retention of the fireplace and ‘gothic’ style detailing with the coloured windows and screens passage style doors . However, they are concerned about exposing the timber framing to weathering externally given that it has been protected from the last 70 years due to various extensions. They are also concerned about alterations required to internally insulate the building as this would conceal the sign ificance to be understood and the barn / later club history reflected in the internally exposed timber framing. Concerns are also raised about the viability of the conversion. 7.11 To this end, they recommend repairs and reinstating missing framed elements to help with structural integrity. They also recommend that o nce the building is supported with a structural scaffold as per the engineering report and the brick infill panels removed, works should halt and a meeting take place on site with officers to agree the relevant timber replacements/ repairs. They also recommend to condition wall and roof insulation details, joinery details, external and internal materials and finishes. Conditions 4 and 6 are therefore recommended accordingly to secure these matters. 7.12 Regarding Farmhouse only minor alterations are proposed. The Council's Conservation Officer raise no objection to these, subject to conditions for securing that opening up works be undertaken by hand, for halting works should hidden historic features are revealed, a plan showing full timber framing repair works, window and joinery details, and internal and e xternal materials and finishes. Conditions 4 and 5 are therefore recommended accordingly to secure these matters. 7.13 Historic England is supportive of the proposal and noted that the removal of existing unsympathetic extensions and their sensitive conversion would have a clear positive effect. In particular, Historic England recommended the approval of the proposal as the application presents a good solution for the site from a heritage perspective , and any harm to significance would be limited and could be balanced favourably by the wider herit age benefits that the proposals could deliver. 7.14 It is noted that both Historic Englan d and the Council’s Conservation Officer requested that a planning obligation is secured to ensure that the approved works are undertaken to the historic buildings and that they are restored so that the heritage benefits of the scheme are realised. Please note that the listed building works are secured via legal agreem ent associated with the application Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press referenced 7969/APP/2024/2451 reported to the Planning Committee as per S106 Heads of Term (ii) for securing listed building works. 7.15 In respect of the listed building consent application, it is acknowledged that the works proposed to facilitate the conversion of the buildings would result in some harm to the fabric of the listed buildings, however, subject to the recommended conditions, it is considered that the d egree of harm to the buildings would be satisfactorily minimised. It is concluded that the level of harm which would be caused to the heritage assets would be less than substantial having regard to the NPPF (2026). 7.16 In accordance with Policy HE6 of the NPPF (2026), where harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset is identified, that harm must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 7.17 In terms of public benefits, the proposal would support the long-term retention and repair of the listed buildings though a viable reuse for residential. In addition, the removal of the later intrusive modern extensions/additions would be beneficial to the preservation of the heritage assets, by helping to better reveal their significance , historic fabric and form. It is therefore considered that the public benefits associated with the Listed Building Consent application would outweigh the less than substantial harm arising from it. 7.19 Overall, having regard to the above, it is concluded that the proposed works accord with Policy DMHB 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020), Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and chapter 16 of the NPPF (2024). 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The application site comprises the former ‘Barn Hotel’ (now closed). Within the centre of the site are Grade II Listed Buildings consisting of Sherley's Farmhouse, the Leaning Barn and the Oak Room. The proposal seeks to partially demolish and convert these Grade II Listed Buildings to form 3no. residential dwellings. 9.2 The proposal involves the removal of some of the later additions / extensions to the listed buildings, which would be beneficial to the preservation of the heritage assets, by helping to better reveal their significance, historic fabric and form. 9.3 The proposals for the Barns include the erection of a new single storey extension to the north. Regarding Farmhouse only minor alterations are proposed. The Council's Conservation Officer raise no obj ection to these, subject to detailed conditions which are recommended accordingly as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. 9.4 Historic England is supportive of the proposal and noted that the removal of existing unsympathetic extensions and their sensitive conversion would have a clear positive effect. In particular, Historic England recommended the approval of the proposal as the application presents a good solution for the site from a Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press heritage perspective and any harm to significance would be limited and could be balanced favourably by the wider herit age benefits that the proposals could deliver. 9.5 In accordance with Policy HE6 of the NPPF (2026), where harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset is identified, that harm must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, these benefits relate to the long -term retention and repair of the listed buildings though a viable reuse for residential and removal of the latter intrusive modern extensions/additions for the preservation of the heritage assets. It is therefore considered that the public benefits associated with the Listed Building Consent application would outweigh the less than substantial harm arising from it. 9.7 Subject to the planning conditions, the proposed development is considered, on balance, acceptable with respect to heritage. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the reasons outlined above and within the main body of the report, the application is considered to broadly comply with the Development Plan. Where there are minor conflicts with the Development Plan, there considered to be sufficient mitigating factors and benefits which outweigh such conflicts. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to securing the planning conditions set out in Appendix 1. 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents considered in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential in formation) 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. 10.2 This report has been prepared with re ference to background papers, including those listed below, which have been relied upon to a material extent in its preparation and are available for public inspection, subject to any necessary redaction for exempt or confidential information: 10.3 Internal consultee comments: Conservation Officer 10.4 External consultee comments: Historic England

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Rhian Thomas 43721/APP/2026/871 Date Application Valid: 02-04-26 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 25-09-26 Application Type: Full Ward: Uxbridge Applicant: Mr Gurdawar Singh Khatra Site Address: 13 Clammas Way, Uxbridge, Hillingdon, UB8 3AN Proposal: Subdivision of property into 2x2 bed flats, with associated amenity space, refuse and cycle parking. Erection of a part single storey, part two storey extension to the side and rear, conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer and 2 roof lights. 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 – 15th September 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 subdivision of the property into 2 x 2bed flats, with associated amenity space, refuse and cycle parking. Erection of a part single storey, part two storey extension to the side and rear plus conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer and 2 roof lights. 1.2 During the process of the application a petition was received in objection to the proposed development requiring the determination at planning committee. The main issues which shall be addressed within this committee r eport relate to the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area, impact on neighbouring amenity, parking and refuse/waste storage concerns. 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 Due regard has been given to local resid ents’ objections, including the petition against the application. However, it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions ( as set out in Appendix 1) by virtue that the development would not have a significant impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, nor would it harm the character and appearance of the area, and it would not have a harmful impact on the highway network. 1.5 Policies contained with th e National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2026) have been reviewed and considered with the Council's acknowledged unmet need for housing taken into consideration. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site comprises a two-st orey semi-detached property located on the northern side of Clammas Way in Cowley. The property has been extended to the rear by way of a single storey rear extension and canopy structure. Within the rear garden in a single storey outbuilding structure currently used as storage. 2.2 To the front of the property is an area of hardstanding used for off street parking and to the rear is an enclosed garden which acts as private amenity space. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2.3 Part of the site lies on potentially contaminated land, and the site has a PTAL ranking of 1b. 2.4 The surrounding area is residential in character comprising a mix of property types and styles. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 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 subdi vision of the property into 2 x 2 bed self-contained flats with associated amenity space, refuse and cycle parking. The development also involves the erection of a part single, part two storey extension to the side and rear with the conversion of roof space to habitable use including a rear dormer and rooflights. The site Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Existing and Proposed Block Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Figure 4: Proposed Floor and Roof Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 5: Proposed Elevations 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 A Householder planning application was approved on 10-07-24 under reference 43721/APP/2024/1306 for the ‘Construction of a part single, part two- storey side extension, single-storey rear extension, and front porch’. This permission currently remains extant. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. Emerging Planning Policies 5.2 Policy DM4 of the NPPF (2026) states that: 1. When preparing and considering development proposals, relevant policies in emerging development plans may be given weight according to: Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press a. The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); b. The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and c. The degree of compliance of the relevant policies in the emerging plan with the policies for plan-making in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework, the greater the weight that may be given to them). Draft London Plan (July 2026) 5.3 The GLA are consulting on a draft new London Plan between 16th July and 15th October 2026 with the intention of replacing the previous versions of the existing London Plan. Following the consultation, t he draft London Plan will be subject to an independent Examination in Public before final adoption, expected in early 2028. 5.4 As the unresolved objections have not yet been submitted and published for decision-makers to review, limited weight can be afforded to the Draft London Plan (July 2026) at present. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 20 neighbouring properties were consulted on the application by letter dated 17- 04-26. The consultation period expired 09-05-26. 6.2 During the process of the application a revised site plan and block plan were received as a discrepancy was discovered between the drawings. An existing outbuilding drawing was also received to show the existing arrangement at the site. 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 A petition in objection with 32 signatures has been received. 1. Conversion to flats will harm character of the area and reduces An assessment of the impact on the character and appearance of the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press sense of community stability. area has been discussed as paragraphs 7.12-7.22. 2. Concerns regarding lack of maintenance of flats and the overall appearance of the street including damage/staining from refuse. Concerns regarding the future maintenance of the property are largely speculative and are not material to the determination of the application. An assessment of waste disposal has been made a paragraphs 7.82-7.84. 3. Increased pressure on local infrastructure including parking, waste collection services, local amenities and detriment of existing residents. An assessment of the impacts on parking provision, refuse storage and residential amenity have been discussed within the relevant sections of this report. 7 individual letters of objection have been received. I. Construction works have already commenced. A site visit was undertaken on 02/06/26 where officers confirmed the works as part of this application have not commenced. II. Concerns regarding impact on neighbouring amenity including increased noise, disturbance and vibrations, additional vehicles and greater residential density. An assessment of the impact on neighbouring amenity has been discussed at paragraphs 7.23 -7.42. III. Concerns regarding loss of light, loss of privacy and overlooking of neighbouring properties and gardens. An assessment of the impact on neighbouring amenity has been discussed at paragraphs 7.23 -7.42. IV. There has been a large marquee within the garden for the last 2-3 A site visit was undertaken on 02/06/2026 and no marquee was present Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press years. Concerns regarding overdevelopment if tent remains. within the site. Furthermore, the submitted plans do not include a marquee and, as such, the application must be assessed based on the development as proposed and shown on the proposed drawings. V. Additional trees should be planted. An assessment on landscaping has been made in paragraphs 7.70- 7.73 VI. The property will be converted into multi occupancy units with no number of maximum occupants stated. The proposed development comprises the conversion of the existing dwelling into 2 self -contained two- bedroom flats. The proposal is not for a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), and each flat would be occupied as a separate self -contained dwelling. It should also be noted that the London Borough of Hillingdon has a borough- wide Article 4 Direction which removes permitted development rights for the change of use from a dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a small HMO (Use Class C4). As such, planning permission would be required for any future conversion of the flats to an HMO. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Highway Authority No objection is raised to the proposal. The existing vehicular and pedestrian access arrangements would be retained and the provision of one parking space per dwelling is considered acceptable, having regard to the site's PTAL rating, proximity to local bu s services and the existing level of usable on-site parking. Whilst the proposed cycle parking provision meets the required quantum, the access route to the cycle store does not comply with the minimum width requirements of the London Cycle Design Standards. As such, a condition is recommended requiring revised cycle parking details to be submitted and approved. Subject to this condition, the proposal is not considered to have a severe impact on highway safety or the operation of the local highway network. This is noted and an assessment of highway matters has been discussed at paragraphs 7.56- 7.66. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 Policy DMH 1 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020) (Safeguarding Existing Housing) seeks to protect the existing housing stock and supports the subdivision of dwellings where there is no net loss of residential floorspace and where proposals provide self -contained accommodation with adequate living space, amenity space and policy-compliant parking arrangements. 7.2 Policy DMH 4 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020) (Residential Conversions and Redevelopment) permits the conversion of dwellings into flats where the proportion of flats within the street does not exceed the Council's threshold, the original dwelling has a minimum internal floorspace of 120sq.m, and the conversion provides no more than one residential unit per floor. 7.3 Policy H10 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMH 2 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020) seek to ensure that new resident ial development provides an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes to meet identified housing needs, including the need for family-sized accommodation. 7.4 A review of the Council's planning re cords and available Council Tax records confirms that the proposal would not result in more than 10% of properties within the street being converted to flats and wou ld therefore comply with criterion (i) of Policy DMH 4. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.5 The development involves the conversion of the existing property into 2 self- contained flats (2 x 2 bed) with proposed extensions. 7.6 The existing dwelling has an internal floor area of approximately 88sqm, which is below the minimum 120sqm requirement set out under criterion (iii) of Policy DMH 4. However, the property benefits fr om an extant planning permission for extensions under app lication reference 43721/APP/2024/1306, which would increase the gross internal area of the dwelling to approximately 125sqm. The current application also proposes extensions which would result in a gross internal area of approximately 135sqm. 7.7 Taking into account the extant permissi on and the proposed extensions, it is considered that the extended dwelling would be of a sufficient size to accommodate the proposed conversion a nd would accord with the objectives of Policy DMH 4 in this regard. 7.8 It is acknowledged that Flat 2 would be arranged over two floors. However, the upper floor would be for the sole and exc lusive use of that unit and would form part of a duplex layout. Given the overall size, layout and quality of accommodation proposed, it is considered that the objectives of Policy DMH 4 would be met and that the unit would provide a good standard of residential accommodation for future occupiers. 7.9 The existing dwelling comprises a tw o-bedroom house and the proposed development would therefore not result in the loss of a family-sized dwelling, which is generally defined as a dwelling containing three or more bedrooms. The proposal would provide 2 x 2 -bedroom self- contained flats, resulting in a net increase of one residential unit. In view of the existing housing stock on the site and the additional residential unit that would be provided, the proposed housing mix is considered acceptable and would accord with the objectives of Policy H10 of the London Plan and Policy DMH 2 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 7.10 Moreover, 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). This contributes to an evidenced unmet housing need within the Bo rough. In accordance with Policy HO7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026), substantial weight should be given to the benefits of providing homes that contribute towards meeting identified housing needs. 7.11 For the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework, the application site is located within a settlement. Accordingly, the proposal requires to be assessed against Policies S3 and S4 of the Framework. Policy S4 states that development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies of the Framework. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.12 The proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan. Furthermore, when assessed against the national decision -making policies of the Framework taken as a whole, the identified adverse effects would not substantially outweigh the benefits of the development. Significant weight is therefore afforded to the proposal's contribution towards addressing the Borough's identified housing needs, and the development is considered acceptable in principle. Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.13 The Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One Strategic Policy BE1 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. 7.14 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Pa rt Two - Development Management Policies (2020) advises that all development will be required to be designed to the highest standards and inc orporate 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 adversary impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. 7.15 Policy DMHD 1 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 required that there is no unacceptable loss of outlook to neighbouring occupiers. 7.16 The proposal involves the erection of a part single-storey, part two-storey side and rear extension together with the conve rsion of the roof space to habitable accommodation, including the erection of a rear dormer extension and the installation of rooflig hts. It should be noted that the site benefits from an extant planning permission for a front porch and part single -storey, part two-storey side and rear extensions under planning permission ref. 43721/APP/2024/1306. This fallback position is a material consideration in the assessment of the current proposal. 7.17 The proposed two-storey side extension would measure approximately 1.4m in width and 10.5m in depth. It would be set in from the side boundary by approximately 1.1m, set back from the front elevation by 1m at first-floor level, and would feature a hipped roof set down from the main ridgeline. These design features would ensure that the extension remains visually subordinate to the host dwelling. 7.18 The proposed first-floor rear extensio n would measure approximately 3.6m in depth and 4.2m in width and would connect with the side extension. It would be set down from the main ridgeline and would be finished with a dual -pitched roof form. The proposed gr ound-floor rear extension would not project beyond the depth of the existing rear addition, however it would include a new rooflight. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.19 The proposed side and rear extensions would be smaller than those approved under planning permission ref. 43721/APP/2024/1306, with reductions in both the width of the side extension and the depth of the rear extension. Accordingly, it is considered that these elements would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. Figure 6: Extant permission under reference 43721/APP/2024/1306 Figure 7: Proposed extensions under current application Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.20 The surrounding area is characterised by a variety of dwelling types and styles. Furthermore, the attached property at No. 15 Clammas Way benefits from similar side and rear extensions. In this cont ext, the proposed extensions would appear consistent with the prevailing char acter of the area and would not appear incongruous within the street scene in terms of design, character and form. Figure 8: Photograph of No.15 Clammas Way from the rear Figure 9: Street view image of No.15 Clammas Way showing side extension Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.21 The principal change from the extant permission is the inclusion of a rear dormer extension and rooflights. The rear dormer would measure approximately 2.7m in width, 2.5m in depth and 1.7m in height. It would be set down from the ridge, set in from both side boundaries and set up from the eaves. As a result of its scale, siting and design, the dormer would appear subordinate within the rear roof slope and would not result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling or the wider area. 7.22 Overall, having regard to the fallback posi tion afforded by the extant permission and the scale, siting and design of the proposed extensions, the development is considered acceptable and would comply with Policies BE1, DMHB 11 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan. The proposal would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, street scene or wider surrounding area. Residential Amenity 7.23 Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that planning applications relating to alterations and extensions of dwellings will be required to ensure, amongst other matters, that: ii) a satisfactory relationship with adjacent dwellings is achieved; and v) there is no unacceptable loss of outlook to neighbouring occupiers. 7.24 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Pa rt 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. Proposed extensions No. 11 Clammas Way 7.25 No. 11 Clammas Way is located to the west of the application site and comprises a chalet bungalow. The neighbouring property is separated from the host dwelling by the shared side boundary. 7.26 The proposed ground and first floor side extension would not breach a 45-degree line taken from the nearest rear habitable room window serving No. 11. Furthermore, the extension would be set approximately 1.1m from the shared boundary. The proposed extension is also slightly narrower than that approved under extant planning permission ref. 43721/APP/2024/1306. In assessing that earlier scheme, it was concluded that the extension would not result in an unacceptable loss of light, outlook or increased sense of enclosure to the occupiers of No. 11, and the current proposal would have an equal or lesser impact in these respects. 7.27 The development would introduce two ground floor side-facing windows and one first floor side-facing window in the western elevation. These windows would serve non-habitable rooms, namely a bathro om, storage area and stairwell. To Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press safeguard the privacy of neighbouring occupiers, a condition can be imposed requiring these windows to be obscurely glazed and non -opening below a height of 1.8m above finished floor level. Subject to this condition, no harmful overlooking or loss of privacy would arise. 7.28 There are three side-facing windows within the neighbouring property at No. 11 that face towards the proposed development. An assessment of the planning history indicates that these ground floor windows serve a shower room, a stairwell and a kitchen. The kitchen also benefits fr om a pair of patio doors which provide an additional source of natural light to the room. Given the function of the rooms served and the availability of alternative light sources to the kitchen, it is not considered that the proposed development would result in a harmful impact on the outlook or levels of natural light available to these windows. 7.29 Overall, it is considered that the propos ed development would not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the occupiers of No. 11 Clammas Way in terms of loss of light, outlook, overbearing impact or privacy, and therefore complies with the Council's residential amenity objectives. Figure 10: Photograph of the rear of No. 11 Clammas Way Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 11: Photograph of the side of No.11 Clammas Way No. 15 Clammas Way 7.30 No. 15 Clammas Way is located to the east of the application site and forms the other half of the semi-detached pair. 7.31 The proposed ground floor side and rear extension would not project beyond either the front or rear building lines of No. 15. As such, the extension would maintain the existing relationship between the properties and would not result in an unacceptable loss of outlook or an overbearing impact to the occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling. 7.32 The proposed first-floor rear extension would be set away from the shared boundary with No. 15 and would not breach a 45 -degree line taken from the nearest neighbouring habitable room window. Consequently, the proposal would not give rise to a significant loss of light or increased overshadowing to the adjoining property. 7.33 The proposed roof extension is modest in scale and is positioned such that it would not result in any harmful loss of light, ov ershadowing, or sense of enclosure. In addition, the proposal would not introduce any unacceptable overlooking of neighbouring habitable rooms or private amenity areas. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.34 Overall, the proposed development is considered to have an acceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers of No. 15 Clammas Way and would not result in significant harm in terms of outlook, dayli ght, sunlight, privacy, or overbearing effects. Therefore, the proposal complies with the Council's residential amenity objectives. Figure 12: Photograph of the rear of No. 15 Clammas Way Dellfield Crescent 7.35 Nos. 12 and 14 Dellfield Crescent are located to the north of the application site beyond the rear boundary. Given the separation distance of in excess of 30m between the host dwelling and these neighbo uring properties, the proposed extensions would not result in an unacceptable loss of light, overshadowing, or an overbearing impact. 7.36 The proposal includes a first-floor rear extension and a rear dormer containing rear-facing windows. However, given the significant separation distance between the proposed windows and neighbouring habitable room windows and private amenity areas, it is not considered that the development would result in a harmful loss of privacy or overlooking. Furthermore, similar views to those proposed exist from the first-floor rear-facing windows. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.37 As such, the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of Nos. 12 and 14 Dellfield Crescent. Figure 13: Photograph towards Dellfield Crescent Use as two self-contained flats 7.38 The proposal would result in the conversion of the existing dwellinghouse into two residential units. Whilst it is acknowledged that occupation by two households would differ from occupation as a sing le dwellinghouse, the use would remain wholly residential in nature. The comings and goings associated with the proposed flats, including travel to and from work, shopping and leisure activities, are not considered likely to materially exceed those which could reasonably be expected from occupation of the extended property by a large family household. 7.39 In terms of noise generation, the proposal would not introduce a commercial use or any activity that would be inherently noisier than a conventional residential use. The level of day -to-day domestic noise associated with two flats is therefore not considered to be materially different from that which could arise from occupation of the property as a single -family dwelling. Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that the proposal would result in harmful levels of noise, disturbance or vibration affecting neighbouring occupiers. 7.40 With regard to sound insulation between the proposed flats, this is primarily a matter addressed through compliance with the Building Regulations, which require Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press adequate measures to limit the transmission of airborne and impact sound between separate residential units. Building Control would assess the development against these standards as pa rt of the construction process. Given that the proposal relates to a residential conversion and that appropriate sound insulation measures would be secured through the Building Regulations regime, it is not considered necessary or reas onable to impose a separate planning condition requiring installation of additional sound insulation. 7.41 Having regard to the above, it is consider ed that the proposal would not result in unacceptable noise, disturbance or vibr ation, nor would it cause unreasonable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers to warrant refusal . The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in terms of residential amenity. 7.42 Overall, the proposed development complies with Policies DMHD 1 and DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020). Quality of Residential Accommodation (Internal and External) Internal 7.43 Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) sets out the minimum internal floor space standards required for residential developments in order to ensure that there is an adequate level of amenity for future occupants. 7.44 Policy DMHB 16 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that all hous ing development should have an adequate provision of internal space in order to provide an appropriate living environment. The space standards set out in Table 5.1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) are the same as those found in Table 3.1 of the London Plan (2021). 7.45 The proposal seeks to convert the ex isting dwellinghouse into two self-contained flats. Flat 1 would be located at ground floor level, whilst Flat 2 would occupy the first floor and loft level. 7.46 Both units would comprise two-bedroom, three-person dwellings. In accordance with Policy D6 of the London Plan, a two-bedroom, three-person flat arranged over a single storey is required to provide a minimum Gross Internal Area (GIA) of 61sq.m, whilst a tw o-bedroom, three-person dwelling arranged over two storeys is required to provide a minimum GIA of 70sq.m. 7.47 Flat 1 would provide approximately 62.5sq.m of internal floor space and Flat 2 would provide approximately 74.5sq.m. As such, both units exceed the minimum space standards prescribed by Policy D6 of the London Plan and Policy DMHB 16 of the Hillingdon Local Plan. 7.48 All habitable rooms would benefit from adequate levels of natural daylight and outlook, ensuring a satisfactory living environment for future occupiers. In addition, Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press all proposed bedrooms would meet or exceed the minimum bedroom size requirements. 7.49 A section drawing has been provided showing the floor to ceiling has as approx. 2.45m for ground and first floor, with the loft at 2.24m. Although marginally under the required 2.5m as stipulated within Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) this is not considered to be harmful to the amenities of future occupiers of the units. 7.50 Overall, both proposed units would provide a good standard of internal accommodation, in compliance with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMHB 16 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020). External 7.51 Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that all new residential development and conversions will be required to provide good quality and usable private outdoor amenity space. Amenity space should be provided in accordance with the standards set out in Table 5.3. 7.52 Table 5.3 of Policy DMHB 18 requires a minimum of 25sq.m of private external amenity space for a two -bedroom flat. The proposal would provide each flat with its own private rear garden area, independently accessed via the existing side access path. 7.53 Flat 1 would benefit from approximatel y 63sq.m of private garden space, whilst Flat 2 would be provided with approximately 31sq.m of private garden space. Both garden areas would therefore exceed the Council's minimum amenity space requirements and would provide functional and usable outdoor space for future occupiers. 7.54 In addition, Flat 2 would have access to the existing outbuilding (measuring approx. 45sqm) located within the rear garden, which would provide ancillary accommodation and storage space for the benefit of the occupiers of that unit. A condition is recommended to ensure that the use of the outbuilding remains incidental to the enjoyment of the residential accommodation and is not used as a separate self-contained dwelling. 7.55 Overall, both proposed flats would be provided with sufficient and good-quality private outdoor amenity space, with each unit exceeding the Council's adopted standards. The proposal is therefore co nsidered to comply with Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and would provide an acceptable level of external amenity for future occupiers. Highways and Parking 7.56 Policy DMT 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) seeks to ensure that development would not adversely affect Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press highway safety, whilst Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021) requires developments to provide appropriate levels of vehicle and cycle parking. 7.57 The application proposes the subdivision of the existing dwelling into two self- contained flats. The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 1b, indicating relatively poor access to public transport, although bus stops are located approximately 280m from the site. The proposal would retain the existing vehicular access from Clammas Way and would not result in any alterations to the existing crossover arrangement. 7.58 In terms of car parking, the proposal would provide two off-street parking spaces, equating to one space per flat. The Council's Highway s Officer has reviewed the proposal and raises no objection to this level of provision. 7.59 Whilst the site has a PTAL rating of 1b and the London Plan allows for a maximum of 1.5 parking spaces per one to two -bedroom dwelling in such locations, it is recognised that PTAL scores do not always fully reflect a site's accessibility characteristics. The site is located within reasonable walking distance of local services, facilities and public transport op portunities and is therefore considered to be more sustainable than the PTAL rating alone may suggest. 7.60 It is further acknowledged that the physical constraints of the site limit the amount of parking that can be accommodated. The proposal would retain the existing level of usable on -site parking provision and, having regard to the scale of development proposed, this is considered acceptable. 7.61 In reaching this conclusion, weight is also given to the Council's recent approval of the redevelopment of land at 29 Clammas Way under reference 77795/APP/2025/2979 for the erection of two dwelli ngs, where parking provision at a rate of one space per dwelling was similarly considered acceptable despite the site's PTAL 1b designation. That application was approved by the Planning Committee in accordance with the officer recommendation, thereby demonstrating that parking provision below the maximum London Plan standard can be acceptable in this locality where justified by site-specific circumstances. 7.62 Furthermore, there is no evidence to indicate that the development would result in unacceptable on -street parking stress or a severe impact on the surrounding highway network. 7.63 The proposal would also provide cycle parki ng at a rate of two spaces per flat, meeting the quantitative minimum requirements of the London Plan. It is acknowledged that access to the cycle storage area would be via a side passage measuring approximately 1.07m in width, which falls marginally below the 1.2m access width recommended by the London Cycle Design Standards. However, the cycle stores would remain accessible from the side passage and there is limited opportunity to provide an altern ative arrangement elsewhere on the site. Provision within the front garden would compromise the usability of the parking area and detract from the appearance and functionality of the frontage. On balance, whilst the proposal does not fully comply with the London Cycle Design Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Standards in this respect, the cycle parki ng provision is considered acceptable given the constraints of the site and the pr actical accessibility that would remain available to future occupiers. 7.64 In accordance with Policy T6.1 of the London Plan (2021), a minimum of 20% of parking spaces should be provided with active Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCPs). The proposed development would provide two off -street parking spaces and, as such, a minimum of one active EVCP would be required. This is recommended to be secured by condition. 7.65 The Council’s Waste Collection Standards re quire that the distance between the refuse vehicle and the collection point does not exceed 10 metres. The proposed drawings indicate refuse storage would be located at the front of the site within this standard. In practice occupiers of the dwellings would position their waste on the kerbside of Clammas Way on collection days, consistent with the existing arrangements. This arrangement would be common within the residential setting and is considered acceptable. 7.66 The Highway Authority has concluded that the proposal would not result in a severe impact on highway safety or the operation of the local highway network. Accordingly, subject to appropriate conditions, the development is considered acceptable in highways and transportation terms and complies with Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) and Policies T4 and T6 of the London Plan (2021). Air Quality 7.67 The site is located within an Air Qualit y Management Area. Given the proposed development is for residential extensions to the existing property to facilitate the conversion into 2 self -contained flats, it is not considered the proposal would cause unacceptable levels of dust and disturbance during the construction phase. Accessibility 7.68 Policy D7 of the London Plan (2 021) states that at least 10 per cent of dwellings (which are created via works to which Part M volume 1 of the Building Regulations applies) must meet Building Regulatio n requirement M4(3) 'wheelchair user dwellings'. All other dwellings (which are created via works to which Part M volume 1 of the Building Regulations applies) must meet Building Regulation requirement M4(2) 'accessible and adaptable dwellings'. 7.69 This proposal has been reviewed against the requirements of the 2021 London Plan policy D7 which would not be applied to the extension and conversion of this existing dwelling. Trees and Landscaping 7.70 Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) seeks to protect and enhance trees, landscaping and biodiversity, Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press and requires development proposals to contribute positively to the visual amenities and character of the area. 7.71 The application site does not contain any protected trees and is not located within a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) area. Furthermore, no trees would be required to be removed as part of the proposed development. 7.72 Whilst the proposal does not include detailed landscaping plans, there remains sufficient space within the site to a ccommodate soft landscaping enhancements. Given the nature of the development and the alterations proposed to the frontage and rear garden areas, it is considered reasonable to impose a condition requiring the submission and approval of a comp rehensive landscaping scheme. Such a scheme should include details of both hard and soft landscaping measures, planting specifications, and arrangements for the long- term maintenance of the landscaping. 7.73 Subject to the submission and implementation of an appropriate landscaping scheme, the development would contribute positively to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Biodiversity Net Gain 7.74 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 dist inguish it from other or more general biodiversity gains. 7.75 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 developm ent to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat. 7.76 The legislation includes a de minimis exemption for developments resulting in the loss of less than 25sq.m of onsite habitat. In this case, the proposed extensions would be sited on existing hardstanding and developed areas of the site and would therefore result in the loss of less than 25sq.m of habitat. Accordingly, the development falls within the de minimis exemption and is exempt from the statutory Biodiversity Net Gain requirements. As such, the biodiversity gain objective would not apply and the submission of a Biodiversity Gain Plan is not required in this instance. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Flooding and Drainage 7.77 The application site is located within Fl ood Zone 1 and is therefore at low risk of flooding. The site is not located within a Critical Drainage Area and is not identified as being at significant risk of surfac e water flooding. As such, the proposed development is not considered to increase flood risk either on-site or elsewhere. 7.78 The proposal relates to the subdivision and extension of an existing dwellinghouse rather than the creation of a new standalone dwelling. Furthermore, the development would not result in a sign ificant increase in impermeable surfacing within the site. Having regard to the scale and nature of the proposal, it is not considered that a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) scheme is necessary in this instance. 7.79 Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to give rise to any unacceptable flooding or drainage concerns and is acceptable in this regard. The development therefore complies with the flood risk and drainage objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy SI 13 of the London Plan (2021), and Policy DMEI 9 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Land Contamination 7.80 The application site is partially located on land identified within the Council's records as having a potentially contaminative former use, namely a nursery/orchard. However, the proposal rela tes to the subdivision of an existing dwellinghouse and the erection of relatively small-scale domestic extensions. 7.81 Given the nature and scale of the deve lopment, together with the existing established residential use of the site, it is not considered that the proposal would give rise to any significant land contamination concerns. Furthermore, the extant planning permission ref. 43721/APP/2024/1306 for similar extension works was granted without the imposition of any land contamination conditions. Waste Storage 7.82 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) requires development prop osals to provide appropriate facilities for the storage and collection of waste and recycling. 7.83 The proposed development would subdivide the existing dwelling into two self- contained flats. Refuse and recycling storage can be appropriately accommodated within the site and is shown within the front forecourt area. Given the scale of the development, the level of waste generated by two relatively small flats is not considered likely to be significantly gr eater than that which could arise from the existing dwellinghouse and would not result in any adverse impacts on the character or appearance of the area. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.84 Notwithstanding this, details of the refu se storage facilities have not been fully provided. Accordingly, a landscaping co ndition is recommended requiring the submission and approval of details of covered and secure refuse storage facilities. This will ensure that waste storage is suitably integrated into the development, remains visually unobtrusive, and maintains a tidy appearance at the front of the site. 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 The Council adopted its own Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on 1st August 2014. The Hillingdon CIL charge for resi dential developments is £95 per square metre of additional floor space. This is in addition to the Mayoral CIL charge of £60 per square metre. CIL rates are in dex linked. The proposal involves the erection of a new dwellings and is therefore CIL liable if planning permission is granted. 8.4 Please note, this commentary has been provided for the purpose of assisting in the determination of the planning application only. 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. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area and would not result in significant harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Th e proposal would provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future residents, together with adequate amenity space, parking, cycle storage and refuse provision. 9.2 The proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan, and no material considerations indicate that a contra ry decision should be taken. Moreover, significant weight is afforded to the provis ion of additional housing in light of the fact the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 -year housing land supply. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents taken into account in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential information) are available on the Council's website here, by entering the planning application number at the top of this report and using the search facility. Planning applications are also available to inspect electronically at the Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW upon appointment, by contacting Planning Services at planning@hillingdon.gov.uk. 10.2 This report has been prepared with reference to the background papers listed below, which have been relied upon to a material extent in its preparation and are available for public inspection, subject to any necessary redaction for exempt or confidential information. 10.3 Internal Consultee Comments – Highway Authority dated 11th May 2026

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Rhian Thomas 17611/APP/2026/400 Date Application Valid: 16-02-26 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 25-09-26 Application Type: Full Ward: Colham and Cowley Applicant: Mr Mithun Khanna Site Address: 42 Pield Heath Road, Uxbridge, Hillingdon, UB8 3NG Proposal: Proposed first-floor rear extension to create additional rooms and a single -storey rear infill extension to create an accessible room (amended drawings) 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 – 15th September 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 seeks planning permission fo r the erection of a first-floor rear extension and single -storey rear infill extension to an existing guest house (Use Class C1), together with associated inter nal alterations. The proposal would provide an accessible ground-floor guest room with a guest room at first floor level and result in a net increase of one additional guest bedroom. 1.2 The key planning considerations are the principle of development, the impact on the character and appearance of the area, the effect on neighbouring residential amenity, highways and parking, and the implications for trees, biodiversity and drainage. 1.3 The application is a revised scheme following the refusal of application reference 17611/APP/2025/2884. The current proposal has removed the front and rear outbuildings and reduced the extent of the first -floor additions. Officers consider that the amended scheme overcomes the previous reasons for refusal and would not result in unacceptable harm to the character of the area, neighbouring amenity, highway safety, trees or the environment. 1.4 Due regard has been given to local resid ents' objections, including the petition 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. 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 development site is located on the north side of Pield Heath Road. The site comprises a two -storey building which is currently used as a guest house. The building has been finished in brick and hung tiles. In terms of style, it is low level and resembles an extended chalet bungalow. The building is well set back from the road, and its frontage comprises off road parking. The property benefits from single storey rear extensions. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2.2 To the immediate west of the site is 44 Pield Heath Road, which comprises a single storey, flat roofed, warehouse style building with rear service yard. To the east of the site is 40 Pield Heath Road a two-storey semi-detached property. The remaining area surrounding the site is predominantly residential with the exception of a small number of commercial uses. To the rear of the site are semi- detached dwellings which make up Newlyn Close. 2.3 The application site is set back from the main road and does not follow the same building line as neighbouring properties. 2.4 The site lies within the Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area and a Critical Drainage Area. It has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 3. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application Site 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a first-floor rear extension and ground floor infill extension. 3.2 Internal configurations would take place and there would be a net increase in 1 additional room. 3.3 During the process of the application revised drawings were received to include a rear facing window within the first-floor rear extension and to include obscurely glazed windows to the first-floor side elevation. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Existing Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Figure 4: Proposed Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 5: Proposed Site Plan 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 application is a re-submission of a previously refused scheme under reference 17611/APP/2025/2884 dated 20 -01-26 for the ‘Erection of a single storey rear extension, first floor rear extensions, alterations to roof form including a new rear dormer extension. Erection of a single st orey rear outbuilding structure and a single storey front outbuilding structur e’. The application was refused for the following reasons: 1. Character and Appearance: The proposed front outbuilding, by reason of its siting, design, and position within the site frontage, would fail to harmonise with the established street pattern and prevailing character of the surrounding area. The introduction of a structure in this location, where outbuildings are typically loc ated to the rear of properties, would appear incongruous and visually intrusive within the street scene. Furthermore, the lack of integration with the main guest house and its proximity to the public highway raises concerns regarding its ancillary nature and intended use, resulting in a development that is poorly related to its context. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020), Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Paragraphs 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2. Neighbour Impact: The proposed first floor rear extensions, by reason of its excessive height, bulk, depth and close proximity to neighbouring properties, particularly Nos. 1 and 2 Newlyn Close, would result in an unacce ptably harmful sense of enclosure and visual dominance, leading to a signif icant loss of outlook and an overbearing impact on the rear gardens and windows of these dwellings. This would cause material harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Furthermore, insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed rear and front outbuildings, intended for guest dining and coffee shop use, would not result in unacceptable levels of noise, odour, and disturbance to neighbouring properties. The absence of a noise impa ct assessment, odour assessment, and clear operational controls (including measur es to restrict public access) fails to ensure that the development would safe guard residential amenity. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies DMHB 11, DME 5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020), Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DP3 of the NPPF 2026. 3. Trees: In the absence of an Arboricutural Survey the applicant has failed to provide adequate information regarding the value of the existing trees and that they will be protected during the construction of the development. Accordingly, the development would result in adverse a nd irreversible impacts to landscaping, trees, biodiversity or othe r natural features of merit, detrimental to the visual amenities of the area, contrary to paragr aph 136 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy G7 of the London Plan (2021), and Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 4.3 This current application has been amended to remove the outbuilding structures and part of the first-floor rear extension. Only the ground floor rear infill extension and part first floor rear extension is retained within this submission. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. Emerging Planning Policies 5.2 Policy DM4 of the NPPF (2026) states that: 1. When preparing and considering development proposals, relevant policies in emerging development plans may be given weight according to: a. The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press b. The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and c. The degree of compliance of the relevant policies in the emerging plan with the policies for plan- making in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework, the greater the weight that may be given to them). Draft London Plan (July 2026) 5.3 The GLA are consulting on a draft new London Plan between 16th July and 15th October 2026 with the intention of replacing the previous versions of the existing London Plan. Following the consultation, t he draft London Plan will be subject to an independent Examination in Public before final adoption, expected in early 2028. 5.4 As the unresolved objections have not yet been submitted and published for decision-makers to review, limited weight can be afforded to the Draft London Plan (July 2026) at present. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 8 neighbouring properties were consulted on the application by letter dated 02-03- 26. 6.2 During the process of the application revised drawings were received and neighbours were subsequently re-consulted for 14 days. The consultation period expired 13-05-26. 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 A petition in objection with 130 signatures has been received. 1. Increased traffic, congestion and air pollution This has been discussed at paragraphs 7.56-7.58 of this report. 2. Decreased safety for children, pedestrians, road users of Pield The Highway Authority have been consulted on the application. Highway matters have been Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Heath Road and side roads discussed at paragraphs 7.41-7.52 of this report. 3. Increased noise and intensity of use This has been discussed at paragraphs 7.53-7.55 of this report. 4. Inadequate parking provision and overflow parking on existing residents This has been discussed at paragraphs 7.41-7.52 of this report. 5. Loss of privacy Neighbouring amenity has been discussed at paragraphs 7.24-7.35 of this report. 6. Potential blocking or interruption of an ambulance route The proposed development is not considered to cause an interruption to ambulance routes. Highways matters have been discussed at paragraphs 7.41-7.52 of this report. 7. Overdevelopment - failure to protect residential character of local area Impacts on the character and appearance of the area have been discussed at pa ragraphs 7.13-7.23 of this report. 10 individual letters of objection have been received I. Traffic, Congestion, Parking and Highway Safety This has been discussed at paragraphs 7.41-7.52 of this report. II. Noise and Disturbance This has been discussed at paragraphs 7.53-7.55 of this report. III. Loss of Privacy Neighbouring amenity has been discussed at paragraphs 7.24-7.35 of this report. IV. Visual Intrusion and Overdominance Neighbouring amenity has been discussed at paragraphs 7.24-7.35 of this report. V. Anti-social Behaviour The development is not considered to cause an Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press increase in anti-social behaviour. VI. Environmental Impact An assessment of the impact on trees and landscaping and biodiversity has been made in paragraphs 7.65- 7.71 of this report. VII. Pollution An assessment on air quality has been made in paragraphs 7.56-7.58 of this report. VIII. Commercialisation of Residential Area The development is remaining in class C1 use (Guest House). An assessment of the principle of development has been made in section 7.1-7.12 of this report. IX. Concerns regarding change of use to hotel and halls of residence The development is not proposing use as student accommodation. An assessment of the principle of development has been made in paragraphs 7.1-7.12 of this report. X. Disputing the conclusions of the Highway Authority comments and considers that the existing parking provision is insufficient to accommodate demand associated with the guesthouse. P otential for overspill parking and associated impacts on nearby residential streets. The comments are noted and an assessment of highway impacts has been discussed at paragraphs 7.41 -7.52 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Highway Authority The Highway Authority considers the proposal acceptable from a transport perspective, noting that the existing guest house benefits from a large forecourt parking area with space for around 12 vehicles and a wide vehicular access, which is sufficient to ac commodate the small increase in guest rooms. Surrounding roads are subject to extensive parking controls and Controlled Parking Zones, reducing the likelihood of parking displacement, while the site’s moderate PTAL rating of 3 supports the use of sustainab le transport modes. As a result, the development is not expected to generate a significant increase in trips or traffic and would not materially worsen congestion or parking stress. Two existing parking spaces will be equipped with electric vehicle charging points, and cycle parking should be provided in accordance with London Plan standards (1 long -stay space per 20 bedrooms and 1 short-stay space per 50 bedrooms), secured by condition. Overall, the Highway Authority concludes that the scheme would not result in any measurable highway safety issues or severe transport impacts and therefore does not recommend refusal on highway or parking grounds. This is noted and Highways matters have been discussed at paragraphs 7.41- 7.52 of this report. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The London Plan (2021) defines "Visitor Accommodation" as: ‘Leisure and business accommodation that provides temporary overnight accommodation on a commercial basis, including serviced accommodation such as hotels, bed and breakfast, guesthouses and hostels.’ 7.2 The London Plan (2021) further confirms that “Serviced Accommodation” includes bed and breakfasts and guest houses where services such as catering and cleaning are provided to guests. 7.3 Policy E10 of the London Plan (2021) seeks to strengthen London’s visitor economy by supporting and enhancing visitor accommodation, particularly where Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press it contributes to the quality and availability of facilities. Accordingly, the retention and improvement of serviced accommodation is supported in policy terms. 7.4 At the local level, Policy DME 5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) supports visitor accommodation in accessible locations, subject to achieving a high standard of design and ensuring that there are no adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. 7.5 The application site is currently in use as a class C1 Guest House and the proposal does not involve a change of use. Instead, the development comprises a first-floor rear extension and a ground floor rear inf ill extension, together with associated internal alterations, to provide improved accommodation including additional guest bedrooms and an accessible room. 7.6 Whilst the policy refers to visitor ac commodation, the policy wording is more applicable to hotel and other larger visitor uses rather than smaller scale guest houses. Hotel growth is promoted in Uxbridge and Hayes specifically within defined areas set out in the Local Plan. The application site does not fall within either of these areas. 7.7 London Plan Policy E10 (Visito r Infrastructure) states that in ou ter London and those parts of inner London outside the CAZ, serviced accommodation should be promoted in town centres and within Opport unity Areas (in accordance with the sequential test as set out in Policy SD7 Town centres: development principles and Development Plan Documents) where they are well -connected by public transport, particularly to central London. The London Plan provides a definition of service accommodation as including hotels, bed & breakfasts, guest houses, and hostels where services such as catering and cleaning are provided to guests. 7.8 It is acknowledged that the site is outside a town centre and does not fall within an area identified for hotel growth. However, the application does not propose a new hotel or guest house in this loc ation. Instead, it seeks a small -scale extension to an established guest house, providing a si ngle additional guest room. Given the limited scale of the proposal and its ancillary nature to the existing lawful use, the development is not considered to undermine the spatial objectives of London Plan Policy E10 and is acceptable in principle. 7.9 It is noted that a number of neighbouring representations raise concerns that the property may be used for student accommodation. However, no such use is proposed as part of this application. The proposal seeks only operational development to the existing guest house and the lawful use of the site would remain as C1 visitor accommodation. Purpose -built student accommodation is generally regarded as a sui generis use and would constitute a materially different planning use. Whilst the application form refers to "Hotels and Halls of Residence" under Use Class C1, officers are satisfied that this reflects the pre -defined categories available within the Planning Portal application form, which does not provide a separate category specifically for guest houses. No change of use has been applied for or assessed as part of th is application, and the proposal must therefore be considered on the basis that the site would continue to operate as a Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press guest house providing visitor accommodation. It is also noted that students may occupy a range of accommodation types, but the concerns raised by neighbouring occupiers relate to purpose -built student accommodation, which has not been proposed as part of this application. 7.10 The proposed extensions are directly related to and are associated with the continued use of the site as visitor accommodation. In this regard, the development seeks to improve the quality, accessibility and functionality of the existing guest house rather than intensify it in a manner that would undermine its character or operation. 7.11 It is noted that a previous scheme for the site was refused under reference 17611/APP/2025/2884 due to a number of design and amenity concerns. However, the current application has been amended to remove those elements and now presents a more proportionate form of development that aligns with policy requirements. The proposal therefore seeks to maintain and enhance the existing use in a manner that is consistent wi th the objectives of supporting visitor accommodation within the Borough. 7.12 Accordingly, the principle of extending the existing guest house is considered acceptable, subject to compliance with all other material planning considerations, as assessed in the following sections of this report. Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.13 Policy DP3 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026) requires development proposals to create well -designed places that respond positively to their context and reflect the key principles of liveability, climate resilience, nature, movement, built form, public space and identity. Development that conflicts with these principles, without clear justification, should be refused. 7.14 Policies D1 and D3 of the London Plan (2021) similarly require development to be of high-quality design and to respond positively to local context. 7.15 At local level, Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Pa rt 1 (2012) and Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) require development to achieve a high standa rd of design, harmonise with its surroundings, and integrate appropriately with the character of the area. 7.16 The proposal seeks the erection of a first-floor rear extension and a single-storey rear infill extension, together with asso ciated alterations to the existing guest house. The current submission differs from the previously refused scheme in that it has removed all proposed outbuilding structures and reduced the overall scale and extent of development. 7.17 The proposed single-storey rear infill extension would be located between existing rear projections and would measure approximately 5.4m in width, 4m in depth and 2.5m in height, with a flat roof. This element is modest in scale and is considered Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press to appear subordinate and would not detract from the character or appearance of the host property or the wider area. 7.18 The proposed first floor rear extension would be sited above an existing ground floor extension of a similar footprint. It would measure approximately 5.6m in width, 9.6m in depth and 6.3m in height and would be set down from the main ridge line. It is acknowledged that this element repres ents a relatively large addition at first floor level. However, its siting direct ly above an established rear projection ensures that it reads as a continuation of the existing built form rather than a disjointed addition. 7.19 The design of the extension has also been considered to complement the host building, incorporating a half -hipped roof form which reflects the existing roof design. Materials are proposed to match the existing building, which would further assist in integrating the extension with the host building. 7.20 Whilst the first-floor extension would be visible from the rear of the site, the property is set back from the street by approximately 27m and the extension would not be readily visible from the public realm. As such, it would not have a material impact on the character and appearance of the street scene. 7.21 It is also noted that a previous applicat ion at the site for the demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of the site for residential flats was dismissed at appeal under reference APP/R5510/W/23/3315737. Whilst the appeal was dismissed overall, the Inspector concluded that the proposed development in that case would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, having regard to the set back of the site from the street and the varied scale and appearance of surrounding development. Th is conclusion is considered directly relevant to the current proposal, which is of a more limited scale, and reinforces the view that it would be difficult to sustain a refusal on character and appearance grounds in this instance. Figure 6: Proposed Side Elevation of appeal scheme APP/R5510/W/23/3315737 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 7: Proposed Side Elevation within current scheme 7.22 Importantly, the removal of the front and rear outbuilding structures has addressed the key design concerns associated with the previous scheme. The proposal no longer introduces incongruous built form within the site frontage or excessive additional structures within the rear ga rden, resulting in a more coherent and policy-compliant form of development. Figure 8: Previously refused scheme floor plans Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 9: Proposed scheme floor plans 7.23 Overall, the proposed development has sufficiently overcome refusal reason 1 of the previous application and is considered acceptable in terms of its character and appearance. The development therefore complies with Policy DP3 of the NPPF (2026) Policies D1 and D3 of the London Plan (2021), and Policies BE1, DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan. Residential Amenity 7.24 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) requires that development does not adversely impact the amenity of adjoining occupiers by reason of dominance, overlooking, loss of light or sense of enclosure. 7.25 Policy DME 5 similarly requires that visitor accommodation does not give rise to adverse impacts on neighbouring land uses. 7.26 The adjoining service yard of No. 44 Pie ld Heath Road is located to the west of the site. It is acknowledged that the proposed first floor rear extension would be visible from this neighbouring site and, by virtue of its siting close to the shared boundary and overall scale, would present as a noticeable addition. However, given that this neighbouring site is comme rcial in nature, it is not considered that the proposal would result in a harmful impact on residential living conditions. The use of the service yard would be able to continue to operate alongside the development without undue constraint. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 10: Photograph of the yard area at No.44 7.27 Nos. 1 and 2 Newlyn Close are located to th e east of the site. The proposed first floor rear extension is set away from these neighbouring properties by approximately 28m, which significantly exceeds the Council’s minimum separation distance of 21m. The previous scheme in cluded an additional first floor rear extension which was located closer to the shared boundary line with these neighbours. However, this has now been removed within this current application, thereby overcoming the earlier reason for refusal in relation to amenity impacts. 7.28 Policy DMHB 11 refers to a minimum separation distance of 21 metres between habitable room windows to safeguard existing windows from overlooking or privacy concerns and overshadowing. Given that the separation distance between the existing dwelling and proposed extension exceeds this distance , it is not considered that the proposal would result in unacceptable overshadowing, loss of light or loss of outlook. The submitted plans also demonstrate that the proposal would comply with the 45 -degree rule when taken from the neighbouring properties, further confirming that there would be no material loss of light. 7.29 It is acknowledged that the introduction of the first-floor extension would alter the outlook from neighbouring properties, give n the increased height of built form to Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the rear. However there would be significant separation distance such that the impact would not be significantly harmful. 7.30 In terms of overlooking, the proposal includes three side-facing windows at first floor level facing towards Nos. 1 and 2 Newlyn Close, serving a bathroom, living area and bedroom. The submitted plans indicate that the lower panes of these windows would be obscurely glazed, which would limi t direct views towards the neighbouring properties. A condition is recommended to ensure that these windows are obscurely glazed and fixed shut above 1.8m, in order to safeguard neighbouring privacy. Figure 11: View towards No. 1 and 2 Newlyn Close 7.31 No. 3 Newlyn Close is located to the north of the application site. The proposed development includes a first-floor rear-facing window serving one of the new guest bedrooms. Whilst this window would be oriented towards the rear garden area of this neighbouring property, there would be a separation distance of approximately 10.8m between the window and the shared rear boundary. 7.32 It is acknowledged that the proposed wi ndow would be positioned closer to the northern boundary than the existing rear dormer windows. However, the window would primarily afford views across the neighbouring rear gar den rather than directly into windows serving habitable rooms. Given the orientation and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press relationship between the properties, t here would be no direct overlooking of principal habitable room windows at No. 3 Newlyn Close. Furthermore, the proposed window would provide a viewing outlook broadly comparable to that already available from the existing dormer windows serving the guest house, albeit from a position slightly closer to the boundary. 7.33 The back-to-back relationship between properties in this locality means that a degree of mutual overlooking of rear gar den areas is a common characteristic of the surrounding residential environment. As such, views towards neighbouring gardens are not unusual in the area. 7.34 Taking these factors into account, it is not considered that the proposal would result in a significant increase in overlooking or loss of privacy to occupiers of No. 3 Newlyn Close. The impact on neighbouring amenity is therefore considered to be acceptable and would not warrant refusal of the application. Figure 12: View towards No. 3 Newlyn Close 7.35 Overall, subject to conditions requiring side facing windows to be obscurely glazed, the development is not considered to cause a significant harmful impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties to warrant refusal. As such, the development is conside red to overcome refusal reason 2 of the previous application and complies with Policy DMHB 11 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Quality of Residential Accommodation (Internal and External) Internal 7.36 The proposal would involve extensions and alterations to the existing guest house. Whilst the development would result in a net increase of one guest bedroom, it would also provide an access ible guest room at ground -floor level as part of the reconfigured accommodation, together with an additional guest room at first-floor level. 7.37 Whilst there are no specific minimum inte rnal space standards applicable to C1 guest house accommodation within either the London Plan or the Hillingdon Local Plan, the proposed rooms would benefit from adequate floor space, outlook, natural light and en -suite facilities. The provision of an accessible room also represents an improvement in terms of the inclusivity of the accommodation offered at the site. 7.38 Accordingly, the accommodation is considered to provide an acceptable standard of amenity for future guests, and the prop osal is considered to accord with the objectives of Policies D3 and D5 of the London Plan (2021). External 7.39 There are no specific external amenity space standards within either the London Plan or the Hillingdon Local Plan applicable to C1 guest house accommodation. However, the site benefits from an existing rear garden area which would be retained as part of the development and would remain available for use by guests. The proposal would not result in the loss of this area and sufficient outdoor space would continue to be available to serve the occupants of the guest house. 7.40 Given the modest scale of the development, which would result in a net increase of one guest bedroom, it is not considered that the proposal would place undue pressure on the existing external ameni ty area. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to provide an acceptable level of external amenity space for future guests and would ensure an appropriate standard of accommodation is maintained. Highways and Parking 7.41 Policy DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) requires development to provide an appropriate level of parking and to ensure that proposals do not result in an unacceptable impact on the surrounding highway network. 7.42 London Plan (2021) Policy T6.4 seeks to minimise car parking associated with hotel and leisure uses, particularly in areas with good public transport accessibility. In locations with lower levels of public transport accessibility, parking provision should be assessed on a ca se-by-case basis, taking account of the Healthy Streets Approach, sustainable travel objectives, public transport use, and the need Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press to reduce congestion. Any operational parking should incorporate electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and appropriate disabled parking provision should be provided. 7.43 The application relates to the extension of an existing guest house (Use Class C1) and would result in a modest increase in accommodation, comprising a net increase of one guest bedroom. The site benefits from an existing forecourt parking area accessed via an existing vehicle crossover capable of accommodating approximately 12 vehicles, which would be retained. 7.44 It is also noted that the site benefits from an established informal parking arrangement associated with the existing guest house use, with vehicles routinely accommodated within the forecourt area to the front of the property. The existing frontage hardstanding and vehicle crossover provide parking capacity for approximately 12 vehicles, which would be retained as part of the development. Clarification has been sought from the applicant regarding the staffing levels to support the operation. 1 staff member is required to be on site at any one time, based on the assumption that 1 space would be afforded to staff this would result in 11 spaces remaining for occupants of the guest house. This results in almost a 1:1 parking ratio which is considered to be suff icient to prevent parking overspill on to the local highway network. In practice, it is highly unlikely that every room would be occupied simultaneously by guests each requiring a vehicle, and therefore the actual parking demand generated by the use is likely to be lower than the maximum theoretical demand. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 13: Satellite Imagery Showing Front Forecourt Parking Area 7.45 Pield Heath Road is covered extensively by double yellow lines, and neighbouring residential roads are subject to parking controls, including Controlled Parking Zones and waiting restrictions. 7.46 There are no specific local or regional parking standards applicable to C1 guest house accommodation and therefore each proposal must be assessed on its individual merits. The Council's Highway Authority has reviewed the application and considers that the existing level of on- site parking would be sufficient to accommodate the limited increase in demand arising from the development. 7.47 It is acknowledged that a number of neighbouring representations raise concerns regarding existing parking pressures associated with the use of the site. However, the application does not propose any mate rial alteration to the site access or parking arrangements, and the development would result in only a net increase of one guest bedroom. The Council's Highway Authority has assessed the proposal and is satisfied that the existing forecourt parking area is sufficient to accommodate the anticipated parking demand arising from the development. 7.48 In reaching this conclusion, regard has been had to the modest scale of the proposal, the established use of the site as a guest house, the availability of on- site parking, the surrounding parking controls, and the site's Public Transport Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 3, which provides reasonable opportunities for travel by sustainable modes. Officers recommend that a condition pertaining to the submission of a Travel Plan to be submitted and approved by the LPA prior to the occupation of the development be imposed. 7.49 The proposal would also provide two electric vehicle charging points within the existing parking area, which is welcomed. 7.50 In accordance with the London Plan cycle parking standards, the development should provide a minimum of 1 long -stay and 1 short- stay cycle parking space. This can be secured by planning condition. 7.51 The Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposal and is satisfied that it would not result in any discernible increase in congestion, parking stress or highway safety concerns. The Highway Authority has further advised that a refusal based on parking provision and/or traffic generation would be unlikely to be upheld at appeal, having regard to the modest scale of the proposal, the existing parking controls in the area and the site's accessibility by sustainable transport modes. 7.52 It is also noted that a previous scheme for more extensive additions to the property, involving a greater scale of ex tensions and built form, was not refused on highway grounds. In this context and given that the current proposal would result in only a net increase of one guest bedroom, officers are satisfied that the development would not give rise to a severe impact on the highway network. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020), Policies T4, T5 and T6.4 of the London Plan (2021), and Policy TR6 of the NPPF (2026). Noise 7.53 The proposed development comprises extensions and internal alterations to an existing guest house to provide one additional guest bedroom. Given the modest scale of the proposal and the limited intensification of the existing use, the development is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in noise and disturbance. 7.54 The site already operates as a guest house, and the proposal would not alter the nature of the use. Whilst there may be a small increase in activity associated with the additional bedroom, this is not considered sufficient to give rise to unacceptable levels of noise. Furthermore, the extension would be located a reasonable distance from neighbouring residential properties and would not be likely to adversely affect residential amenity. 7.55 Taking these factors into account, it is considered that the proposal would not result in undue noise or disturbance and would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021), which seek to ensure that development does not result in unacceptable impacts on residential amenity. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Air Quality 7.56 The site is located with in the Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The proposed development comprises a first -floor rear extension to an existing guest house to provide additional guest accommodation. Given the scale of the proposal and the limited increase in guest r ooms, it is not anticipated that the development would generate a significant increase in vehicle movements or associated emissions. 7.57 The proposal would not introduce any other significant sources of air pollution, and the level of activity associated with the use of the site as a guest house would remain broadly comparable to the existing use. As such, the development is not considered to result in any significant adverse impacts on local air quality. 7.58 The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy DMEI 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020), Policy SI1 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy P 3 of the NPPF (2026), which seek to ensure that development minimises impacts on air quality and does not give rise to unacceptable levels of pollution. Accessibility 7.59 Amongst other aspects, Policy E10 of the London Plan (2021) requires visitor infrastructure to ensure user choice by requiring wheelchair-accessible bedrooms, either 10% of units designed for wheelchair use following BS8300-2:2018 or 15% of units to be accessible rooms per BS8300-2:2018. 7.60 Whilst the proposal relates to the exte nsion and alteration of an existing guest house and does not trigger the threshold at which the wheelchair-accessible room requirements of Policy E10 would be appl ied in full, accessibility considerations remain a material consideration in the assessment of the proposal. 7.61 In this regard, the application include s the provision of an accessible guest bedroom (Room 5) at ground floor level with an associated accessible en -suite facility. This represents an improvement to the accessibility of the existing premises and would provide accommodation for guests with mobility impairments. Given the constraints associated with the existing building and the scale of the proposed development, the provision of an accessible room is considered a positive aspect of the scheme. Room 5 is identified as an accessible room on the submitted plans. 7.62 Objections have been received regarding the accessibility of the external surface materials and the absence of a designated disabled parking space. However, the proposal relates to the extension and alteration of an existing guest house and does not involve significant changes to the existing parking layout or access arrangements. It is also noted that, in relation to a previous application at the site, the Council's Accessibility Officer advised that the existing guest house is fundamentally unsuitable for wheelchair users and that there would be no expectation from a planning perspective for the development to fully meet current Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press accessibility standards. Notwithstanding this, the proposal includes the provision of an accessible ground floor bedroom and associated en -suite facilities, representing an improvement to the existing level of accessible accommodation. 7.63 Taking the above into account, officers are satisfied that the proposal would not materially worsen the accessibility of the site and would provide an enhanced level of accessible accommodation compared with the existing arrangement. The proposal is therefore considered accept able in accessibility terms and compliant with the aims and objectives of Policy E10 of the London Plan. Security 7.64 The proposal comprises extensions to an existing guest house and would not result in any significant changes to the oper ation of the site or introduce security concerns. The development would contin ue to benefit from existing access arrangements and natural surveillance. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in terms of security and would accord with the objectives of Policy D11 of the London Plan (2021) relating to the design of safe and secure environments. Trees and Landscaping 7.65 Policy DMHB 14 seeks to protect and enhance trees, landscaping and other green infrastructure. 7.66 The proposed extensions would not result in the loss of any existing trees or soft landscaping, as such an Arboricutural Survey is not required to be submitted with the current application. The ground floor infill extension would be constructed on an existing area of hardstanding, whilst the first -floor extensions would be positioned above existing built form and would not affect any trees within or adjoining the site. 7.67 As the development would not harm existing trees, landscaping features or the wider green character of the area, the proposal is considered to comply with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan. 7.68 To ensure the retention of existing la ndscaping, a condition is recommended requiring all existing trees shown to be retained to remain in place for the lifetime of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Ecology/Biodiversity 7.69 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 dist inguish it from other or more general biodiversity gains. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.70 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 developm ent to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat. 7.71 The legislation includes a de minimis exemption for developments resulting in the loss of less than 25sqm of onsite habita t. The ground floor rear infil extension would be sited upon existing hardstanding and the first floor extension sited above existing structures. The development woul d therefore not result in the loss of onsite habitat or impact priority habitat. As such, the development qualifies for the de minimis exemption, meaning the statutory BNG requirement does not apply, and a biodiversity gain plan is not required in this instance. Waste Management 7.72 The proposed development is expected to utilise the existing waste storage and collection arrangements operated by the guest house. Given that the proposal would result in a net increase of only one guest room, it is not anticipated to generate a significant increase in waste or recycling beyond current levels. 7.73 The scale of the development is theref ore such that the existing waste management arrangements are considered sufficient to accommodate the modest increase in demand. The proposal would not adversely affect refuse storage, collection arrangements or the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. 7.74 Accordingly, the development is considered acceptable in terms of waste management and is not considered to give rise to any concerns in this regard. Flooding and Drainage 7.75 The application site is located within Flood Zone 1, which is identified as having a low probability of flooding. However, the site also falls within a Critical Drainage Area. 7.76 The site is located within Flood Zone 1 and is therefore within an area at the lowest risk of fluvial flooding. Whilst the site is situated within a Critical Drainage Area, the proposed development is of a modest scale and would not result in an increase in impermeable surfacing or intensity of use. Subject to an informative encouraging the incorporation of sustainable drainage measures where practicable, the proposal is not considered to give rise to unacceptable drainage or flood risk impacts. 7.77 The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policies DMEI 9 of the Hillingdon Local Plan and Policy SI 13 of the London Plan, which seek to ensure that development appropriately manages flood risk and surface water drainage. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 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. The proposed development is not CIL liable. 8.4 Please note, this commentary has been provided for the purpose of assisting in the determination of the planning application only. 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. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The proposal would provide extensions to an existing guest house, including an accessible guest room and a net increase of one additional guest bedroom. The scheme has been significantly amended from the previously refused proposal, with the removal of the front and rear outbuildings and a reduction in the scale of development. 9.2 The development is considered acceptable in principle and would not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area, the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, highway safety, trees, biodiversity or drainage. The proposal would also support the continued operation and improvement of existing visitor accommodation within the Borough. 9.3 Having regard to the Development Plan as a whole and all other material considerations, including the representations received and the planning history of the site, it is concluded that the proposal complies with the relevant planning policies. No material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press taken and the application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 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. 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. 10.2 This report has been prepared with reference to the background papers listed below, which have been relied upon to a material extent in its preparation and are available for public inspection, subject to any necessary redaction for exempt or confidential information”. 10.3 Internal consultee comments – Highway Authority dated 22/05/2026

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Sally Robbins 50209/APP/2026/372 Date Application Valid: 12/02/26 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 22/09/26 Application Type: Full Ward: South Ruislip Applicant: Marks and Spencer plc Site Address: Unit 1, Victoria Retail Park, Crown Road, Ruislip, HA4 0AJ Proposal: Continuation of use as a retail unit (Class E(a), including food sales), with external alterations to the front, rear and side elevations of the unit, demolition of the existing garden centre lean -to structure, provision of plant area, installation of new trolley bays in car park, cycle parking and other associated works. (Related to Planning Application ref. 50209/APP/2026/371) Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 4 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (20 plus objections received) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 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 to facilitate the occupation of an established out-of- centre retail unit by Marks & Spencer, including 1,68 6sqm of convenience goods sales floorspace, together with external alterations, plant, trolley bays, cycle parking and associated works. 1.2 The Council’s independent retail consultant has reviewed the submitted sequential and retail impact assessments and is satisfied that no suitable and available sequentially preferable sites have been identified. The consultant also concludes that the development would not have a significant adverse impact on the vitality or viability of any designated centre or on existing, committed or planned town - centre investment. Conditions would restrict the amount and location of convenience goods floorspace in accordance with the assessed scheme. 1.3 The external alterations would result in a marked change to the building’s appearance. However, within the established commercial setting of Victoria Retail Park, the revised design would not cause material harm to the character of the area. The developmen t is also acceptable in respect of residential amenity, highways, parking, noise, air quality, flood risk, energy, ecology, trees and waste management. Moreover, the refurbishment and continued occupation of the unit would provide economic investment and additional employment. 1.4 Taking all relevant matters into account and giving due regard to local residents ’ representations, it is considered that the proposal complies with the Development Plan when read as a whole 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 comprises Unit 1 at Victoria Retail Park, Crown Road, South Ruislip. The unit is a large -format retail warehouse located on the southern side of the retail park and is currently occupied by The Range, having previously been occupied by Homebase. The existing building includes an internal retail floor area, together with an external garden centre area adjoining its eastern side. 2.2 The building is of a typical late twentieth -century retail warehouse design, with a customer-facing frontage onto the shared surface-level car park to the north. The principal elevation incorporates a series of pitched -roof entrance features, brick piers, glazed and panelled sections and projecting signage. The rear of the building faces a separate service yard, while the former garden centre area is enclosed by fencing and positioned alongside the eastern elevation. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2.3 The wider Victoria Retail Park contains a range of commercial and retail uses, including a gym and carpet warehouse , with further large -format retail and commercial premises in the surrounding area, including an electronics store, pet retail warehouse and a builders’ merchant. The surrounding area is therefore predominantly commercial and industrial in character. 2.4 Customer vehicular access is taken from Crown Road, which connects with Victoria Road and serves the shared car park. The western car park serving the application unit and adjoining occupiers provides 336 spaces . Servicing takes place from the rear service yard, which is accessed separately from the principal customer areas. Pedestrian access is available from Victoria Road and Crown Road, and South Ruislip Underground and railway station is located to the west of the site. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Front elevation of existing retail unit Figure 3: Aerial view of retail park (looking south) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4: Aerial view of retail park (looking north) 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for external alterations and associated works to facilitate the occupation of the existing Class E(a) retail unit by Marks & Spencer, including food sales. The proposal would retain the established Class E(a) retail use of the unit but would introduce food/convenience goods sales, which are restricted by the existing planning permission. 3.2 The proposal includes external alterations to the existing building, including the demolition of the existing entrance pods and mansard -style roof features, the installation of new white cladding to the front, side and rear elevations, the painting of the lower-level brickwork black, and the creation of new glazed openings, entrance doors, escape doors and service access doors. The rear service -yard elevation would also be reclad. 3.3 The scheme would also involve the demolition and clearance of structures associated with the former garden centre, the formation of a new external plant area with associated screening, and the installation of new fencing to the frontage of the former garden centre area. Minor amendments are proposed to the parking layout immediately outside the store entrance, together with new trolley bays and 34 cycle parking spaces. 3.4 The existing customer and servicing access arrangements from Crown Road would be retained. The proposal would result in a net loss of four car parking spaces immediately outside the store, in order to provide trolley bays, the creation of parent -and-child spaces and additional accessible spaces. The western car park provision would therefore reduce from approximately 336 to 332 spaces . Servicing and waste collection would continue to take place within the existing rear service yard. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3.5 The proposed works are intended to provide a revised contemporary retail frontage incorporating white cladding, black brickwork and increased glazing, together with the operational alterations required for the proposed Marks & Spencer store. 3.6 The proposed store would operate between 08:00 and 22:00 Monday to Saturday and between 10:00 and 18:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Compared with the existing permitted hours, the proposal would extend regular Saturday trading by one hour, from 21:00 to 22:00, although trading until 22:00 is already permitted on up to ten Saturdays in any calendar year. Sunday trading would commence later, at 10:00 rather than 08:00. 3.7 A separate planning application has been submitted for the reconfiguration and extension of the internal mezzanine floorspace. Figure 5: Proposed Ground Floor Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 6: Proposed First Floor Plan Figure 7: Proposed Roof Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 8: Proposed Elevations Figure 9: Artistic Impression of Proposed Store (not to scale) 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 The most relevant planning history is LPA ref. 47046/D/93/0753, which was allowed on appeal under ref. APP/R5510/A/93/226535 on 25 May 1994. The Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press permission authorised 75,000 sq.ft of non-food retail warehousing and 59,000 sq.ft of Class B1(c) / B8 floorspace. A condition was imposed that restricts the retail unit to the sale of non -food comparison goods and excludes other retail uses unless expressly approved by the Local Planning Authority. The original consent secured the shared access and parking arrangements for Unit 1 and the wider retail park. 4.3 Permission ref. 50209/C/95/1662 subsequently varied the opening hours, while a later refused planning application (ref. 50209/D/98/1315) was allowed on appeal (ref. T/APP/R5510/A/98/1014706/P7 ) for a further extension to trading hours. Later permissions relate principally to ancillary development, including canopies within the garden centre and service yard and advertisement signage. 4.4 Based on the planning and appeal history detailed above, the existing lawful trading hours are 08:00 - 22:00 Monday to Friday, 08:00 - 21:00 on Saturdays, with trading until 22:00 permitted on up to ten Saturdays per calendar year, and 08:00 - 18:00 on Sundays. The proposed hours would therefore principally extend regular Saturday trading by one hour to 22:00, while Sunday opening would commence later at 10:00. 4.5 The 1994 appeal condition is of particular relevance to the current application, as the proposed Marks & Spencer food hall would introduce convenience goods sales that are not permitted under the existing restriction. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. Emerging Planning Policies 5.2 Policy DM4, paragraph 1, of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2026 states: “1. When preparing and considering development proposals, relevant policies in emerging development plans may be given weight according to: a. The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); b. The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and c. The degree of compliance of the relevant policies in the emerging plan with the policies for plan-making in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework, the greater the weight that may be given to them).” Draft London Plan (July 2026) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 5.3 The GLA are consulting on a draft new London Plan between 16th July and 15th October 2026 with the intention of replacing the previous versions of the existing London Plan. Following the consultation, the draft London Plan will be subject to an independent Examination in Public before final adoption, expected in early 2028. Given its early stage of preparation and the scope for representations to result in further change, only limited weight is afforded to the Draft London Plan at this stage. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Seven neighbouring premises and South Ruislip Residents Association were consulted on 23rd March 2026. The consultation period expired on 15th April 2026. In total, 1,157 representations were received, which included 87 objections and 1,070 in support. 6.2 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Internal and external consultations were also sent out and a summary of the comments received are noted below in Table 2 of this Committee Report. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response 87 individual objections were received. 1. Loss of The Range and its garden centre, i.e. loss of goods that are not readily available elsewhere locally. The submitted Retail Impact Assessment has been independently reviewed on behalf of the Council, with no significant adverse impact identified on the vitality or viability of designated centres or on planned town-centre investment. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.1-7.14 of this report. 2. Traffic and congestion, concerns about parking demand and increased vehicle movements. The Highway Authority raises no objection. Sufficient parking capacity would remain available, and the predicted increase in traffic can be accommodated without unacceptable effects on congestion or highway safety. This is discussed in Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press paragraphs 7.30-7.40 of this report. 3. Impact during construction. Temporary construction impacts can be appropriately managed through a Construction Management Plan, which would be secured by condition. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.37 and 7.69 of this report. 4. Loss of employment at The Range. The proposed development would retain an employment-generating retail use. 5. Lack of requirement for another food retailer in the area. The submitted Retail Impact Assessment considers the proposal against the relevant sequential and retail impact tests and has been found acceptable. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.1-7.14 of this report. 6. Affordability and accessibility, concerns that the store would not meet the needs of the community. These concerns relate to commercial matters rather than material planning considerations. The proposal would continue to provide a retail store within an established location. 7. Lack of disabled parking provision. The proposal would increase the number of accessible parking spaces outside the unit from six to eight. The Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposed parking arrangements. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.33 and 7.39- 7.40 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 8. Noise and disturbance from plant. A Noise Impact Assessment has been submitted and reviewed by the Council’s Noise Officer, who raises no objection subject to a condition controlling operational plant noise. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.41-7.45 of this report. 1,070 individual letters of support were received. 1. Improved retail choice and quality. Many comments noted that the proposed store would mitigate the loss of M&S in Ruislip town centre. The additional retail choice is noted. The identity of the operator carries limited weight, but the continued occupation and investment in an established retail unit are material planning considerations. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.1-7.14 of this report. 2. Economic benefits and job creation, including benefits to wider retail park through increased footfall. Noted. In addition, the Council’s Economic Development Team have requested planning obligations to support local recruitment by the end user (to be considered under the related mezzanine application). 3. Regeneration and enhancement of the area. The refurbishment and continued occupation of the existing unit would represent investment in the retail park. The proposed external alterations are considered acceptable in design terms. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.15-7.22 of this report. 4. Reduced need to travel, improved access to food, clothing and homeware. Noted. The transport and retail impacts of the proposal have been assessed and are considered acceptable. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press This is discussed in paragraphs 7.1-7.14 and 7.30-7.40 of this report. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Independent Retail Consultant: No objection. The additional information satisfactorily addresses the matters raised in the initial audit. The sequential test is satisfied and the proposal would not result in a significant adverse impact upon existing, committed or planned investment or the vitality and viability of South Ruislip or any other relevant centre. Conditions are recommended to secure the assessed retail floorspace parameters. Noted. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.1-7.14 of this report. LBH Highway Authority No objection, subject to conditions securing a Staff Travel Plan and Construction Management Plan. Parking surveys demonstrate substantial spare capacity, and the minor loss of four spaces would not result in parking stress. The predicted increase in traffic is considered capable of being accommodated by the surrounding road network without material effects on congestion or highway safety. The proposed cycle parking and existing servicing arrangements are also considered acceptable. Noted. The recommended conditions would be added, should permission be granted. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.30-7.40 of this report. LBH Economic Development Team Supportive of the proposal. The Economic Development Team requests an End User Employment and Training Strategy and, having regard to the scale of the proposed additional floorspace, an indicative financial contribution of £12,893.81 towards construction employment and training measures. The Team also seeks measures to support local recruitment by the end user, including engagement with Jobcentre Plus, colleges and universities and, where appropriate, a Sector- based Work Academy Programme. Noted. The requested contribution has been calculated by reference to the additional floorspace proposed under the separate mezzanine application ref. 50209/APP/2026/371 . This is discussed in paragraph 8.3 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press LBH Urban Design Officer Raised concerns that the proposed simplification of the roofscape would reduce the design quality of the building and create an awkward relationship with the retained end element. They recommend retaining the existing roof form and existing brickwork rather than painting it black, although the proposed green tiling around the entrance would be acceptable. The officer also identifies an opportunity to increase greening along Victoria Road. Noted. However, it is considered that the building is of limited architectural quality and sits within an established commercial retail park characterised by large-format buildings and varied architectural treatments. Additional greening along Victoria Road is not considered necessary or proportionate to the scale and nature of the development proposed. This is discussed in further detail in paragraphs 7.15-7.22 and 7.57- 7.59 of this report. LBH Noise Officer The Council’s Noise Officer raises no objection, subject to a condition controlling operational noise from the development. It is considered that sufficient information has been provided at this stage, notwithstanding that the detailed mechanical plant design remains at an early stage. Noted. This is discussed in further detail in paragraphs 7.41-7.45 of this report. LBH Air Quality Officer The Air Quality Officer has no air quality related concerns. Noted. This is discussed in further detail in paragraphs 7.66-7.70 of this report. LBH Waste Officer No comments / objections. Noted. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.1 The application site is an established out-of-centre retail warehouse. The existing permission restricts the unit to the sale of non -food comparison goods. Although the proposed Marks & Spencer store would remain within Use Class E(a), the introduction of 1,686sqm of convenience goods sales floorspace would fall outside this restriction and must therefore be assessed against the relevant town centre and retail policies. 7.2 The proposal would result in a limited increase in overall net sales floorspace, from 4,125sqm to 4,13 1sqm. Of this, 1,68 6sqm would comprise convenience goods floorspace and 2,445sqm comparison goods floorspace, representing a reduction of approximately 1,680sqm in comparison goods floorspace. The retail assessment considers the operation of the proposed store as a whole, including the mezzanine floorspace proposed under the related application ref. 50209/APP/2026/371. 7.3 Policy TC3 of the NPPF requires a sequential test for main town centre uses outside existing centres where the development is not in accordance with an allocation. Development should be located firstly within town centres, then edge - of-centre locations, wi th out -of-centre locations considered only where suitable sites are not available or expected to become available within a reasonable period. Applicants and local planning authorities are required to exercise flexibility in relation to matters such as form at and scale. Policy TC4 requires an impact assessment for relevant out-of-centre retail development and seeks to ensure that proposals would not have a significant adverse impact upon town centre investment, vitality or viability. Policy TC3 confirms that proposals failing the sequential test, or resulting in a significant adverse impact under TC4, should be refused. 7.4 These objectives are also reflected in Policies SD6 and SD7 of the London Plan, Policy E5 of the Local Plan Part 1 and Policy DMTC 1 of the Local Plan Part 2. Policy DMTC 1 requires out-of-centre main town centre uses to demonstrate that no suitable and av ailable sequentially preferable sites exist and requires a retail impact assessment for proposals exceeding the locally defined threshold. Sequential Test 7.5 The applicant’s sequential assessment considers centres within a 10 -minute drive-time catchment, together with a wider 20 -minute search area. It also considers the operational requirements of a full -line Marks & Spencer store and applies flexibility to the scale and format of potential alternative sites. 7.6 The Council commissioned an independent audit of the submitted retail evidence. Following requests for further clarification, the applicant provided additional information concerning the geographical scope of the search, flexibility in scale and format, ma rketed premises, town -centre car parks, potential land assembly and Land South East of Hillingdon Station (site NH1). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.7 The Council’s independent retail consultant has reviewed this information and is satisfied with the approach taken. The consultant considers that the 10 -minute primary catchment and wider 20-minute search area are justified and that, taking account of the consideration of smaller sites and units, a reasonable degree of flexibility has been demonstrated. No marketed premises of a comparable scale were identified, while sufficient justification has been provided for discounting town-centre car parks and site NH1 as unavailable or unsuitable. The consultant therefore concludes that no suitable and available sequentially preferable site has been identified and that the sequential test is satisfied. Retail Impact 7.8 The submitted Retail Impact Assessment principally considers the introduction of 1,686sqm of convenience goods floorspace, given that the existing unit can already lawfully accommodate comparison retail sales and the proposal would substantially reduce the amount of comparison goods floorspace. 7.9 Following the initial independent audit, further household survey information, town-centre health -check methodology and clarification of the proposed trade draw and trade diversion assumptions were submitted. The Council’s retail consultant is satisfied th at these matters have been adequately addressed and accepts the methodology and assumptions used. 7.10 South Ruislip Local Centre is identified as the centre likely to experience the greatest impact, principally through potential trade diversion from Sainsbury’s. However, the independent consultant concludes that the development would not result in a significant adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of South Ruislip or any other relevant designated centre and would not prejudice existing, committed or planned town -centre investment. The reduction of approximately 1,680sqm of comparison goods floorsp ace is also relevant, with a proportion of the expenditure currently attributable to that floorspace expected to become available to other retail facilities within the catchment. Restriction on the Retail Use 7.11 Given the out-of-centre location, it is important that any permission remains within the parameters assessed in the retail evidence. The Council’s independent consultant recommends appropriately worded conditions to secure these floorspace parameters. 7.12 Accordingly, conditions would restrict the operation of the retail unit as a whole to a maximum total net sales floorspace of 4,13 1sqm, should the mezzanine floorspace authorised under the related application be implemented. Of this, no more than 1,68 6sqm may be used for the sale of convenience goods . Convenience goods sales would also be restricted to the ground floor, with the remaining sales floorspace limited to comparison goods. These controls would ensure that the nature and scale of the retail operation remain consistent with that assessed. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Conclusion 7.13 The Council’s independent retail consultant raises no objection in respect of retail or town centre planning matters. Officers are therefore satisfied that the proposal passes the sequential test and would not result in a significant adverse impact upon existing, committed or planned investment or upon the vitality and viability of South Ruislip or any other relevant designated centre. 7.14 Subject to conditions controlling the amount and location of convenience and comparison goods floorspace, the proposed out-of-centre retail use is acceptable in principle and accords with Policies TC3 and TC4 of the NPPF, Policies SD6 and SD7 of the London Plan, Policy E5 of the Local Plan Part 1 and Policy DMTC 1 of the Local Plan Part 2. Impact on Character and Appearance 7.15 Policy DP3 of the NPPF, Policy D4 of the London Plan and Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 require development to achieve a high standard of design and to respond appropriately to local character and the surrounding built environment. Policy DP3 also recognises that , whilst development should integrate with its surroundings, t his should not preclude innovation or change where appropriate. Policy D3 of the London Plan promotes a design-led approach, while Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 requires development to harmonise with its surroundings and respect adjoining buildings in terms of scale, form, bulk and materials. 7.16 The proposal would substantially alter the appearance of the existing building. The current frontage is characteristic of a late twentieth-century retail warehouse, with a fragmented roofscape, pitched entrance features, brick piers, weatherboard cladding and tiled roof elements. Although this form reflects the period in which the retail park was developed, the building is of limited architectural quality and presents a dated and visually incoherent appearance. It would not be appropriate to require the app licant to replicate or preserve this design solely for the sake of consistency. 7.17 The proposed works would remove the existing entrance pods and mansard-style roof elements and replace them with a simplified parapet and more rectilinear form. The elevations would be reclad in white panels, the lower brickwork painted black, and the principal entrance emphasised through glazing, green tiled portals and signage zones (related advertisement consent would be subject to a separate application, not yet submitted) . The resulting building would therefore appear materially different from both its current form and the adjoining units. 7.18 The Council’s Urban Design Officer has raised concern regarding the simplification of the roofscape, considering that it would reduce the architectural interest of the building and create an awkward junction with the retained end element and adjoining roof form. Concern has also been raised regarding the painting of the existing brickwork black, with a preference for the brick to remain Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press unpainted. The officer has additionally identified an opportunity to improve greening along Victoria Road. 7.19 The applicant ’s justification for the design is that the simplified roofline would produce a clearer and more coherent composition, improve the legibility of the principal entrance and would establish a recognisable identity for the proposed Marks & Spencer store. The applicant also states that the material palette and entrance treatment are consistent with its current estate -wide design approach and are intended to provide a contemporary and durable frontage. 7.20 Officers acknowledge that the junction between the proposed parapet treatment and the retained roof form of the adjoining units would appear somewhat abrupt. The large areas of white cladding and prominent signage would also make the development visually assertive within the retail park. However, the site is not within a conservation area or other sensitive townscape location and does not form part of a high-quality architectural composition. It is an established retail and commercial site characterised by large -format buildings, extensive car parking, commercial signage and a variety of architectural treatments. 7.21 In this context, the contrast with the adjoining units is not, in itself, unacceptable. The proposed appearance is an intentional design response associated with the applicant’s established corporate identity rather than an attempt to imitate the existing retail-park architecture. While the scheme would not preserve the existing roofscape and would result in a prominent change, it would replace a dated frontage of limited architectural merit with a more unified and contemporary composition. 7.22 On balance, the visual prominence of the development and the junction with the adjoining roof form are not considered sufficient to warrant refusal. The proposal would represent an acceptable form of design change within an established commercial environment and would not cause material harm to the character or appearance of the building or the wider area. It would therefore accord with Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan, Policy BE1 of the Local Plan Part 1, Policy DMHB 11 of the Local Plan Part 2 and Policy DP3 of the NPPF. Residential Amenity 7.23 Policy P3 of the NPPF requires development to provide healthy living conditions and to avoid unacceptable impacts on neighbouring residents and occupiers, including in relation to daylight, sunlight, noise and other sources of disturbance. Policy D3 of the London Plan and Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 similarly seek to protect the amenity of existing and future occupiers. 7.24 The application site is located within an established retail park and is separated from the nearest residential properties by Victoria Road and intervening development. The closest dwellings are located 140m to the north-east on Queens Walk. Given this sep aration distance, together with the commercial character of the site and the nature of the proposed works, the development would not result Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press in any material loss of outlook, privacy, daylight or sunlight to neighbouring occupiers. 7.25 In terms of traffic generation, the proposed store is expected to generate an uplift of 95 two-way vehicle movements during the weekday evening peak and 126 two- way movements during the Saturday peak. However, the Highway Authority considers this increase to be relatively marginal when co mpared with existing traffic flows and capable of being absorbed by the surrounding highway network without notable detriment. It is also relevant that a proportion of customers are expected to undertake linked trips with other nearby retail destinations, thereby reducing the number of wholly new journeys generated by the proposal. 7.26 The additional vehicle activity would be concentrated within the established retail park, Crown Road and Victoria Road, rather than within the surrounding residential streets. Having regard to the distance from the nearest dwellings, the intervening road and commercial environment and the existing level of traffic associated with the retail park, the increase in customer movements would not result in an unacceptable increase in noise, disturbance or general activity for nearby residents. Servicing would continue to take place within the existing rear service yard using the access from Crown Road, and the Highway Authority has raised no concern regarding the proposed delivery or waste-collection arrangements. 7.27 The proposed store would operate between 08:00 and 22:00 Monday to Saturday and between 10:00 and 18:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. The existing permission already allows trading until 22:00 Monday to Friday and on up to ten Saturdays each year, with trading otherwise restricted to 21:00 on Saturdays. The proposal would therefore result only in a limited extension to the regular Saturday opening hours. Given the commercial character of the site, the separation from the nearest residential properties and the existing level of activity associated with the retail park, the proposed hours would not result in unacceptable noise or disturbance to nearby occupiers. 7.28 Servicing and waste collection would continue to take place within the existing rear service yard. Given the established commercial use of the site, the separation from the nearest residential properties and the absence of any objection from the Highway Authority or Noise Officer, these activities are not considered likely to result in unacceptable noise or disturbance to nearby occupiers. 7.29 The proposal would retain the existing retail use of the site and would not introduce development materially closer to residential properties. Subject to appropriate controls over plant noise and operating hours, the proposal would not give rise to an unac ceptable impact on residential amenity. It is therefore considered to comply with Policy D3 of the London Plan, Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 and the relevant provisions of the NPPF. Highways and Parking 7.30 Policies TR4 and TR6 of the NPPF seek to ensure that transport considerations are appropriately integrated into development, including the provision of safe and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press suitable access. Development should only be refused where it would result in a severe adverse impact on the transport network or an unacceptable impact on highway safety. These objectives are reflected in Policies T2, T4, T5, T6 and T7 of the London Plan and Policies DMT 1, DMT 2, DMT 5 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2. 7.31 The site is accessed from Crown Road, which connects with Victoria Road and serves the wider Victoria Retail Park. The existing customer and servicing access arrangements would remain unchanged. Servicing and waste collection would continue to take place w ithin the existing rear service yard, where vehicles can enter and leave in forward gear. The Highway Authority has confirmed that the ongoing servicing arrangements would not give rise to a measurable highway concern. 7.32 The western car park provides 336 car parking spaces serving the application unit and adjoining occupiers. Parking surveys undertaken on a Friday and Saturday identified a maximum occupancy of 26% of the available capacity. The Highway Authority accepts that the surveys provide a realistic indication of existing demand and demonstrate substantial spare capacity to accommodate the proposed store. 7.33 The proposed alterations would result in a net reduction of four parking spaces, principally to provide additional trolley bays, parent -and-child parking and accessible spaces. The number of accessible bays outside the unit would increase from six to eight, and seven parent-and-child spaces would be introduced. Given the significant level of spare parking capacity, it is considered that the minor net reduction in the overall provision would not result in parking stress within the retail park or displacement onto surrounding streets. 7.34 The Transport Assessment estimates that the development would generate an additional 95 two-way vehicle movements during the weekday evening peak and 126 two-way movements during the Saturday peak. A proportion of these journeys are expected to be linked trips made by customers already visiting the retail park or other nearby retail destinations. The Highway Authority considers the predicted increase to be relatively marginal when compared with existing traffic flows and capable of being accommodated by the surrounding highway network without notable effects on congestion or road safety. 7.35 The proposal would provide 34 cycle parking spaces along the store frontage, where there is currently no dedicated cycle parking. Although this is below the full London Plan requirement for the completed store, the provision exceeds the requirement arising from the additional floorspace. Having regard to the existing lawful retail use, the Highway Authority considers the provision acceptable. 7.36 The submitted Healthy Streets assessment considers pedestrian and cycle routes between the site and South Ruislip Station, nearby bus stops and surrounding residential areas. It identifies a number of potential public -realm improvements. The Highway Author ity considers these to be advisory rather than necessary to make the development acceptable and has not requested specific off-site works. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.37 A Draft Travel Plan has also been submitted, setting out measures to reduce reliance on private vehicles and encourage staff and customers to travel by walking, cycling and public transport. A final Travel Plan, including targets, monitoring and review arr angements, would be secured by condition. A Construction Management Plan would also be required to manage construction traffic, deliveries and the effects of the works on pedestrians, cyclists and the surrounding highway network. 7.38 No electric vehicle charging points are proposed because the shared retail park car park falls outside the application red-line boundary and is not wholly within the applicant’s control. In these particular circumstances, this would not justify refusal of the application. 7.39 In terms of accessibility, t he proposed entrance alterations and parking layout would retain inclusive access to the store, including an increase in accessible parking spaces from six to eight. The detailed internal layout and accessibility requirements would be addressed through the Building Regulations process. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in accessibility terms. 7.40 The Highway Authority raises no objection and concludes that the development would not materially worsen congestion or parking conditions and would not result in an unacceptable highway -safety impact. Subject to conditions securing the Travel Plan and Construction Management Plan, the proposal would comply with the above policies in terms of highway safety. Noise 7.41 Policy P3 of the NPPF requires development to avoid unacceptable levels of noise that could have an adverse impact on health and quality of life . Adverse impacts of this nature should be avoided where possible, or else mitigated to an acceptable degree. Policy D14 of the London Plan and Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 similarly require noise -generating development to be appropriately located, designed and controlled. 7.42 A Noise Impact Assessment has been submitted to assess noise from the proposed mechanical plant and refrigerated external storage container. The assessment is informed by an environmental noise survey undertaken at locations representative of the nearest r esidential properties on Queens Walk and Great Central Avenue. The existing acoustic environment is influenced principally by road traffic, rail movements and surrounding commercial and industrial activity. 7.43 The assessment predicts that noise from the external storage container would be substantially below the existing background noise levels at the nearest residential properties and would have a low impact. The container would also be used only during seasonal peak periods rather than as permanent regular storage. 7.44 Whilst the final specification of the permanent mechanical plant has not yet been confirmed, the Council’s Noise Officer has been consulted and is satisfied that the proposed plant can be designed to operate without unacceptable harm and raises Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press no objection, subject to a condition limiting the cumulative noise from the development at nearby residential and other noise-sensitive premises. 7.45 Subject to the above condition, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in an adverse effect on the health, living conditions or quality of life of nearby occupiers. The proposal would therefore comply with Policy D14 of the London Plan, Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 and Policy P3 of the NPPF. Sustainability and Energy 7.46 Policy SI 2 of the London Plan seeks to minimise greenhouse gas emissions through energy-efficient design and low-carbon technologies. Policies EM1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 and DMEI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 similarly seek to reduce carbon emissions and improve the energy performance of development. 7.47 An Energy and Sustainability Strategy and Part L compliance report have been submitted in support of the application . The proposal would retain and refurbish the existing building rather than replace it, making continued use of the existing structure and reducing the need for more carbon-intensive redevelopment. 7.48 The proposed energy strategy follows a fabric -first approach, with improvements to the building envelope, efficient lighting and high -efficiency building services intended to reduce energy demand. Heating and cooling would be provided by efficient electric systems, while mechanical ventilation would incorporate heat recovery. No connection to a district heat network is proposed because no suitable network is currently available near the site. 7.49 The submitted assessment predicts an overall reduction of approximately 47.3% in regulated carbon emissions compared with the existing building. The Part L assessment also indicates that the development would exceed the applicable Building Regulations requ irements and is expected to achieve an EPC A rating, subject to the detailed design being delivered in accordance with the submitted assumptions. 7.50 The strategy also includes energy metering to monitor operational energy use, together with measures relating to water efficiency, thermal comfort and resource management. No photovoltaic panels are proposed. However, given the refurbishment nature of the scheme and the substantial improvement in the building’s predicted energy performance, this is not considered to make the proposal unacceptable. 7.51 In terms of water consumption, t he submitted Water Cycle Strategy identifies measures to reduce potable water consumption . These proposed measures represent a proportionate approach to water efficiency for the proposed development. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.52 Subject to a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted Energy and Sustainability Strategy, the proposal would provide an appropriate and proportionate improvement in energy efficiency and carbon performance. It would therefore accord with Policy SI 2 of the London Plan and Policies EM1 and DMEI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan. Flood Risk and Drainage 7.53 Policy SI 12 of the London Plan requires flood risk to be minimised and mitigated, with any residual risk appropriately addressed. Policy SI 13 of the London Plan and Policies DMEI 9 and DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 require development to ma nage surface -water runoff sustainably and ensure that proposals do not increase flood risk on site or elsewhere. 7.54 The application is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment and Water Cycle Strategy. Although the Environment Agency’s published mapping places the site within Flood Zone 2, more detailed modelling indicates that most of the site lies within Flood Zone 3. The existing and proposed retail use is classified as less vulnerable and is appropriate development within Flood Zones 2 and 3a. 7.55 The existing building thresholds and proposed plant levels have been assessed as appropriate, and the submitted information concludes that the development would remain safe for its lifetime. The proposal would not increase impermeable surfacing, and the ex isting surface-water and foul -water drainage arrangements would be retained. 7.56 Subject to conditions securing flood-resilience measures, the development would not increase flood risk on or off the site and would comply with Policies SI 12 and SI 13 of the London Plan and Policies DMEI 9 and DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2. Trees and Landscaping 7.57 Policy G7 of the London Plan and Policies DMHB 11 and DMEI 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 seek to protect existing trees and secure appropriate landscaping as part of new development. 7.58 The northern part of Victoria Retail Park includes established deciduous trees and soft landscaping adjoining Victoria Road. The trees along Victoria Road are protected by Tree Preservation Order No. 562. The proposed development is focused on alterations to the existing retail unit and localised works close to the store entrance. No protected trees or established landscaped areas are proposed to be removed or pruned , and the development would not affect the protected trees. 7.59 The Council’s Urban Design Officer has suggested additional planting around the car park adjoining Victoria Road. While this may provide some wider visual benefit, such works would extend beyond the scope of the application and would not be reasonably related or proportionate to the scale and nature of the development Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press proposed. Additional landscaping is therefore not considered necessary to make the development acceptable. Moreover, the proposal would not result in harm to existing trees or landscaping and is considered acceptable in this respect. Ecology and Biodiversity Net Gain 7.60 Policy N2 of the NPPF requires development to contribute positively to the natural environment, including through biodiversity net gain where applicable, while Policy G6 of the London Plan and Policies EM7 and DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan seek to protect habitats and biodiversity from unacceptable harm. Mandatory 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is also required by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, subject to statutory exemptions. 7.61 The application site comprises the existing retail building and associated hardstanding within an established retail park. There are no priority habitats, hedgerows or other habitats of biodiversity value within the application boundary, and the proposed works would not result in the loss or deterioration of ecological habitat. 7.62 The applicant has submitted a BNG De Minimis Exemption Statement confirming that the development would not affect a priority habitat and would impact less than 25sqm of on-site habitat and less than 5m of linear habitat. The proposal therefore qualifies fo r the de minimis exemption from mandatory BNG and a statutory biodiversity metric and Biodiversity Gain Plan are not required. 7.63 Given the predominantly built and hard -surfaced nature of the site and the absence of ecological impacts, further biodiversity mitigation or enhancement is not considered necessary or proportionate. The proposal would therefore accord with Policy N2 of the NPPF, Policy G6 of the London Plan and Policies EM7 and DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan. Waste Management 7.64 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 requires development to make sufficient provision for the storage and collection of general, recyclable and organic waste, with external storage appropriately located and screened to avoid adverse visual and amenity impacts. 7.65 The submitted Waste Management Plan confirms that waste would be separated by type and stored predominantly within the building, with limited secure storage within the existing service yard. Collections would take place from the established servicing area. The Council’s Waste Officer has raised no objections. The proposed arrangements are therefore considered acceptable and would comply with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2. Air Quality 7.66 Policy P3 of the NPPF requires development to be appropriate for its location having regard to the effects of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press environment. It requires proposals to avoid unacceptable levels of air pollution and to sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant air quality limit values, objectives and targets, taking account of Air Quality Management Areas and relevant local air quality strategies. Policy SI 1 of the London Plan, Policy EM8 of the Local Plan Part 1 and Policy DMEI 14 of the Local Plan Part 2 similarly seek to protect air quality and sensitive receptors. 7.67 The application site lies approximately 250m north -east of the Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area. An Air Quality Assessment has been submitted which considers construction activity and additional traffic generated by the proposal, including effects at nearby sensitive receptors such as Queensmead School and residential properties on Queens Walk. 7.68 The assessment predicts that concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter would remain below the relevant national air quality objectives at all assessed locations. The increase attributable to the development has been identified as negligible. The assessment also demonstrates that the proposal would be Air Quality Neutral, taking account of the predicted traffic generation and the absence of building-related combustion emissions. 7.69 Potential construction effects can be appropriately controlled through standard dust and emissions mitigation measures secured through a Construction Environmental Management Plan. The Council’s Air Quality Officer has reviewed the applications and raises no air quality concerns. 7.70 Accordingly, subject to the proposed construction controls, the development would not result in an unacceptable deterioration in local air quality and would accord with Policy P3 of the NPPF, Policy SI 1 of the London Plan and Policies EM8 and DMEI 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan. Fire Safety 7.71 Policy D12 of the London Plan requires development proposals to achieve the highest standards of fire safety. The application is supported by a Fire Safety Strategy Statement, which confirms that the proposal is limited principally to external alteration s and associated changes to the existing retail unit. The development does not fall within the categories for which a detailed Fire Statement is required under Policy D12(B) of the London Plan. 7.72 The proposal would retain the established retail use of the building, and detailed fire safety matters would be addressed through the Building Regulations process. On this basis, no objection is raised in respect of fire safety, and the proposal is considered consistent with Policy D12 of the London Plan. 8 Other Matters Human Rights Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 8.1 The development has been assessed against the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and in particular Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the Act itself. This Act gives further effect to the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to the applicant's reasonable development rights and expectations which have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / t he Development Plan and Central Government Guidance. Equality 8.2 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the assessment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. Employment and Training 8.3 The Council’s Economic Development Team supports the proposed development and has requested employment and training measures, including a financial contribution and an End User Employment and Training Strategy. The requested financial contribution has been calculated by reference to the 826sqm of additional floorspace proposed under the related mezzanine application ref. 50209/APP/2026/371. As the current application would not itself result in any additional gross internal floorspace, these requirements would be considered and, where appropriate, secured in connection with the related mezzanine application rather than the current application. Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.4 The Council adopted its Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule on 1 August 2014. The Mayor of London’s Community Infrastructure Levy also applies to qualifying development within the Borough. CIL charges are index -linked. The current application relates to the continued retail use and external alteration of the existing building and would not create any additional gross internal floorspace. The development is therefore not CIL liable. Any CIL liability arising from the proposed additional mezzanine floorspace would be considered separately under the related planning application ref. 50209/APP/2026/371. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The proposal would introduce convenience goods sales within an established out- of-centre retail unit currently restricted to comparison goods. The Council’s independent retail consultant is satisfied that the application passes the sequential test and would not result in a significant adverse impact on designated centres or planned town -centre investment. Conditions would restrict the total sales area, convenience goods floorspace and the sale of convenience goods from the mezzanine, ensuring that the devel opment operates within the parameters assessed. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 9.2 The proposed alterations would modernise and refurbish the existing building. Although the design would contrast with the adjoining units and existing roof form, the site lies within a varied commercial environment of limited architectural sensitivity. The resulting visual change would not amount to material harm. 9.3 The additional traffic could be accommodated by the surrounding highway network, and sufficient parking capacity would remain available. The proposed trading hours and servicing arrangements would not cause unacceptable disturbance to nearby residents, while operational plant noise can be appropriately controlled by condition. No objections arise in relation to air quality, flood risk and drainage, energy, trees, ecology, waste or fire safety. 9.4 The proposed development would secure investment in the refurbishment and continued occupation of an established retail unit. The applicant advises that the proposed store would create up to 123 additional jobs, and the Council’s Economic Development Team is supportive of the development. These economic and employment benefits attract positive weight in the planning balance. 9.5 Taking all relevant considerations into account, it is concluded that the proposal accords with the Development Plan when read as a whole, and that no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. The planning application is th erefore recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents taken into account in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential information) are available on the Council's website here, by entering the planning application number at the top of this report and using the search facility. Planning applications are also available to inspect electronically at the Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW upon appointment, by contacting Planning Services at planning@hillingdon.gov.uk. 10.2 This report has been prepared with reference the background papers , including those listed below, which have been relied upon to a material extent in its preparation and are available for public inspection, subject to any necessary redaction for exempt or confidential information: 10.3 Internal consultee comments: • Highways Officer • Waste Officer • Noise Officer • Urban Design Officer • Air Quality Officer 10.4 External consultee comments:

APPENDICES Planning Application 50209/APP/2026/372 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 16 Appendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. COM3 Time Limit The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. COM4 Accordance with Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers: 08901 Rev 02 - Site Location Plan 08902 Rev 05 - Proposed Site Plan 08905 Rev 03 - Proposed Ground Floor Area Plan 08905A Rev 03 - Proposed First Floor Area Plan 08904 Rev 03 - Proposed External Elevations 08202 Rev 01 - Proposed Roof Plan and shall thereafter be retained/maintained for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of The London Plan (2021) and Hillingdon Local Plan Parts 1 (2012) and 2 (2020). 3. COM5 General compliance with supporting documentation The development hereby permitted shall not be used/occupied until the following has been completed/carried out in accordance with the specified supporting plans and/or documents: Design and Access Statement by Brookerflynn Architects Planning and Retail Statement by Lichfields dated 12 February 2026 Response to Independent Retail Audit by Lichfields, ref. 70714/01/NG/JeH/41348494v1 dated 6 July 2026 Healthy Streets Transport Assessment by Caneparo Associates Ltd dated November 2025 Air Quality Assessment by RPS Group, ref. 794-ENV-EM-AIR-22727 Rev 1 dated 14/11/2025 An environmental noise impact assessment and survey report RevA by Sharps Acoustics dated 11 November 2025 Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Statement by RPS Group, ref. ENV-22687 dated Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 16 November 2025 Water Cycle Strategy by Hoare Lea, ref. REP-0513243-XX-HLE-20251003 Rev 01 dated 03/10/2025 Energy and Sustainability Strategy by Hoare Lea, ref. 5600094-HL-XX-XX-RP-Y-402085- P03_01 dated 27 November 2025 Sustainability Stage 2 Report - Part L 2021 by Hoare Lea, ref. 5600094-HLE-XX-XX-RP-ST- 357000-M&S Part L compliance -Stage 2-P01 dated 17 November 2025 Fire Safety Strategy Statement dated 11 November 2025 Waste Management Plan Thereafter, the development shall be retained/maintained in accordance with these details for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of The London Plan (2021) and Hillingdon Local Plan Parts 1 (2012) and 2 (2020). 4. NONSC Construction Management Plan Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Construction Management Plan shall include: (i) the phasing of demolition and construction works; (ii) the hours during which demolition and construction works shall take place; (iii) construction vehicle routing to and from the site, including measures to minimise construction vehicle movements during peak periods; (iv) arrangements for the loading and unloading of plant and materials; (v) parking arrangements for contractors and site operatives; (vi) measures to prevent mud, dirt and debris being deposited on the public highway, including wheel-washing facilities where necessary; (vii) details of the storage of plant, demolition and construction materials on site; (viii) measures to maintain safe pedestrian and cycle access around the site throughout the works; (ix) measures to minimise dust and emissions and reduce impacts upon local air quality throughout the demolition and construction process, including compliance with the relevant GLA guidance for the control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition; and Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 16 (x) details of all Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) to be used during demolition, site preparation and construction. All NRMM of net power between 37kW and 560kW shall comply with the applicable Greater London Authority emission standards. All relevant NRMM shall be registered on the Greater London Authority's NRMM online register and the register shall be kept up to date for the duration of the works. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan for the duration of the demolition and construction works. REASON To minimise the effects of demolition and construction activity on highway safety, traffic conditions, local air quality and the amenity of surrounding occupiers, in accordance with Policies P3, TR4 and TR6 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), Policies T4, T7 and SI1 of the London Plan (2021), Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Policies DMHB 11, DMT 1 and DMEI 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). The condition is required to be discharged prior to commencement because the measures relate to impacts arising from the demolition and construction process. 5. COM7 Materials (Submission) Prior to the installation of any external facing materials, details and samples of all external materials and finishes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include, as appropriate: - Cladding panels, including colour and finish - Treatment/finish to existing brickwork - Details of the junction between the proposed external treatment and the retained adjoining roof/elevation - Entrance tiling - Glazing and framing - External doors - Plant screening and fencing. The development shall thereafter be carried out and retained in accordance with the approved details. REASON To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and high-quality finish, having regard to the prominence of the proposed alterations and the concerns raised in relation to the detailed design treatment, in accordance with Policy DP3 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 6. NONSC Flood Risk Mitigation Measures The development shall be carried out in accordance with the flood-risk mitigation and Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 16 resilience measures identified within the approved Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Statement by RPS Group (ref. ENV-22687 dated November 2025) and the Water Cycle Strategy by Hoare Lea (ref. REP-0513243-XX-HLE-20251003 Rev 01 dated 03/10/2025). The identified measures shall be fully implemented before the relevant parts of the development are brought into use and shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development. REASON To ensure that the development remains safe for its lifetime and does not increase flood risk on or off the site, in accordance with Policies SI12 and SI13 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DMEI 9 and DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 7. NONSC Energy and Sustainability Strategy The development shall be carried out and thereafter operated in accordance with the energy-efficiency and sustainability measures set out within the approved Energy and Sustainability Strategy by Hoare Lea (ref. 5600094-HL-XX-XX-RP-Y-402085-P03_01 dated 27 November 2025) and Sustainability Stage 2 Report - Part L 2021 by Hoare Lea (ref. 5600094-HLE-XX-XX-RP-ST-357000-M&S Part L compliance -Stage 2-P01 dated 17 November 2025). The approved measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted and thereafter retained and maintained. REASON To minimise energy demand and carbon emissions and secure the sustainability benefits upon which the development has been assessed, in accordance with Policy SI2 of the London Plan (2021), Policy EM1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Policy DMEI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 8. NONSC Car Parking Layout Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the alterations to the car parking layout shown on the approved plans, including the provision of eight accessible parking spaces, seven parent-and-child spaces and the approved trolley bays, shall be completed and made available for use. Those facilities shall thereafter be retained for their designated purposes. REASON To ensure satisfactory parking and inclusive-access arrangements and to safeguard the safe and efficient operation of the site, in accordance with Policies TR4 and TR6 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), Policies T4 and T6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 16 9. NONSC Cycle Parking Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the 34 cycle parking spaces (17 no. Sheffield stands) shown on the approved plans shall be fully provided and made available for use. The cycle parking shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development. REASON To encourage sustainable modes of travel and ensure appropriate cycle parking provision, in accordance with Policies TR4 and TR6 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), Policies T2 and T5 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 10. NONSC Staff Travel Plan Prior to first occupation of the premises hereby permitted, a Staff Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall include: - Measures to encourage staff travel by walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing - Details of the appointment and responsibilities of a Travel Plan Coordinator - Modal-share targets - Arrangements for implementation, monitoring and review - Mechanisms for reporting the results of monitoring to the Local Planning Authority. The approved Travel Plan shall thereafter be implemented, monitored and maintained for the lifetime of the development. REASON To promote sustainable travel and reduce reliance on travel by private car, in accordance with Policies TR4 and TR6 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), Policies T4 and T6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 11. NONSC Operational Plant Noise For the lifetime of the development hereby permitted, the rating level (LAr) of noise caused by its operation shall not exceed: 40 dB LAr,15min for any fifteen-minute period between 23:00 and 07:00; and 50 dB LAr,1hour for any one-hour period between 07:00 and 23:00, determined at a position one metre free-field external to any window or door of any Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 16 permanent residential or equivalently noise-sensitive premises, in accordance with 'Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound', British Standards Institution BS 4142:2014. REASON To ensure that occupants of nearby noise-sensitive premises would not be exposed to noise caused by the permitted development at a level likely to result in an adverse effect on health or quality of life, including when windows are fully open for ventilation and cooling, in accordance with Policy P3 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012). 12. NONSC Opening Hours The retail premises shall not be open to customers outside the following hours: 08:00 to 22:00 Monday to Saturday; and 10:00 to 18:00 on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays. REASON To safeguard the residential amenity of nearby occupiers, in accordance with Policy P3 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 13. NONSC Maximum Total Sales Floorspace The total net retail sales floorspace within Unit 1, Victoria Retail Park, including any mezzanine floorspace, shall not exceed 4,131 square metres REASON The application has been assessed on the basis of the stated quantum of retail floorspace and any material increase could have different implications for the vitality and viability of nearby centres and the application of the sequential and retail impact tests, in accordance with Policies TC3 and TC4 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), Policies SD6 and SD7 of the London Plan (2021), Policy E5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Policy DMTC 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 14. NONSC Food Hall Floorspace The net sales floorspace used as the food hall shall not exceed 1,686 square metres. REASON To ensure that the scale of food retailing remains within that assessed in the submitted Retail Impact Assessment and independent retail review, and to safeguard the vitality and viability of nearby centres, in accordance with Policies TC3 and TC4 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), Policies SD6 and SD7 of the London Plan (2021), Policy E5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Policy DMTC 1 of the Hillingdon Local Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7 of 16 Plan Part 2 (2020). 15. NONSC Maximum Convenience Sales Floorspace No more than 90% of the sales floorspace within the food hall may be used for the sale of convenience goods. For the avoidance of doubt, the remaining floorspace within the food hall may be used only for comparison goods sales. REASON To ensure that the quantum of convenience goods floorspace remains within that assessed in the submitted Retail Impact Assessment and independent retail review, and to safeguard the vitality and viability of nearby centres, in accordance with Policies TC3 and TC4 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), Policies SD6 and SD7 of the London Plan (2021), Policy E5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Policy DMTC 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 16. NONSC Convenience Goods Restriction No part of the mezzanine floorspace within the unit shall be used for the sale or display for sale of food or convenience goods. All food and convenience goods sales shall take place at ground-floor level only. REASON To ensure that the nature and distribution of retail floorspace remain consistent with the assumptions tested in the submitted retail evidence and to safeguard the vitality and viability of nearby centres, in accordance with Policies TC3 and TC4 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), Policies SD6 and SD7 of the London Plan (2021), Policy E5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Policy DMTC 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Informatives 1. I52 Compulsory Informative (1) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act (1998) (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 2. I70 LBH worked applicant in a positive & proactive (Granting) In dealing with the application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 8 of 16 have made available detailed advice in the form of our statutory policies from Local Plan Part 1, Local Plan Part 2, Supplementary Planning Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application advice service, in order to ensure that the applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an application which is likely to be considered favourably. 3. The Equality Act 2010 aims to safeguard individuals accessing goods, facilities, and services from discrimination based on a 'protected characteristic', including disability. In accordance with the Act, service providers must enhance access to and within their premises, especially when reasonable adjustments are feasible and straightforward to implement. The Act mandates that service providers proactively identify and eliminate barriers hindering disabled people. 4. The application site is located within a Critical Drainage Area. All developments in this area must contribute to managing the risk of flooding from surface water by reducing surface water runoff from the site. Therefore the applicant should minimise the water from the site entering the sewers. Water run off from any roof or hard paving associated with the development should be directed to a soakaway, or tank or made permeable. 5. There is a possibility that there may be some contaminating substances in the ground at the site. Our contaminated land record shows the site to be on a former contaminated land use. We would advise persons working on site to take basic precautions in relation to any contamination they may find. Therefore, the above advice is provided on the grounds of Health and Safety of the workers on site and to ensure the appropriate restoration of the site is done should there be any contamination identified during the development, where there is a need for ground work once such works are complete to minimise risk to the occupants of the site. 6. It is considered that a condition based on fixed noise levels is consistent with noise and planning policy by relating external noise levels to the point at which adverse effects on health and quality of life start to be observed. The limit values are intended to be consistent with the evidence base that is reflected in guidance: 'Guidance on Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings' BS8233 2014. This is combined with the assessment principles and procedures detailed in guidance: 'Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound' British Standards Institution BS4142 2014.' This is used to set reference time periods for the assessment and adjust measured or calculated LAeq values for character as detailed in BS4142 to determine the rating level. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 9 of 16 I53 Compulsory Informative (2) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), The London Plan (2021), and the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020) and Supplementary Planning Guidance. DMCI 7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy DMEI 10 Water Management, Efficiency and Quality DMEI 12 Development of Land Affected by Contamination DMEI 14 Air Quality DMEI 2 Reducing Carbon Emissions DMEI 7 Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 4 Public Transport DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking DMTC 1 Town Centre Development LPP D1 (2021) London's form, character and capacity for growth LPP D11 (2021) Safety, security and resilience to emergency LPP D12 (2021) Fire safety LPP D14 (2021) Noise LPP D3 (2021) Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach LPP D4 (2021) Delivering good design LPP D5 (2021) Inclusive design LPP D8 (2021) Public realm LPP G1 (2021) Green infrastructure LPP G5 (2021) Urban greening LPP G6 (2021) Biodiversity and access to nature LPP G7 (2021) Trees and woodlands LPP GG3 (2021) Creating a healthy city LPP GG5 (2021) Growing a good economy LPP GG6 (2021) Increasing efficiency and resilience LPP SD6 (2021) Town centres and high streets Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 10 of 16 LPP SD7 (2021) Town centres: development principles and Development Plan Documents LPP SI1 (2021) Improving air quality LPP SI12 (2021) Flood risk management LPP SI13 (2021) Sustainable drainage LPP SI2 (2021) Minimising greenhouse gas emissions LPP SI3 (2021) Energy infrastructure LPP SI4 (2021) Managing heat risk LPP SI5 (2021) Water infrastructure LPP SI7 (2021) Reducing waste and supporting the circular economy LPP T1 (2021) Strategic approach to transport LPP T2 (2021) Healthy Streets LPP T4 (2021) Assessing and mitigating transport impacts LPP T5 (2021) Cycling LPP T6 (2021) Car parking LPP T6.3 (2021) Retail parking LPP T6.5 (2021) Non-residential disabled persons parking LPP T7 (2021) Deliveries, servicing and construction Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 11 of 16 Appendix 2: Relevant Planning History 47046/D/93/0753 Buildings 1-15 Victoria Road Ruislip Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 75,000 sq.ft. of non-food retail warehousing (Class A1) and 59,000 sq.ft. of warehousing (Class B1(c)/B8)(outline application)(duplicate application) Decision: 25-05-1994 Refer to DTLR Appeal: 25-05-1994 Allowed 50209/95/3161 Homebase Victoria Retail Park Victoria Road Ruislip Installation of internally illuminated front fascia signs (2) and 6 free standing car park signs Decision: 10-11-1995 Approved 50209/ADV/2012/69 Homebase-Unit 1 Crown Road Ruislip Middlesex Installation of 3 internally-illuminated fascia signs, 5 non-illuminated replacement garden centre panels, 10 glazing vinyls to existing glazed panels and one deliveries panel. Decision: 02-11-2012 Approved 50209/APP/2012/1857 Homebase-Unit 1 Crown Road Ruislip Middlesex Installation of covered storage canopy within existing service yard Decision: 24-09-2012 Approved 50209/APP/2026/371 Unit 1 Victoria Retail Park Victoria Road Ruislip Reconfiguration of existing mezzanine floor and installation of additional mezzanine floorspace. (Related to Planning Application ref. 50209/APP/2026/372) 50209/B/95/1270 Homebase Victoria Retail Park Victoria Road Ruislip Erection of an open sided canopy within existing garden centre enclosure Decision: 02-11-1995 Approved 50209/C/95/1662 Homebase Victoria Retail Park Victoria Road Ruislip Variation of condition 7 (hours of opening) in compliance with the Secretary of State's appeal decision ref. APP/R5510/A/93/226535 dated 25/05/94; Erection of 75,000 square feet of non- food retail warehousing (Class A1) and 59,000 square feet of warehousing (Class B1 and B8) Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 12 of 16 Decision: 13-12-1995 Approved 50209/D/98/1315 Homebase Victoria Retail Park Victoria Road Ruislip Variation of condition 1 (to allow store to trade 8.00am - 10.00pm Monday - Friday, 8.00am - 9.00pm - Saturdays and 8.00am - 10.00pm on ten Saturdays within any calendar year) of planning permission ref.50209C/95/1662 dated 13/12/95 Decision: 13-11-1998 Refused Appeal: 09-04-1999 Allowed Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 13 of 16 Appendix 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.E5 (2012) Town and Local Centres PT1.E7 (2012) Raising Skills PT1.EM1 (2012) Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation PT1.EM6 (2012) Flood Risk Management PT1.EM7 (2012) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PT1.EM8 (2012) Land, Water, Air and Noise PT1.EM11 (2012) Sustainable Waste Management Part 2 Policies: DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 4 Public Transport DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking DMTC 1 Town Centre Development DMCI 7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy DMEI 2 Reducing Carbon Emissions DMEI 7 Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMEI 10 Water Management, Efficiency and Quality Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 14 of 16 DMEI 12 Development of Land Affected by Contamination DMEI 14 Air Quality DMHB 11 Design of New Development LPP D1 (2021) London's form, character and capacity for growth LPP D3 (2021) Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach LPP D4 (2021) Delivering good design LPP D5 (2021) Inclusive design LPP D8 (2021) Public realm LPP D11 (2021) Safety, security and resilience to emergency LPP D12 (2021) Fire safety LPP D14 (2021) Noise LPP G1 (2021) Green infrastructure LPP G5 (2021) Urban greening LPP G6 (2021) Biodiversity and access to nature LPP G7 (2021) Trees and woodlands LPP GG5 (2021) Growing a good economy LPP GG6 (2021) Increasing efficiency and resilience LPP SD6 (2021) Town centres and high streets LPP SD7 (2021) Town centres: development principles and Development Plan Documents LPP GG3 (2021) Creating a healthy city LPP SI1 (2021) Improving air quality LPP SI2 (2021) Minimising greenhouse gas emissions LPP SI3 (2021) Energy infrastructure LPP SI4 (2021) Managing heat risk LPP SI5 (2021) Water infrastructure Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 15 of 16 LPP SI7 (2021) Reducing waste and supporting the circular economy LPP SI12 (2021) Flood risk management LPP SI13 (2021) Sustainable drainage LPP T1 (2021) Strategic approach to transport LPP T2 (2021) Healthy Streets LPP T4 (2021) Assessing and mitigating transport impacts LPP T5 (2021) Cycling LPP T6 (2021) Car parking LPP T6.3 (2021) Retail parking LPP T6.5 (2021) Non-residential disabled persons parking LPP T7 (2021) Deliveries, servicing and construction Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 16 of 16

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Sally Robbins 16568/APP/2026/703 Date Application Valid: 14/04/2026 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 22/09/2026 Application Type: Full Ward: Northwood Applicant: Holland and Holland Limited Site Address: Ashby Farm, Ducks Hill Road, Northwood HA6 2ST Proposal: Demolition of existing site buildings (excluding the retained central timber -framed barn), removal of existing hardstanding including the menage, change of use of part of the land to a workshop use (Use Class E(g)(iii)), and redevelopment of previously developed land to provide a workshop building with associated parking, hard and soft landscaping, formation of a pond, regrading of land levels, improvements to the existing access, sustainable drainage measures, and on -site biodiversity net gain enhancements. 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 – 15th September 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 seeks full planning permission for the comprehensive redevelopment of Ashby Farm to provide a replacement workshop, associated parking, landscaping and supporting inf rastructure, whilst retaining the central timber -framed barn. The proposed workshop would support the established commercial activities of Holland & Holland, involving the relocation and consolidation of the company's existing gun-making operations from its separate workshop in Kensal Green to the wider Holland & Holland estate, in the interests of operational efficiency and reducing the need for vehicle movements between the two sites. 1.2 The principal planning considerations ar e the acceptability of the development within the Green Belt (impact on openness and the principle of the proposed use), design, heritage, ecology, residential amenity, highways, drainage and other technical matters. The site benefit s from a lawful use for general storage and private equestrian purposes and constitutes previously developed land for the purposes of national Green Belt policy. Whilst the proposal would increase the overall volume of built form, it would consolidate development into a more compact arrangement, reduce the extent of hardstanding, introduce significant landscaping and biodiversity enhancements , and support the growth of a rural business. The proposal would not result in substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt and is also considered acceptable, subject to relevant conditions, in respect of heritage, archaeology, ecol ogy, biodiversity net gain, residential amenity, highways, flood risk and drainage, and all other technical matters. 1.3 Due regard has been given to the objections received from local residents and all other material planning considerat ions. However, it is concluded that the proposal complies with the Development Plan when read as a whole and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site comprises Ashby Farm, which forms part of the wider Holland & Holland Shooting Ground estate, located on the western side of Ducks Hill Road, Northwood. The site lies with in the Metropolitan Green Belt and is situated opposite the Ruislip Woods National Nature Reserve, which is designated as a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2.2 The wider Holland & Holland estate extends to 40 hectares and includes the main shooting ground facilities, comprising reception and function buildings, an underground shooting range, workshops and storage buildings. The estate also contains two staff dwellings known as Ashby Cottages, together with Ashby Farm, which comprises a farmhouse, a collection of former agricultural and storage buildings, areas of hardstanding and land used for equestrian purposes. The application site relates specifically to the Ashby Farm complex, although the farmhouse itself lies outside the application site boundary. 2.3 The site is characterised by a collection of buildings and structures of varying age, condition and appearance, together with extensive areas of hardstanding and open storage. The site benefits from an existing lawful use for general storage and private equestrian purposes and has been confirmed as previously developed land through the grant of a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development in August 2023. 2.4 The site does not lie within a Conservation Area and does not contain any statutorily listed buildings. There are no Tree Preservation Orders affecting the site. However, a heritage assessment has identified the central timber -framed barn as a non-designated heritage asset of local heritage value. 2.5 The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 1a, indicating a low level of accessibility by public transport. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Aerial View Image of the Application Site Figure 3: View of Stables within the Site Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4: View of Timber-framed Carn in Centre of Site Figure 5: View of Access and Buildings within the Site Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Ashby Farm site to provide a new workshop facility for use by Holland & Holland. The proposal comprises the demolition of all existing buildings within the site, with the exception of the centrally located timber- framed barn, which would be retained and incorporated into the development. 3.2 The development would involve the change of use of part of the site from its existing lawful general storage and private equestrian uses to a workshop use falling within Use Class E(g)(iii). Th e proposal would deliver a new workshop building arranged around the retained barn, together with associated parking, servicing areas, hard and soft landscaping , sustainable drainage infrastructure and biodiversity enhancements. 3.3 The scheme would also include the removal of existing areas of hardstanding and the former menage, the formation of a new attenuation pond, regrading of site levels, improvements to the existing vehicular access from Ducks Hill Road, and the provision of on-site biodiversity net gain measures. Figure 6: Proposed Site Plan (please note – larger version of plans can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 7: Proposed Ground Floor Plan Figure 8: Proposed First Floor Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 9: Proposed Roof Plan Figure 10: Proposed North Elevation & Section Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 11: Proposed South Elevation Figure 12: Proposed East Elevation & Section Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 13: Proposed West Elevation & Section 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning histo ry related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 The most relevant planning history relates to application ref. 41892/APP/2023/666, which was approved on 24 August 2023 and granted a Certificate of Lawful Development for the existing use of the land and buildings at Ashby Farm for general storage and private equestrian purposes. The certificate confirms the lawful use of the site and establishes the site as previously developed land for the purposes of Green Belt policy. 4.3 The wider Holland & Holland Shooting Groun d has a long-established planning history dating back to the 1970s, comprising a series of permissions for shooting- related facilities, extensions, ancillary buildings and operational development associated with the shooting ground. Earlier permissions include the use of agricultural land as an extension to the shooting school grounds and the continued operation of shooting facilities on the site. 4.4 The planning history demonstrates the long-established presence of the Holland & Holland Shooting Ground and associated ancillary facilities at this location, together with the lawful use of Ashby Farm for storage and equestrian purposes. The current proposal seeks the redevelopment of the Ashby Farm site within this established operational context. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 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. Emerging Planning Policies 5.2 Policy DM4, paragraph 1, of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2026 states: 5.3 “1. When preparing and considering development proposals, relevant policies in emerging development plans may be given weight according to: a. The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); b. The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and c. The degree of compliance of the relevant policies in the emerging plan with the policies for plan-making in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework, the greater the weight that may be given to them).” Draft London Plan (July 2026) 5.4 The GLA are consulting on a draft new London Plan between 16th July and 15th October 2026 with the intention of replacing the previous versions of the existing London Plan. Following the consultation, the draft London Plan will be subject to an independent Examination in Public before final adoption, expected in early 2028. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Five neighbouring properties and the Northwood Resident’s Association were consulted on 16th April 2026. The consultation period expired on 8 th May 2026. A site notice was erected and press advertisement published on 30th April 2026. The consultation period expired on 22nd May 2026. 6.2 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses re ceived are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response 11 individual letters of objection have been received. 1. Loss of the existing equestrian/livery use and displacement of horses, including concerns about the limited availability of alternative stabling. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.25-7.26 of this report. 2. Harm to wildlife and protected species, including bats, great crested newts, badgers, swallows and other nesting birds. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.51-7.60 of this report. 3. Increased noise from the proposed gun- making workshop and concerns about additional disturbance to the surrounding area. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.73-7.77 of this report. 4. Security concerns associated with the manufacture and storage of firearms and ammunition. The proposal relates to a lawful commercial operation by Holland & Holland and is subject to separate firearms licensing and regulatory controls outside the planning system. 5. Increased traffic, highway safety concerns and additional parking demand on Ducks Hill Road. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.85-7.88 of this report. 6. Harm to the Green Belt, countryside character and alleged industrialisation of the site. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.8-7.21 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7. Concern that the site should not be regarded as previously developed land (brownfield). This is discussed at paragraphs 7.4-7.7 of this report. 8. Adverse visual impact of the proposed buildings and associated development. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.27-7.33 of this report. 9. Potential increase in pollution, including chemicals associated with gun manufacture. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.81-7.84 and 7.101-7.103 of this report. 10. Loss of a valued local community asset providing equestrian and recreational opportunities and impacts on users' wellbeing. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.25-7.26 of this report. 11. Concern that approval would set a precedent for further development in the Green Belt or on neighbouring rural sites. Each planning application must be determined on its own merits having regard to the Development Plan and other material considerations. 12. Allegations regarding the applicant's conduct, lease arrangements and consultation with existing occupiers. These are private legal matters and are not material planning considerations. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Greater London Authority (GLA) No strategic planning issues raised given the scale and nature of the proposal. No requirement to consult the GLA further. Noted. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press LBH Planning Policy Team No objection. The site is previously developed land and the proposal is considered capable of complying with Green Belt policy, subject to the assessment of openness and other material considerations. The principle of development is assessed at paragraphs 7.1-7.26 of this report. LBH Conservation & Design Officer No objection. Supports the retention and restoration of the principal timber -framed barn and considers the proposal to respond positively to the site's heritage significance. Recommends conditions requiring building recording, repair details and dendrochro nological dating of the retained barn. Noted. Appropriate planning conditions are recommended. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.34-7.38 of this report. LBH Landscape & Urban Design Officer No objection. Considers the consolidation of built form and reduction in hardstanding to improve the site's relationship with the Green Belt. Supports the design approach subject to conditions relating to materials, landscaping, replacement tree planting and detailed landscape treatment. Noted. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.27-7.33 and 7.44-7.48 of this report. LBH Highways Officer No objection, subject to conditions. The submitted Transport Assessment demonstrates that the development would not result in an unacceptable impact on the highway network or highway safety. The recommended conditions will be imposed. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.85-7.88 of this report. Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) No objection following the submission of additional drainage information. Recommends conditions securing detailed sustainable drainage measures and long -term management and maintenance arrangements. Noted. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.61-7.66 of this report. LBH Contaminated Land Officer No objection. Recommends a pre -commencement condition requiring intrusive site investigation, risk assessment, remediation (if necessary), verification The recommended contaminated land condition will be imposed. This is Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press reporting and measures to address unexpected contamination. discussed at paragraphs 7.101- 7.103 of this report. LBH Noise Officer No objection. Based on the submitted Noise Impact Assessment, it is considered unlikely that the development would give rise to adverse noise impacts. Noted. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.73-7.77 of this report. LBH Air quality Officer No concerns, constrains or observations in regard to the application on air quality. Noted. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.81-7.84 of this report. Historic England Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) No objection subject to conditions. Recommends archaeological investigation and historic building recording, including dendrochronological dating of the retained timber -framed barn. The suggested conditions are recommended. This is discussed at paragraphs 7.39-7.43 of this report. Thames Water Having reviewed the details, Thames Water has no comments to make at this time. Noted. Heathrow Aerodrome No safeguarding objection. Noted. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) No safeguarding objection. Noted. Ministry of Defence (MOD) No safeguarding objection. Noted. 7 Planning Assessment Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Principle of Development 7.1 The application site is located within the Green Belt wherein London Plan Policy G2, Policy EM2 of the Local Plan Part 1 and Policy DMEI 4 of the Local Plan Part 2 seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development. These policies state that d evelopment in the Gree n Belt will not be permitted unless there are very special circumstances and that redevelopment will be permitted only where the proposal would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it, than the existing development. 7.2 In terms of national policy, Policy GB7 of the NPPF states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of a number of exceptions applies, including at criterion 1.e, which states: The redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed- use including residential), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. 7.3 It is acknowledged that Policy DMEI 4 assesses redevelopment by reference to whether it would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development. However, paragraph Policy GB7, criterion (1)(e) of the NPPF provides that the redevelopment of previously developed land is not inappropriate where it would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. In determining this application, officers have therefore had regard to the Development Plan as a whole whilst giving significant weight to the more recent national policy as a material consideration. 7.4 Previously developed land is defined in Annex B of the NPPF as ‘land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed).' It goes on to list a number of exclusions, for example agricultural buildings. 7.5 The application site benefits from a Cer tificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (ref. 41892/APP/2023/666), which confirmed the lawful use of the land and buildings for general storage and private equestrian purposes. The Certificate applies to the area edged in red in the below location plan (Figure 11). The site is occupied by a number of permanent buildings and associated areas of hardstanding and other fixed surface infrastructure. The lawful uses are not agricultural in nature and therefore do not fall within the exclusions set out in Annex B of the NPPF. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 14: Location Plan (relating to application ref. 41892/APP/2023/666 for a Certificate of Lawful Use) 7.6 Accordingly, the site meets the definition of previously developed land as set out in Annex B of the NPPF. The principle of the partial or complete redevelopment of the site therefore falls to be assessed against Policy GB7, criterion (1 )(e) of the NPPF. The proposed change of use to Use Class E(g)(iii) would be confined to the workshop precinct within this prev iously developed part of the site. The remaining land within the wider applicat ion boundary would not be subject to a change of use and would remain in its existing lawful use, as secured by Condition 4. The redevelopment of the previously developed part of the site therefore falls to be assessed against Policy GB7, criterion (1)(e) of the NPPF. 7.7 In this regard, the key consideration is whether the proposed redevelopment would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. If the proposal would not result in substantial harm to Green Belt openness, it would constitute an exception to ina ppropriate development under Policy GB7 and would therefore be acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with the development plan as a whole and all other material considerations. The assessment of the proposal's impact on the openness of the Green Belt is set out below. Impact on Green Belt Openness 7.8 Policy GB6 of the NPPF states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Such circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposed development, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In making this assessment, substantial weight should be given to the harm to the Green Belt which would be caused, including harm to its openness. 7.9 According to the NPPF, the objective of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The government attaches great importance to Green Belts, the essential features of which are their openness and permanence. The concept of openness relates to the lack of development or built form - as distinct from the absence of visual impact. However, it has been well-established by case law that the openness of the Green Belt has a visual aspect as well as a spatial aspect. As such, the impact of a proposal on the openness of the Green Belt should be assessed taking into account both its spatial and visual impact. Spatial Impact 7.10 The application site comprises a collec tion of buildings, structures, areas of hardstanding, open storage and a former equestrian menage. The proposed development would involve the demolition / removal of the majority of the existing buildings and structures on the site, with the exception of the centrally located timber -framed barn, and their replacement with a workshop complex arranged around the retained timber-framed barn and a central courtyard. 7.11 The proposal would result in an increase in building footprint from 843sqm to 1,028sqm (increase of 185sqm). However, this comparison includes the retained timber-framed barn, which forms part of both the existing and proposed site layouts. Excluding the retained barn (130sqm) , the redevelopment would increase the building footprint by 55 sqm. In terms of volume, the built form would increase from 2,580m³ to 6,169m³ (increase of 3,589m 3, or a 139% increase). This increase in volume is primarily as a result of the increase in height, which is discussed in further detail below. 7.12 Notwithstanding the above increase in footprint and volume, it is considered that the proposed development would rationalise the layout of the site. Existing development is more dispersed across the site in the form of numerous buildings, structures and areas of hardstanding . Whereas the proposed development would consolidate built form more centrally arranged around the retained barn. As a consequence, the overall spread of built development across the site would be reduced resulting in a more compact form of development. 7.13 Furthermore, the proposal would result in a substantial reduction in hardstanding, with areas of hard surfaced development decreasing by 928sqm, from 2,773sqm to 1,845sqm. These areas would be replaced by soft landscaping, habitat creation and sustainable drainage features, including a new attenuation pond. 7.14 In terms of height and massing, the proposal would introduce a more substantial built form than presently exists on the site. The existing development comprises Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press a number of predominantly single-storey buildings and structures, many of which have relatively low -profile lean- to or shallow pitched roofs. By contrast, the proposed workshop complex would comprise a series of linked buildings, the majority of which would be two storeys in he ight with pitched roofs, resulting in an increase in height and massing. However, the maximum height of the proposed buildings would only be 0.5m higher than the retained timber- framed barn and would remain below the ridge height of the adjacent residential property. 7.15 In terms of wider spatial impacts a cross the site, the proposal includes engineering operations associated with alterations to existing ground levels and the formation of a new attenuation pond as part of the sustainable drainage scheme. Ground levels with in and around the retained timber-framed barn would be lowered to provide sufficient internal head height and facilitate its integration with the proposed workshop development. Overall, the construction, demolition and foundation excavations would generate approximately 1,350m³ of surplus material, with a further 150m³ arising from the pond works. Rather than removing this material from the site, the total 1,500m³ would be retained and redistributed within landscaped areas to the north -west of the site. The submitted sections demonstrate that this material would be spread across an area of approximately 3,900m² at a maximum depth of around 0.35m, resulting in relatively minor changes in ground levels rather than significant embankments or engineered landforms. The proposed pond would have a maximum excavation depth of 1.2m. Overall, a cut -and-fill balance would be achieved, with all excavated material retained on site, and the engineering works are considered modest in scale. 7.16 Taking the above spatial assessment into account, it is acknowledged that the proposal would increase the footprint and volume of built form on the site when compared with the existing development. However, this is balanced against the consolidation of built form and the reduction in hardstanding . Furthermore, the proposed engineering operations would involve limited changes in ground levels. Taking these factors together, it is felt that whilst the proposal would have a greater spatial impact on Green Belt openness than the existing development, that impact would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Visual Impact 7.17 The visual assessment of Green Belt openness considers the extent to which the proposal would be perceived as bu ilt development within the landscape. Whilst the proposal would increase the overall volume and massing of development on the site, it would also consolidate a dispersed collection of buildings and structures into a more compact arrangement, reducing the visual spread of built form across the site. 7.18 The proposal would remove a number of poor quality and visually cluttered buildings and extensive areas of hardstanding, replacing them with a more coherent layout accompanied by enhanced landscaping and biodiversity measures. The submitted Landscape and Visual Assessment (LVA) concludes Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press that the consolidation of built form would reduce the impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt and that the resulting visual impact would be very marginal. The Council’s Landscape Officer has been consulted and agrees with the conclusions of the LVA. 7.19 Furthermore, amendments made during the pre-application process have reduced the extent of excavation and level changes across the site, thereby minimising ground disturbance and helping to retain the existing edge planting. This approach is also supported by the Landscape Officer. 7.20 Overall, whilst the proposal would introdu ce a larger replacement building and therefore have some visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt, the rationalisation of built form, reducti on in hardstanding, enhancement of landscaping and limited visual effects of the associated earthworks, it is considered that the proposal would not result in substantial visual harm to Green Belt openness. The detailed design, materials and character of the development are considered separately elsewhere in this report. Conclusion on Green Belt 7.21 Taking both the spatial and visual impacts together, it is acknowledged that the proposal would result in an increase in th e overall volume of built form on the site and would therefore have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development in quantitative , or spatial, terms. The proposal would also involve limited engineering operations associated with the regrading of the site. However, these changes must be considered in the context of the wider redevelopment proposals, which would reduce the sprawl of development across the site, reduce the extent of hardstanding, increase soft landscaping and consolidate development more centrally within the site . Taking account of both the spatial and visual dimensions of openness, it is concluded that whilst the proposal would have some impact on the openness of the Green Belt, that impact would not amount to substantial harm. The proposal therefore satisfies the requirements of Policy GB7 criterion (1)(e) of the NPPF and constitutes appropriate development within the Green Belt. Principle of the Proposed Use 7.22 The proposal seeks the redevelopment of previously developed land to provide a workshop facility falling within Use Class E(g)(iii) in connection with the established Holland & Holland Shooting Ground. The proposed use would replace the site's lawful general storage and private equestrian uses and would support the continued operation and expansion of an existing rural business. 7.23 Policy E4 of the NPPF supports the sustainable growth of businesses in rural areas, including through well -designed new buildings. It recognises that development to meet rural business needs may need to be located outside settlements and in locations that are not well served by public transport. In such circumstances, opportunities should be taken to use previously developed land Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press and sites physically well-related to exis ting development, wi th the siting and design of development appropriate to the character of its surroundings. 7.24 The proposal accords with these objectives. It would make effective use of previously developed land forming part of the wider Holland & Holland estate and would consolidate workshop operations currently split between the Shooting Ground and separate premises in Kensal Green. The proposal would therefore support the sustainable growth of an established rural business, improve operational efficiency and strengthen the functional relationship between the workshop and the Shooting Ground. Accordingly, there is no objection to the principle of the proposed use, subject to the assessment of Green Belt and other relevant planning considerations below. Loss of Existing Use 7.25 Concerns have been raised regarding the loss of the equestrian use of the site. The Certificate of Lawful Existing Use confirms that the lawful equestrian use is a private use and thus it does not comprise a protected community or recreational facility. Accordingly, there is no policy requirement to retain it, nor is there any specific policy protection regarding the retention of the general storage use. The proposal would replace the existing general storage and private equestrian uses with a workshop facility associated with the established Holland & Holland Shooting Ground. As outlined above, the proposed workshop would support an existing rural business enterprise, for which there is policy support. Overall, and having regard to the economic benefits of the proposal, officers raise no objection to the loss of the equestrian or storage uses. Conclusion on Principle 7.26 Bringing all of the above together, the proposal constitutes the partial redevelopment of previously developed la nd within the Green Belt and, for the reasons set out above, would not result in substantial harm to Green Belt openness. The proposed workshop use would support the sustainable growth of an established rural business, make effective use of previously developed land and there is no policy objection to the loss of the existing storage or private equestrian uses. Accordingly, the proposal is acceptable in principle, subject to the detailed assessment below. Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.27 Policy DP3 of the NPPF, Policy D4 of the London Plan and Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 require development proposals to be of high-quality design and seek to ensure that new development delivers buildings and spaces that are sympathetic to local cha racter and distinctiveness. Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 s eeks to ensure that new development harmonises with the local context. 7.28 The application site occupies part of the wider Holland & Holland estate and comprises a collection of equestrian buildings and structures associated with the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press former farmstead, together with area s of hardstanding, open storage and a former equestrian menage. The existing buildings are varied in age, scale and condition and do not form a coherent group. 7.29 The proposal would replace the majority of the existing buildings with a new workshop complex arranged around the retained timber-framed barn, which has been identified as a non -designated heritage asset. The proposed courtyard arrangement would reflect the historic farmstead layout and retain the barn as the focal point of the development. The proposed buildings would comprise a series of linked elements rather than a single large structure, reducing the perceived scale of the development. 7.30 In terms of appearance, the buildings have been designed to reference the site's agricultural character through the use of simple pitched roof forms and a dark palette of materials , to reflect the rural context. The distinction between the retained historic barn and the new development is maintained, allowing the barn to remain legible within the overall composition. 7.31 The proposal would also remove a significant amount of existing hardstanding and open storage, replacing these areas with landscaping and biodiversity enhancements. Whilst the building volume would increase, the overall design approach would result in a more coherent form of development that is considered to respond appropriately to the site's rural context. 7.32 The Council's Landscape and Urban Design Officer raises no objection to the overall layout or design approach, subject to conditions requiring details of materials, architectural detailing and landscaping. 7.33 On balance, officers consider that the pr oposal would deliver a high-quality design that responds positively to the character of the site and its surroundings. The development would comply with Policy DP3 of the NPPF, Policy D4 of the London Plan, Policy BE1 of the Local Plan Part 1 and Policy DMHB 11 of the Local Plan Part 2. Heritage 7.34 The application site does not contain an y designated heritage assets, nor is it located within a Conservation Area. Howe ver, the centrally located timber- framed barn has been identified through the submitted Heritage Statement as a non-designated heritage asset by virtue of its historic and evidential value. The barn incorporates elements of 16th or 17t h century timber framing, albeit with later alterations and rebuilding, and is iden tified as the most significant historic structure on the site. The adjoini ng U-shaped stable range and eastern timber- framed barn are later structures of more limited heritage significance. 7.35 Policies HE4 and HE5 of the NPPF seek to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance and require the effects of development on their significance to be appropriately a ssessed. Policy HE7 requires a balanced judgement where development would harm a non-designated heritage asset, Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press having regard to the scale of any harm or loss, the significance of the asset and the benefits of the proposal. Policy HE10 requires appropriate recording and public archiving where the whole or part of a heritage asset would be lost. These objectives are supported by Policy HC1 of the London Plan, Policy HE1 of the Local Plan Part 1 and Policy DMHB 1 of the Local Plan Part 2. 7.36 The proposal includes the demolition of the U-shaped stable range and eastern timber-framed barn. Whilst these buildings are of lesser significance than the principal historic barn, the Council's Conservation Officer advises that they possess heritage value. Their loss would be mitigated through an appropriate programme of historic building recording and, in the case of the eastern timber- framed barn, the careful dismantling, nu mbering and secure storage of its timbers for potential future reuse, secured by condition. 7.37 The Council's Conservation Officer raises no objection and supports the retention and repair of the principal historic barn. Historic England also supports its retention but requested further investigation into its age and significance. Dendrochronological dating (tree- ring dating) and associated recording would therefore be secured by condition. 7.38 Overall, the proposal would secure the conservation and long-term use of the site's principal non-designated heritage asset. Having balanced the limited loss of the less significant historic structur es against the benefits of retaining and securing the future of the principal barn, and subject to conditions securing appropriate recording and dendrochronol ogical analysis, the proposal is considered acceptable in accordance with Policies HE4, HE5, HE7 and HE10 of the NPPF, Policy HC1 of the London Plan and Policies HE1 and DMHB 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan. Archaeology 7.39 Policy HC1 of the London Plan and Policies HE5 and HE10 of the NPPF seek to conserve archaeological interest and ensure that development proposals appropriately assess, investigate and reco rd heritage assets of archaeological significance. 7.40 The application is supported by an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, which identifies the site as having po tential for archaeological remains associated with the historic development of Ashby Farm. Whilst the likelihood of significant archaeological deposits is co nsidered to be relatively low, the report concludes that archaeological remains may survive beneath the site and recommends that archaeological evaluation is undertaken in areas affected by below-ground works. 7.41 The Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) has reviewed the submitted information and notes that, although the site is not located within an Archaeological Priority Area, Ashby Farm is considered to have 16th century, and potentially earlier, origins. GLAAS advises that there is potential for buried Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press archaeological remains associated with earlier phases of occupation and the wider medieval settlement pattern around Ruislip. 7.42 GLAAS supports the principle of retaining and converting the historic barn but, as outlined above, recommends further building recording by dendrochronological dating is undertaken . In addition, GLAAS advises that archaeological investigation of below -ground remains should be secured through planning condition in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation. 7.43 Having regard to the submitted Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment and the specialist advice from GLAAS, officers ar e satisfied that the archaeological interest of the site can be appropriately investigated, recorded and archived through suitably worded planning conditi ons. Subject to these conditions, the proposal is considered to accord with Policies HE5 and HE10 of the NPPF and Policy HC1 of the London Plan. Trees and Landscaping 7.44 Policy N3 the NPPF recognises the important contribution that trees make to the character and quality of the environment. Policy G7 of the London Plan seeks the retention of existing trees and require s the loss of trees to be justified and mitigated through replacement planting. Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 similarly seek to protect and enhance landscape features and ensure that development safeguards trees of amenity value. 7.45 An Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) has been submitted in support of the application. The proposal would require the removal of three Category C trees, several Category C hedgerows and one Category U tree, whilst retaining all Category A and Category B trees. The AIA considers that the affected trees do not make a significant contribution to local landscape character and that the impact of their removal would therefore be limited. 7.46 The AIA confirms that no retained trees would be affected by building foundations or changes in ground levels and that impacts arising from surfacing works and construction activity can be appropriately mitigated through tree protection measures and an Arboricultural Method Statement. Opportunities also exist for replacement tree planting and wider landscape enhancement as part of the redevelopment. 7.47 The Council's Landscape Officer supports the landscape strategy, noting that the consolidation of built form, reduction in hardstanding and associated landscaping would enhance the character of the site and reduce the impact of development on the Green Belt. However, concerns are raised regarding the extent of tree loss, with a recommendation that replacement planting should be secured to ensure no net loss of tree cover. The Landscape Officer also recommends revisions to the proposed southern boundary treatment to avoid an overly urban appearance and suggests enhancements to the arrival space around the retained heritage barn. These matters can be satisfactorily addressed Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press through appropriately worded planning conditions requiring a detailed landscaping scheme and replacement tree planting. 7.48 Subject to the above conditions, it is considered that the proposal will not result in unacceptable harm to existing trees or the wider landscape character and thus complies with the NPPF, Policy G7 of the London Plan and Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 14 of the Local Plan Part 2. Urban Greening 7.49 Policy G5 of the London Plan seeks to increase urban greening through the incorporation of high -quality landscaping, planting and other green infrastructure. Major developments are expected to achieve an Urban Greening Factor (UGF) score of at least 0.4 for predominantly commercial developments. 7.50 The application is accompanied by an Urban Greening Factor assessment, which demonstrates that the proposal would achieve a UGF score of 0.50, which would be achieved through a combination of retained and enhanced vegetation, the creation of a new pond, flower -rich planting, hedgerows, green roofs, permeable paving and landscaped areas. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with Policy G5 in terms of urban greening. Ecology 7.51 Policy DMEI7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 requires development proposals on or near sites of ecological value to demonstrate that unacceptable impacts on biodiversity are avoided, and that any residual impacts are appropriately mitigated in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy. Policy G6 of the London Plan similarly requires biodiversity to be considered from the outset of the design process, with development expected to protect, enhance and, where possible, increase biodiversity value. 7.52 The application is supported by a Preli minary Ecological Appraisal (PEA), bat surveys and a great crested newt report. The ecological surveys identify that the site comprises a mixture of modified grassland, scrub, hedgerows, scattered trees and existing buildings, with nearby ponds and woodland providing ecological connectivity. The site lies adjacent to Ruislip Woods SSSI and National Nature Reserve, although the submitted assessment concludes that direct impacts can be avoided through appropriate pollution prevention measures during construction, which could be secured by condition. 7.53 With regard to protected species, surveys identified bats and great crested newts within the site. In terms of bats, f our bat day roosts were found within buildings proposed for demolition. The proposed development would result in the loss of these roosts and will therefore require a European Protected Species Mitigation Licence from Natural England. The submitted mitigation strategy includes appropriate compensatory roost provision, installation of temporary bat boxes prior to demolition, supervised soft stripping by a licensed ecologist, integrated Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press bat features within the completed development and other precautionary measures. 7.54 Officers have considered the information submitted and are satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of a licenc e being granted. In particular, the development has been designed to minim ise impacts on bats, no satisfactory alternative solution has been identified, and appropriate mitigation and compensation measures are proposed to ensure that the favourable conservation status of the affected bat s pecies is maintained. Accordingly, the proposal complies with the requirements of the Habitats Regulations. 7.55 In respect of great crested newts, survey work confirmed a low population associated with nearby ponds, with suitabl e terrestrial habitat present within parts of the site. The development would result in the loss of areas of terrestrial habitat capable of supporting dispersing newts. The submitted mitigation strategy recommends a European Prot ected Species Mitigation Licence, exclusion fencing and trapping where required, ecological supervision of works, habitat replacement, retention of buffers around retained ponds and post- development monitoring. These measures are considered sufficient to ensure that impacts on great crested newts can be appropriately mitigated and managed through the licensing process. 7.56 The PEA also identifies the presence of Japanese knotweed within the site, which will require appropria te treatment and management during development to prevent its spread. The proposal should therefore be implemented in accordance with the submitted ecological mitigation recommendations and any necessary invasive species management measures. 7.57 Overall, subject to the recommended mitigation measures, the obtaining of the necessary Natural England licences for protected species where required, and appropriate planning conditions securing ecological mitigation and enhancement, it is considered that the proposal would not result in unacceptable ecological harm and would accord with the above policies in terms of its ecological impact. Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) 7.58 Policy N2 of the NPPF states that development proposals should contribute to the natural environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible. This approach is supported by Policy EM7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 and the mandatory 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirements introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 7.59 The application is supported by a Statutory Biodiversity Metric and Ecological Appraisal. The submitted metric demonstrates that the development would deliver a 42.02% net gain in habitat units and a 21.62% net gain in hedgerow units, meeting the minimum requirement of 10%. The uplift would be achieved Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press through on-site habitat creation and enhancement measures, including new planting and habitat management. 7.60 Officers are satisfied that the submitted metric demonstrates compliance with the mandatory BNG requirements. The detailed delivery, management and monitoring of these habitats will be secured through the approval of a Biodiversity Gain Plan and the statut ory BNG condition, ensuring that the biodiversity enhancements are maintained for the required 30-year period. Accordingly, the proposal complies with the objectives of the NPPF and Policy EM7 of the Local Plan Part 1. Flooding and Drainage 7.61 Policy SI 13 of the London Plan and Policies DMEI 9 and DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 require development to manage surface water runoff sustainably and ensure that proposals do not increase flood risk on site or elsewhere. 7.62 The site lies within Flood Zone 1, the ar ea of lowest probability of flooding. The site does however reside within a Crit ical Drainage Area (CDA), as identified within the Hillingdon’s Surface Water Ma nagement Plan. Within CDAs, Policy DMEI 10 requires major developments to reduce surface water runoff rates to no greater than the pre -development greenfield rate and incorporate sustainable drainage measures. 7.63 The application is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Drainage Strategy together with additional information submitted in response to comments from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA). The application proposes to use Sustainable Drainage Syst ems (SuDS), including green roofs, permeable paving, rainwater harvesting and an attenuation pond. Runoff would then be discharged at a restricted rate via a pumped connection into the existing Holland & Holland shooting ground drainage network to the north of the site, before ultimately discharging through the established drainage system. 7.64 The proposals also include earthworks to form the new pond. Supporting information confirms that excavated material would be reused on site and that the earthworks have been designed alongside the drainage strategy to avoid increasing flood risk. 7.65 Following review of the submitted information and subsequent clarifications, the LLFA raises no objection to the development, subject to conditions. These require the submission and approval of final sustainable water management details, including the drainage network, SuDS measures, runoff rates, drainage calculations, exceedance routes and long -term management and maintenance arrangements. A further condition would require evidence that the approved drainage scheme has been implemented prior to occupation. 7.66 Subject to these conditions, officers ar e satisfied that surface water can be appropriately managed without increasing flood risk on or off site. The proposal Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press therefore complies with Policies SI 12 and SI 13 of the London Plan and Policies DMEI 9 and DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2. Residential Amenity 7.67 Policy P3 of the NPPF and Policy D3 of the London Plan seek to secure good standards of amenity and living conditions for existing and future occupiers, including in relation to daylight, sunlight and other potential sources of disturbance. 7.68 The nearest residential property is Ashby Farmhouse, located immediately to the north of the application site. The shared boundary lies approximately 10m from the farmhouse, with the closest part of the proposed workshop building situated approximately 15m from the dwelling. It is noted that this is not a new residential relationship, with the farmhouse alr eady positioned adjacent to the existing equestrian and storage uses and associated service yard. Furthermore, it is noted that Ashby Farmhouse is in th e same ownership as the wider Holland & Holland estate and is currently vacant; nevertheless, it has been assessed as though occupied for the purposes of this application 7.69 The proposed workshop building would pr esent its northern gable towards the farmhouse. No first-floor windows are proposed within this elevation and the only north-facing windows would be at ground floor level. Furthermore, the farmhouse sits on land approximately 0.5m higher than the application site and the existing boundary trees along the southern edge of the residential curtilage are to be retained. In light of these factors, the proposal would not give rise to unacceptable overlooking, loss of privacy or an overbearing relationship. 7.70 Whilst the access drive passes adjacent to Ashby Farmhouse and would be surfaced in loose gravel, the submitted Transport Statement demonstrates that the proposal would not intensify vehicular activity compared with the lawful equestrian and storage uses. Indeed, the overall number of vehicle movements is anticipated to reduce, particularly at weekends and on Fridays. Consequently, officers do not consider that the pr oposal would result in an unacceptable increase in noise or disturbance to the occupiers of Ashby Farmhouse arising from traffic using the access. 7.71 There are no other residential properties in sufficiently close proximity to the application site to be materially affected by the proposed development. 1 and 2 Ashby Cottages are situated in excess of 170m to the north and Youngwood Farm is over 240m to the south. 7.72 Overall, it is considered that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and would comply with Policy P3 of the NPPF, Policy D3 of the London Plan and Policy DMHB 11 of the Local Plan Part 2. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Noise 7.73 Policy D14 of the London Plan requires development proposals to minimise noise pollution and ensure that noise impacts do not adversely affect health or quality of life. Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 similarly seeks to ensure that noise impacts are adequately controlled and mitigated, particularly where development has the potential to affect sensitive receptors. 7.74 It is also important to note that th e proposed workshop falls within Use Class E(g)(iii), comprising industrial processes that can be carried out in a residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area , for example by reason of noise. The proposed use relates to the manufacture and repair of sporting guns and associated components within an enclosed workshop environment. It does not involve shooting or gun testing on the site, and there is no proposal to expand or intensify the adjacent shooting ground operations. Accordingly, concerns raised by objectors regarding increased gunfire or testing noise are not substantiated by the submitted proposals. 7.75 The application is accompanied by a Plant Noise Impact Assessment which considers the likely effects of the proposed building services plant on nearby residential receptors , including 1 Ashby Cottage and Young Wood Farm . It concludes that, subject to the incorporati on of acoustic mitigation measures, including acoustic louvres around the external plant compound, the cumulative noise level from the proposed plant would remain within the plant noise emission limits at the nearest sensitive receptors and would give rise to a low noise impact. 7.76 In terms of the nearest residential receptor, it is noted that Ashby Farmhouse is currently vacant and in a state of disrepair. Nevertheless, officers have assessed the proposal on the basis that the building could be reoccupied as a dwelling in the future. In this regard, the only significant external noise source, namely the plant compound, would be located 55m to the southwest of the farmhouse with the proposed workshop buildings intervening. The Council's Noise Officer raises no objection and considers it unlikely that the development would give rise to adverse noise impacts. Accordingly, officers are satisfied that the proposal would not result in unacceptable noise or disturba nce, even if the farmhouse were to be occupied in the future. 7.77 Taking the above into account, and given that the principal workshop activities would be internal to the building with no outdoor gun testing proposed , officers are satisfied that the proposed mitiga tion measures are appropriate to ensure that neighbouring occupiers are adequately protected from noise associated with the development. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to comply with Policy D14 of the London Plan and Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1. Lighting Strategy 7.78 Policy P3 of the NPPF requires development proposals to limit any adverse impact from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.79 A Lighting Strategy Plan has been submitted as part of the application. The strategy proposes low-level lighting controlled by a timer to operate only during working hours. The plan confirms that there would be no further lighting along the arrival road beyond the developed area, no lighting within the adjoining parkland, and no lighting beyond the defined extent of the site, thereby limiting light spill into the surrounding countryside and Green Belt. 7.80 Having regard to the scale and nature of the proposed lighting, together with the operational controls, it is not considered that the scheme would result in unacceptable light pollution or harm to the character of the surrounding area or nearby ecological interests. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Policy P3 of the NPPF. Air Quality 7.81 Policies SI 1 of the London Plan, EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 and DMEI 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 seek to protect and improve air quality and ensure that development does not result in unacceptable impacts on sensitive receptors. 7.82 An Air Quality Assessment has been submitted in support of the application. It concludes that the site is not located within an Air Quality Management Area, that the proposal would reduce vehicle trip generation compared with the lawful existing use, and that it complies with the Greater London Authority's Air Quality Neutral benchmarks for both building and transport emissions. Overall, the assessment concludes that the proposal would not have a significant effect on local air quality. 7.83 Construction-phase dust impacts have also been assessed and are

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Mike Kemp 41331/APP/2025/3250 Date Application Valid: 21/01/2026 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 11/09/2026 Application Type: Full Ward: Heathrow Villages Applicant: Nine Heathrow Ventures Ltd Site Address: Novotel, 234 Bath Road, Harlington, Hayes, UB3 5AP. Proposal: Erection of a new 4 storey hotel extension building with accommodation at roof and basement levels to provide 128 rooms with covered link bridge to existing hotel building with associated with ancillary works (Retrospective). 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 – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory section 106 legal agreement to secure the heads of terms set out below, and subject to the conditions as set out in Appendix 1. It is recommended that delegated powers be given to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth to grant planning permission subject to the following: A) That the Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or any other legislation to secure the following: I. Employment Strategy and Training Scheme: A financial contribution of £175,309.16 towards the delivery of an Employment Strategy and Training Scheme, se cured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD. II. Air Quality contribution of £74,589 III. Hoppa Bus Strategy demonstrating how Hoppa bus provision will be implemented between the site and Heathrow Airport. IV. Active Travel Zone contribution of £75,000 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 air quality, end user employment skills development and sustainable travel ). The scheme therefore conflicts with Policies DMCI 7, DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMEI 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020); the adopted Planning Obliga tions Supplementary Planning Document (2014); Policies DF1, E11, SI 1, SI 2, T1, and T4 of the London Plan (2021); and Policies DM1, DM3 and DM6 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026).' E) That if the application is approved, that the permission is subject to the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Conditions as set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Retrospective planning permission is sought for the erection of a four-storey extension to the existing hotel building. The extension would be linked to the main hotel building by a second -floor covered link bridge. 128 bedrooms are proposed within the extension, alongs ide circulation areas, ancillary spaces used for housekeeping; and plant rooms provided in the basement and at fourth floor level. 1.2 The principle of extending the use of the building for use as a hotel was supported under the previous planning permission granted in December 2016 (41331/APP/2016/1035), however the development as constructed on the site was not carried out in accordance with the approved plans accompanying this planning permission. Relevant conditions were also not discharged prior to commencement of development and relevant obligations contained in the legal agreement were not discharged. The develop ment as constructed on site is not therefore lawful and consequently a retrospective planning application has been submitted to regularise the works undertaken. 1.3 In relation to the principle of development , the site does not fall within a town centre, nor on a site allocated for tourist accommodation. A Sequential Test Assessment has been carried out by the applicant which reviews the sequential preferability of potentially suitable town centre sites in Hayes, Hounslow, Southall and West Drayton. The sequential test concludes that there would be no sequentially preferable town centre sites that would be suitable or available to provide the intended use. Officers consider that the sequential test is sound in its approach and findings. Furthermore, it should be taken into consideration that there is an established hotel use on the site and that the principle of a comparable albeit slightly smaller extension of 108 rooms was consented in 2016. Consequently, the proposals are 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. 1.4 The proposed design approach broadly alig ns with the design of the previously approved hotel extension, most notable changes being the addition of the basement and fourth floor dormer windows. The scale of the extension is commensurate with the existing building in terms of height and volume. The form and architectural features match those of the existing building whilst the elevational treatment matches that of the existing building. The design, scale and siting of the extension would not appear out of pla ce within the context of the site and surroundings and would sit appropriately in the street scene as seen from Bolton’s Lane and Mondial Way. In visual terms, the addition of the basement would be appropriate, given that this feature would not appear prominent in public views. The dormer windows would be necessary to provide appropriate outlook and light for the proposed bedrooms and are modest features which are subordinate to the roofscape. The design approach is considered appropriate, and the proposals would comply with Policy DP3 of the NPPF 2026, Policies D3 of The Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press London Plan, Policy BE1 of the Local Plan Part 1, and Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Local Plan Part 2. 1.5 The siting of the building affords appropriate separation to the nearest residential dwellings to the west at Doghurst Avenue and Bolton’s Lane such that there is siting of the development is unlikely to impact negatively on the amenity of these residential properties by reason of overlooking or overshadowing/loss of light. Nor would the siting of the building impact adversely on the amenity of the surrounding buildings falling under commercial uses. Consequently, the development would comply with Policy DMHB 11 of t he Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). 1.6 The current proposal involves the provision of 57 car parking spaces (including 7 disabled parking bays). This would be in addition to 5 taxi bays and 16 motorcycle/scooter parking spaces and 2 coach parking bays. Parking on the site would be reduced from 133 spaces as previously consented when the office space was converted to use as a hotel to 5 7 parking spaces as currently proposed, an overall reduction of 7 6 spaces. It is further proposed that the rooms within the extension would not be provided with par king, with the exception of disabled parking provision. Consequently, traffic generation associated with the development would be minimal and is not forecast to have a significant impact on the surrounding road network. A Car Park Management Plan and detailed Travel Plan are proposed to be secured by planning condition. There would be a requirement for the applicant to enter into a Section 106 agreement to ensure that the Hotel Hoppa bus service accesses the site to improve public transport access between the site and Heathrow Airport. Taking into account all relevant considerations relating to the provisi on of parking and associated vehicle movements and trip generation, it is considered that on balance that the proposed development complies with Policy TR6 of the NPPF (2026 ), 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 Pa rt 2 Development Management Policies (2020). 1.7 Appropriate measures may be secured by condition or through relevant planning obligations to mitigate/control land contamination, 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. 1.8 On balance, the proposal is acceptable and would be consistent with the overarching aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2026), The London Plan (2021), and Hillingdon Local Plan Parts One and Two. 1.9 The planning application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the conditions contained in Appendix 1; the Section 106 Heads of Terms detailed above. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The site comprises a 159-bedroom hotel, located within a building that previously functioned as an office. Planning permission was granted to change the use of the building into a hotel in September 2015. The building has a brick facade with prominent dark coloured external glazing. The build ing is located approximately 200 metres to the north of Heathrow Airport and adjoins Bath Road (A4). The site contains parking associated with the hotel and small areas of landscaping. 2.2 The land uses adjoining Bath Road primarily consist of hotels, office uses or airport parking. Axis House immediately to the west of the site falls within a residential use. The site lies to the south of Harlington village and there is surrounding low rise residential housing to the north and north west of the site. The buildings to the north east of the site and east of the site adjoining Mondial Road are used as offices. 2.3 Planning permission was granted in December 2016 (41331/APP/2016/1035) for a four-storey extension to the hotel, which would be connected to the main building via a glazed linked walkway at first fl oor level. Development commenced on the extension to the hotel, which was located on an area of car parking associated with the hotel in November 2019. Development however commenced prior to the discharge of all relevant pre -commencement planning conditions , whilst the applicant also failed to comply with various obligations set out under the accompanying Section 106 agreement. 2.4 The development which has been carried out has not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans provided under planning application 41331/APP/2016/1035 and is not considered to be lawful as there are various discrepancies between the consented plans and the development as constructed. Most notably a basement has been constructed which was not previously consented, whilst dormer windows have been inserted into the roof of the building to provide additional bedrooms in the roof space. On the most recent visit to the site conducted on 12 th May 2026 it was observed that the extension to the hotel had largely been constructed including the frame of the building, the second-floor link bridge to the main hotel and basement . External materials have also been added to the elevations of the buildings. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figure 2: Photograph showing the west elevation of hotel extension as constructed from the Novotel car park. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Photograph showing the west el evation of hotel extension and relationship to existing hotel building ta ken from corner of Bolton’s Lane and Doghurst Avenue Figure 4: Photograph showing the north and east elevation of the hotel extension taken from Mondial Way looking west Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 5: Photograph showing the south elevation of the hotel extension, link bridge and relationship to main hotel building 3 Proposal 3.1 Retrospective planning permission is soug ht for the erection of a four-storey extension to the existing hotel building. The extension would be linked to the main hotel building by a second-floor covered link bridge. 128 bedrooms are proposed within the extension , alongside circulation areas , ancillary spaces used for housekeeping; and plant rooms provided in the basement and at fourth floor level. No additional guest facilities are proposed. 3.2 The south and north façade of the building would feature prominent extensive sections of glazing, to match the existing hotel . The east and west elevations of the building would not feature extensive glazing, with minimal window openings proposed to serve corridor spaces and cladding proposed across the remaining façade. 3.3 As noted in the above section of this re port, the works to construct the extension are largely complete. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 6: Proposed Site Plan Figure 7: Proposed South Elevation Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 8: Proposed North Elevation Figure 9: Proposed East and West Elevations 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 – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4.2 Planning permission (41331/APP/2015/1886) was granted in September 2015 to change the use of the existing building from use as an office to use as a 159- bedroom hotel, alongside the erection of a single storey side extension to the building. 4.3 Permission was granted on 9 th December 2016 (41331/APP/2016/1035) for the erection of a 4-storey hotel extension building to accommodate 108 rooms with a covered link bridge connecting the existing building, with associated ancillary works. The applicant has provided photographs to indicate that drainage works associated with this permission were carried out in November 2019, which ordinarily would constitute commencement of development associated with this planning permission. The applicant however failed to discharge several relevant pre-commencement planning conditions prior to the implementation of the drainage works and prior to expiry of the planning permission, as well as failing to comply with obligations set out within the accompanying Section 106 agreement. The development which has been constructed on site, substantially differs from the approved plans granted under the previous application as the development as partially constructed (and as proposed within this application) includes a basement and accommodation within the roof of the building with dormer windows. On this basis the structures constructed on site are not lawful. 4.4 Planning permission was granted in March 2017 (41331/APP/2017/111) for the erection of a new 4th floor extension to the main hotel building to accommodate a gym, admin offices and plant room. Works to implement this permission commenced in 2017 and were completed in 2018. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. Emerging Planning Policies 5.2 Policy DM4 of the National Planning Poli cy Framework (NPPF) 2026 states that 'Local Planning Authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: (a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); (b) the extent to which there are unresolve d objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objecti ons, the greater the weight that may be given); and (c) the degree of consistency of the relev ant policies in the emerging plan to this Framework (the closer the policies in th e emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). Draft London Plan (July 2026) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 5.3 The GLA are consulting on a draft new London Plan between 16th July and 15th October 2026 with the intention of replacing the previous versions of the existing London Plan. Following the consultation, t he draft London Plan will be subject to an independent Examination in Public before final adoption, expected in early 2028. 5.4 As the unresolved objections have not yet been submitted and published for decision-makers to review, limited weight can be afforded to the Draft London Plan (July 2026) at present. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Site notices were posted surrounding the site on 27th January 2026. A total of 154 neighbouring properties were consulted on 22 nd January 2026. The application was advertised within the local press on 27th January 2026. 6.2 No representations have been received by members of the public in relation to the proposed development. 6.3 Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 1 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Transport for London Railway Infrastructure No comments to make. Noted Heathrow Airport Safeguarding No objection subject to a condition requiring the submission of a glint and glare assessment prior to installation of any solar panels on the site. Noted, a glint and glare assessment condition is included within the recommended list of planning conditions. Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service The planning application lies in an area of archaeological interest (Archaeological Priority Area) identified in the Local Plan: [77820] Area: Heathrow Area As noted in the application, the site was subject to an archaeological watching brief in June 2024 which found only two possibly prehistoric pits. The new proposal does not introduce any additional risk of Noted Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press harm to archaeological assets. No further assessment or conditions are therefore necessary. Metropolitan Police No response received following consultation. Whilst Officers have not received detailed comments from Secured by Design Officers, a condition is proposed to secure appropriate accreditation. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) No objection from a safeguarding perspective. Noted London Fire Brigade No observations to make. Noted Heathrow Villages Conservation Area Panel No objection in principle to this development but expect that a condition will be added to any permission granted to ensure that substantial number of trees and other vegetation are added to the open areas around the existing and new buildings. At present this is one of the least green sites on the north side of the A4 road facing the airport. Comments are noted. A condition requiring the protection of existing trees is recommended. The impact of the development on existing trees is addressed in paragraphs 7.49 to 7.58 of this report. Thames Water No objection in relation to wastewater or surface water disposal and management. Advise that a condition is attached requiring that no piling take place until a piling method statement is submitted and approved in writing. The condition requiring that no piling take place until a piling method statement is approved in writing is noted, however accounting for the stage of construction it is unlikely that piling would be required. Transport for London (TfL) TfL accepts the proposed level of car parking given the substantial reduction in parking provision that the development will deliver overall, together with the It is noted that TfL consider that the level of car parking proposed is Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press fact that the hotel extension will operate in an effectively car-free manner. A Car Parking Management Plan (CPMP) should be secured by condition. In addition, 20% of all visitor parking spaces must be provided with active EV charging infrastructure, with the remaining 80% provided with passive provision. All operational, taxi and coach parking spaces should be equipped with active EV charging. acceptable. The recommended A Car Parking Management Plan (CPMP) and EC charging point conditions are included in the list of recommended planning conditions. Metis (on behalf of London Borough of Hillingdon as Local Lead Flood Authority No objection subject to condition requiring that the applicant submit evidence demonstrating that sustainable drainage measures have been implemented. Noted, the suggested condition is included in the recommended list of conditions. Internal Consultees Contaminated Land Officer Recommend a condition requiring the submission of a comprehensive verification report to include of the final remediation works to deal with any contamination. Requires that a scheme to deal with unacceptable contamination is submitted. A condition is recommended as suggested by the Council ’s Contaminated Land Officer. Whilst it is noted that a scheme to deal with unacceptable contamination was discharged under planning application 41331/APP/2016/103 5 it is recommended that a scheme to deal with unacceptable contamination is submitted prior to first occupation, alongside the verification report. Waste Strategy No comments/objections Noted Access Officer To meet the requirements of London Plan E10, 9% of the proposed bedrooms should be fully accessible A relevant condition has been included to meet these requirements. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press to wheelchair user guests. A further 1% (2 rooms) should be fitted with a tracked hoist system and have an adjoining door to a standard bedroom. There are no accessibility concerns, subject to a condition requiring that the no less than 9% of all new guest bedrooms, and a minimum of one ensuite guestroom, within the approved purpose -built extension, are sized, designed, and fitted with a level access shower, and tracked hoist system between the bedroom and bathroom, in accordance with BS 8300 -: 2018, subsection 19.2.1.2. Noise Officer Based on the information provided the proposed development would not cause the existing planning consent noise limit to be exceeded . Noted Planning Policy Works to implement the previous planning consent have been granted and therefore the principle of an extension to the hotel in this location is accepted in principle. Comments are noted Economic Development A payment in lieu of £175,309.16 is requested in relation to funding construction training opportunities as construction has been completed on site. It would be expected that the developer delivers a local employment scheme this should be secured in the accompanying Section 106 agreement. Noted, the suggested financial contribution is included in the suggested heads of terms alongside an end user strategy for employment. Air Quality The applicant’s transport strategy is expected to contribute positively towards local air quality objectives, reduction of roadside NO₂ and PM2.5 concentrations, and wider climate and sustainability goals within the London Borough of Hillingdon. Mitigation measures to reduce emissions can be applied on-site or off-site. The level of mitigation required from the proposed development for traffic emissions is £82,876. Once all relevant deductions were applied, the remaining value of mitigation due is £74,589. Relevant conditions are recommended to mitigate the impact of development on air quality, and the recommended mitigatory contribution is included within the proposed Heads of Terms. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Highways The reduction in car parking is supported in policy terms. Whilst a compliant quantum of cycle parking is proposed. The provision of two coach parking spaces is considered acceptable , subject to the provision of swept path drawings to be provided within a Car Parking and Design Management Plan. The measures set out in the applicants Active Travel Zone (ATZ) are accepted subject to a financial contribution of £75,000 towards implementation of ATZ improvements. A clause to ensure access is provided for the Heathrow Hotel Hoppa bus should be secured by legal agreement. Transport matters are addressed in Paragraphs 7.29 to 7.37 of the report. The measures to be secured by condition and obligations to be secured by legal agreement are included within the proposed Heads of Terms. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The principle of extending the hotel was supported under the previous planning permission granted in December 2016 (41331/APP/2016/1035). The decision to grant planning permission in 2016 remains a material planning consideration, where assessing the principle of extending the hotel under the present application. It must however be noted that the development as constructed on site differs from the approved development . Furthermore, the failure to discharge relevant pre- commencement planning conditions an d obligations contained within the accompanying Section 106 agreement ahead of commencing development means that the development as constructed is not lawful. 7.2 The previous planning application was determined prior to the adoption of the London Plan 2021, as well as subsequent updates to the NPPF, most recently in August 2026. The present planning application must therefore be considered against all relevant planning policies within these documents that have since been adopted since the decision was made to grant planning permission for an extension to the hotel in 2016. 7.3 Policy TC3 of the NPPF (2026) states that a sequential test should be applied to proposals for main town centre uses for which planning permission is required, where these are neither in an existing centre nor in accordance with an allocation for that purpose in an up -to-date development plan. The sequential test means that main town centre uses involving new development should be located within town centres identified in the development plan; then, if this is not feasible, in edge of centre locations; and only if suitab le sites are not available (or expected to become available within a reasonable period) should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre locations, preference should be given to accessible sites which are well connected to the town centre by sustainable transport modes. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.4 Policy SD7 of the London Plan (Town centres: development principles and Development Plan Documents) requires boroughs to adopt the 'town centres first' approach to applications for main town centre uses outside of designated town centres, which means borou ghs should discourage most non- residential, out-of- centre developments. Out-of-centre developments can be particularly detrimental to town centres, undermining their econom ic performance, local character, and the accessibility they provide to a broad range of services, whilst also encouraging an increase in private vehicle trips away from the established amalgamation of shops and services, and away from areas of higher levels of public transport. 7.5 Policy E10 of the London Plan (2021) states: A) London's visitor economy and associated employment should be strengthened by enhancing and extending its attractions, inclusive access, legibility, visitor experience and management and supporting infrastructure, particularly to parts of outer London we ll-connected by public transport, taking into account the needs of business as well as leisure visitors. B) The special characteristics of major c lusters of visitor attractions and heritage assets and the diversity of cultural infrastructure in all parts of London should be conserved, enhanced and promoted. C) A sufficient supply and range of serviced accommodation should be maintained. G) In outer London and those parts of inner London outside the CAZ, serviced accommodation should be promoted in town centres and within Opportunity Areas (in accordance with the sequential test as set out in Policy SD7 Town centres: development principles and Development Plan Documents) where they are well- connected by public transport, particularly to central London. H) To ensure sufficient choice for people who require an accessible bedroom, development proposals for serviced accommodation should provide either: 1) 10 per cent of new bedrooms to be wheelchair -accessible in accordance with Figure 52121 incorporating either Figur e 30122 or 33123 of British Standard BS8300-2:2018 Design of an accessible and inclusive built environment. Buildings. Code of practice; or 2) 15 per cent of new bedrooms to be a ccessible rooms in accordance with the requirements of 19.2.1.2 of British Standard BS8300 -2:2018 Design of an accessible 7.6 Policy DME 5 (Hotels and Visitor Accommodation) 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: i) A high standard of building and site design, including landscaping and placement of signage that makes a positive contribution to local amenity and the streetscape; ii) Provision of an accessible layout and rooms in accordance with Policy DME 6: Accessible Hotels and Visitor Accommodation; and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press iii) No adverse impact on near by land uses or on the amenity of either adjoining occupants or proposed occupants by virtue of noise, lighting, emissions, privacy, overlooking, any other potential nuisance, parking or traffic congestion. 7.7 The subtext to Policy DME 5 clarifies that the Heathrow is not identified as hotel growth location in the Local Plan Part 2 to ensure consistency with the Airports National Policy Statement. It should be noted that the site lies outside of the land on which the proposed third runway and expansion of infrastructure associated with Heathrow Airport would be sited. Furthermore, Heathrow Airport have raised no objection to the application subject to conditions requiring the submission of a glint and glare assessment for any solar pv equipment proposed on site. 7.8 Hotels are considered to be a main town centre use. The proposed hotel would not be within a town centre, nor would it be within a site allocated for such a use within the Local Plan. It is noted that the development site would be broadly within the Heathrow Opportunity Area (which whilst not defined in terms of boundaries, does identify the areas around Heathrow Airport as capable of accommodating a significant level of commercial and residential growth). Despite the sites location within the HOA, Policy E10 of the London Plan (2021) is clear that such serviced accommodation needs to be brought forward in accordance with the sequential test (set out in Policy SD7). 7.9 In line with this requirement, the applicant has prepared and submitted a Sequential Test Assessment. Given the intended function would primarily be an airport hotel to serve passengers at Heathrow Airport, the sequential assessment has reviewed sites within Town Centre sites in Hayes, Hounslow, Southall and West Drayton. The sequential test concludes that there would be no sequentially preferable town centre sites that would be suitable or available to provide the intended use. Officers consider that the sequential test is sound in its approach and findings. Furthermore, it should be taken into consideration that there is an established hotel use on the site and that the principle of a comparable, albeit slightly smaller extension of 108 rooms was previously consented in 2016. 7.10 The applicant’s Economic Statement indicates that the development may potentially provide 50 jobs directly on site. Whilst wider economic benefits relating to increased visitor numbers would also be anticipated. The proposal would help to meet the demand for visitor accommodation linked to Heathrow Airport, intensifying the use of an established hotel with good public transport links. The principle of development is acceptable in this instance. 7.11 It is noted that the site is currently in use as temporary accommodation for asylum seekers as part of a contract with the Home Office. The applicant has advised that they are satisfied that this use of the site will cease in 2026 at which time the building would be renovated and brought back into use as a hote l. It is intended that the use will revert upon completion of the extension. To ensure that the hotel is used as visitor accommodation, a condit ion is proposed requiring that that the accommodation shall be used only as visitor/hotel accommodation for a maximum period of 90 days. The condition has been agreed with the applicant and is considered necessary as the accommodat ion proposed on site is considered to Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press not be appropriate for long-term residential occupation and is intended for use as short term tourist/visitor accommodation. It is also necessary to ensure that appropriate standards of amenity are retained for surrounding residential occupiers. 7.12 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. Design, Density and Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.13 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 Policy DP3 of the NPPF each seek to ensure that development achieves the highest standard of design, which integrates positively to the character its surroundings. 7.14 The proposed design approach broadly alig ns with the design of the previously approved hotel extension, most notable changes being the addition of the basement and fourth floor dormer windows. The scale of the extension is commensurate with the existing building in terms of height and volume. The form and architectural features match those of the existing building whilst the elevational treatment matches that of the existing building including the use of prominent extensive glazing across the south and north elevations of the building. The site sits within the context of late 20th century office buildings of a similar scale and of varying architectural appearance. The design, scale and siting of the extension would not appear out of place within this context and would sit appropriately in the street scene as seen from Bolton’s Lane and Mondial W ay. As the extension is sited to the rear of the existing building, it would not be prominent in public views from Bath Road, aside from glimpsed views looking north east from the junction with Boltons Lane. Sufficient separation is retained between the extension and existing dwelli ngs on Doghurst Avenue and Bolton's Lane to ensure that the building does no t appear overbearing in relation to the most scale of the two-storey residential dwellings to the north west. 7.15 In visual terms, the addition of the basement would be appropriate, given that this feature would not appear prominent in public views as this would be partially concealed and only visible from Mondial Way and Bolton’s Lane, whereby it would sit appropriately with the remainder of the extension and the main hotel building. Whilst there are not any examples of roof dormers of a similar appearance to those proposed, the surrounding area consists of buildings of varied appearance in terms of roof form /design. The dormer windows would be necessary to provide appropriate outlook and light for the proposed bedrooms and are modest features which are subordinate to the roofscape as a whole and are therefore considered to be an appropriate design feature. 7.16 Overall, the design approach is considered appropriate, and the proposals would comply with Policy DP3 of the NPPF 2026, Policies D3 of The London Plan, Policy Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press BE1 of the Local Plan Part 1, and Poli cies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Local Plan Part 2. Residential Amenity and Adjoining Uses 7.17 Policy DMHB 11 of Hillingdon 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 ope n space. The supporting text for this policy states that the Council will expec t 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. 7.18 There are existing residential dwellings to the north and west of the site located on Bolton’s Lane and Doghurst Avenue. Nos. 20 to 24 Boltons Lane are the closest dwellings to the proposed extension , this pair of buildings consist of flats at ground and first floor level. A separat ion distance of approximately 17 metres would be retained between the north west corner of the proposed extension and the garden of Nos.20 and 22 Bolton’s Lane. A distance of 42 metres would be retained between the west elevation of the proposed extension and the side garden serving No.1 Doghurst Avenue. The side elevation of this property is located approximately 50 metres from the side extension to the hotel. The windows serving the hotel rooms would be located along the north and south elevations of the building with the only windows in the west elevation of the building serving corridor spaces, which can be conditioned to be fitted with obscured glazing to prevent overlooking of the nearest neighbouring properties. A row of terraced properties is located to the north of the site , with a minimum separation distance of 47 metres retained between the north elevation of the hotel extension and the rear gardens of Nos.44 to 62 Bolton’s Lane and approximately 60 metres between the north facing windows in the hotel extension and the facing rear windows serving these properties. 7.19 The siting of the building affords appropriate separation to the nearest residential dwellings to the west at Doghurst Avenue and Bolton ’s Lane such that there is siting of the development is unlikely to impact negatively on the amenity of these properties by reason of overlooking or overshadowing/loss of light. Other adjoining buildings to the north and east, namely No.1 Mondial Way and Amadeus and Samsonite House are commercial offices . It is considered that the siting of the extension to the hotel would not impact negatively on the function and amenity of the adjoining commercial uses. 7.20 It should be noted that there are no adopted planning standards in respect of providing privacy/overlooking or light for hotel guest bedrooms. Nevertheless, the applicant ’s Daylight and Sunlight Assessment provides an assessment of the basement rooms, as light to these lower-level rooms are likely to be more restricted than rooms on the upper floors. The Daylight and Sunlight Assessment indicates that all south facing basement rooms would comply with the Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH) and Target Daylight Factor (TDF) tests. 7 of the north facing basement rooms would fall shor t of the TDF test requirements . The rooms however benefit from acceptable outlook and privacy and would still benefit Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press from reasonable natural light accounting for their use. As no specific minimum standards exist relating to daylight and sunlight for hotel/tourist accommodation, the standard of accommodation is considered acceptable accounting for the short- term nature of occupation. 7.21 Policy D13 of The London Plan places the responsibility for mitigating impacts from existing noise and other nuisance -generating activities or uses on the proposed new noise-sensitive development. Development should be designed to ensure that established noise and other nuisance-generating uses remain viable and can continue or grow without unreasonable restrictions being placed on them. 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. 7.22 The proposals would include the installation of building services plant which would be located within two dedicated roof top plant areas located on the eastern and western sides of the new hotel extension. To comply with the requirements of the LPA, any noise from the proposed installation of mechanical plant should not exceed a rated level of 38dBA at 1m from the nearest noise sensitive façade. The submitted noise assessment confirms that the installation of the plant equipment would not conflict with these requirements. On this basis it is considered that the development would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding uses in terms of noise generation. T hese conclusions are supported by the Council’s noise specialist officer. 7.23 In summary, it can be concluded that the development would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of any adjoining residential or commercial uses and the development would comply with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Transport, Highway Impact and Parking 7.24 Policy TR4 of the NPPF 2026 states that development proposals should be refused if they would have a severe adv erse impact on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion, including cumulative impacts), or an unacceptable impact on highway safety; taking into account any mitigation measures proposed as well as any wi der network improvements, including measures to support sustainable patterns of movement. This applies both during the construction phase and following completion. 7.25 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press to cycle. Policy T6 states that car parking should be restricted in line with levels of existing and future public transport ac cessibility 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. 7.26 Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part 2 require the council to consider whether the traffi c generated by proposed developments is acceptable in terms of the local highway and junction capacity, traffic flows, and conditions of general highway or pedestrian safety. 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. 7.27 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 provision of new hotels the policy specifically states that parking requirements should be determined 'On an individual basis and in addition to car parking requirements: (a) Provision for taxi pick up and set down to be provided. (b) One coach parking space is required per 50 rooms. (c) Within existing and proposed hotel developments, the use any of the hotel car parking for car rental operations or short/long st ay airport or other public car parking will require planning permission. (d) Hotels which include function/banquet and dining rooms (which may include: ballrooms, conference and meeting rooms, exhibition space, restaurants, cafes, bar areas, nightclubs and any other rooms capable of use for hosting functions, business meetings or for eating/drinking) will require a transport appraisal to assess the level of car parking.' Furthermore 1 cycle parking space should be provided per 10 members of staff. 7.28 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 Approach, mode share and active travel targets, and the aim to improve public transport reliability and reduce congestion and traffic levels. 7.29 Planning application 41331/APP/2015/1886 approved in 2015 relating to the change of use of the offices to a hotel use included the provision of 133 car parking spaces including 14 disabled bays, 3 coach bays, 3 taxi bays, 8 spaces for motorbikes/scooters and secure and covered cycle parking for 30 cycles. 23 of the parking spaces including 3 of the disabled bays, were to have active electric vehicles charging points with a further 4 spaces being passive charging points. The planning permission granted in 2016 for the extension to the hotel included 63 car parking spaces, including 27 disabled parking bays. The layout also included 5 taxi spaces, 4 coach parking spaces, 14 motorcycle parking spaces; and 44 cycle parking spaces. There was a substantial reduction in parking Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press previously provided on the site as the extension is located on an area previously occupied by surface level parking. 7.30 The current proposal involves the provision of 57 car parking spaces (including 7 disabled parking bays) . This would be in addition to 5 taxi bays and 16 motorcycle/scooter parking spaces and 2 coach parking bays. Parking on the site would be reduced from 133 spaces as previously consented when the office space was converted to use as a hotel to 57 parking spaces as currently proposed, an overall reduction of 76 spaces. Existing access to the site, which is provided from the roundabout adjoining Bolton’s Lane and Mondial Way would be unchanged. The proposed reduction in parking provision on site would encourage visitor s to use public transport and modes of travel other than use of private cars, this would align with Policies T1 and T2 of the London Plan. It is considered that the overall quantum of parking is appropriate and would comply with London Plan Policy T6.4. 7.31 It is noted that the parking on site is currently available for use by members of the public and is not restricted for use by hotel guests. It is proposed within the submitted Car Parking Design and Management Plan that the car parking would be restricted to use by hotel guests only. This is considered necessary to ensure that the parking on site is for operational purposes only and not for general use, or for uses such as long -stay airport parking. It is considered necessary that a planning condition is attached requiring the submission of a final, detailed car parking management plan, which shall be implemented prior to the first use of the development. 7.32 Two coach parking bays would be provided, however swept path drawings have not been provided to demonstrate that coaches can safely and conveniently manoeuvre in and out of the bays without conflicting with other vehicles and pedestrians, and that a coach can enter and leave the site in a forward gear. This matter should be addressed within the Car Parking Design and Management Plan to demonstrate that a coach can safely and conveniently manoeuvre in and out of each coach parking bay with the other bay occupied. 7.33 The applicant has proposed that the new extension would be car free with parking only being allocated to existing rooms within the hotel, although disable d spaces would also need to be allocated for use of visitors with rooms in the extension who require parking. The submitted Transport Statement dated January 2026 estimates that the proposed development is expected to generate an additional 22 AM peak and 8 PM peak trips, contributing to a total of 105 AM and 98 PM trips across the day. In relation to the AM and PM peaks it is highlighted in the addendum to the Transport Technical Note dated 6 th August 2026 that the additional 20 bedrooms proposed within the current application, compared with the consented development would generate approximately 3.8 additional two-way trips in the AM peak, 3.1 in the PM peak and 36.8 across a typical day. Accounting for the relatively low level of trip generation, which is a conservative estimate and accounting for the car free nature of development and reduced parking overall on the site. Overall, it is considered that sufficient capacity would existing within the surrounding road network to accommodate the additional traffic generation associated with the proposed extension and therefore the development would not Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press have a significantly adverse impact on the function of the local highway network. Consequently, the development would not conflict with Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part; and Policy TR6 of the NPPF 2026. 7.34 The legal agreement accompanying planning application 41331/APP/2016/1035 included a requirement that the applicant demonstrates that provision is made for a ‘Hoppa Bus Strategy’ to be submitted to the Council for written approval. The purpose of this obligation which was secu red through the accompanying Section 106 agreement was to ensure that the ‘Hotel Hoppa’ bus service, which provides shuttle connections between various airport hotels and the Heathrow terminals serves the Novotel in the interests of encouraging public transport uptake as a means of accessing the airport, reducing reliance on taxis and private car use. It is recommended that this obligation is secured through a Section 106 legal agreement accompanying the current application for the same reason. 7.35 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. Accounting for the scope of the extension, the provision of at least 6 long stay cycle parking spaces and 3 short stay cycle parking spaces would be required. The minimum cycle parking for the whole of the hotel, as extended (287 bedrooms) would be 15 long stay and 6 short stay spaces. A total of 26 Sheffield stands is proposed, each of which provide capacity for two cycles, allowing for the parking of 52 cycles in total. It is proposed that no fewer than eight of the Sheffield stands will be secure and covered and reserved for long -stay use, providing 16 long-stay spaces against the m inimum requirement of 15. The remaining cycle stands will be for short stay use. Th e quantum of cycle parking proposed would align with the minimum standards required under Policy T5 of the London Plan. Specific details of the cycle parking may be secured by planning condition. 7.36 In response to comments submitted by TfL, the applicant has prepared an Active Travel Zone (ATZ) Assessment scale to assess the quality of walking routes to the nearest public transport facilities. This includes assessment at daytime and nighttime and identifies relevant constraints and appropriate measures to encourage active travel and to ensure that it is attractive to staff and guests. A range of measures which would be implemented by the hotel are included and should be delivered at design phase including lighting, improved wayfinding, safe and accessible routes through the site and CCTV surveillance. Overall, this document is considered satisfactory. In particular, the five-year mode share target of 60% for walking, cycling, and public transport use is supported, as it aligns with the central aim of the Mayor's Transport Strategy, which seeks for 80 per cent of all trips in London to be made on foot, by cycle, or using public transport by 2041. As Hillingdon is an outer London borough wi th longer trip lengths, the target is 56% (Mayor's Transport Strategy, March 2018). The Highway Authority requires the applicant to enter into a Section 106 agreement with the Council, obliging the developer to fund the implementation of Healthy Streets measures at the locations identified in the Active Travel Zone Assessment. The value of this contribution would be £75,000 and this obligation has been agreed by the applicant. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.37 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 t he proposed development complies with Policy TR6 of the NPPF (2026), 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). Air Quality 7.38 Policy SI 1 of The London Plan (2021) states that development proposals should ensure that where emissions need to be reduced to meet the requirements of Air Quality Neutral or to make the impact of development on local air quality acceptable, this is done on-site. 7.39 Policy DMEI 14 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020) states that development proposals should demonstrate appropriate reductions in emissions to sustain compliance with and contribute towards meeting EU limit value s and national air quality objectives for pollutants. 7.40 The proposed development is located within the LBH Air Quality Management Area and within the A4 Corridor Focu s Area, notwithstanding the proposed reduction in parking on site, the develop ment would still result in an increased number of vehicle movement s bringing additional tr affic emissions which will contribute to the detriment of local air quality. As per the London Plan, developments need to be air quality neutral as minimum and L ondon Borough of Hillingdon requires development proposals located in Focus Areas (or that are likely to affect such sensitive areas) to apply a more stringent air quality neutral approach and be air quality positive (LBH Air Quality Local Action Plan 2019- 2024), contributing to the reduction of emissions in these sensitive areas. In line with the Hillingdon Local Action Plan, proposed development with impacts within Focus Areas (or with impacts on FAs) requ ire more stringent air quality neutral procedures and needs to be Air Quality positive, with a total emission mitigation approach. 7.41 In the absence of detailed site-specific travel plan survey data, the transport profile of the Bath Road hotel corridor may reasonably be characterised as predominantly road-transport dependent, with moderate public transport utilisation and limited active travel uptake. A modal shift strategy is required to encourage a modal shift towards sustainable modes of travel in the Bath Road corridor. The modal shift strategy will need to be secured via a condition to enable both GLA and LBH requirements for sustainable development in the area. 7.42 The implementation of electric sh uttle buses, low-emission servicing requirements, comprehensive electric vehicle infrastructure, anti -idling controls, and sustainable travel initiatives will significantly reduce operational transport emissions compared with conventional airport hotel operations. The strategy is expected to contribute positively towards loc al air quality objectives, reduction of Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press roadside NO ₂ and PM2.5 concentrations, and wider climate and sustainability goals within the London Borough of Hillingdon. 7.43 Notwithstanding these measures, mitigation will be required to offset the impact of increased traffic emissions resulting from the scope of the development. This is calculated at £74,589 and is recommended to be secured through a Section 106 agreement. The applicant has confirmed their agreement to this contribution. 7.44 Subject to securing the air quality contribution through a Section 106 legal agreement, alongside the submission of appropriate details to be secured by condition, the proposal is considered to comply with Policies SI 1 and GG3 of The London Plan, Policy EM8 of the Local Plan Part 1, and Policy DMEI 14 of the Local Plan Part 2. Accessibility 7.45 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 Figure 52 incorporating either Figure 30 or 33 of British Standard BS8300 -2:2018 Design of an accessible and inclusive built environment. Buildings. Code of practice; 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. Buildings. Code of practice. 7.46 To meet the requirements of London Plan E10, 9% of the proposed bedrooms should be fully accessible to wheelchair user guests. A further 1% (2 rooms) should be fitted with a tracked hoist system and have an adjoining door to a

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Mike Kemp 76551/APP/2026/1578 Date Application Valid: 24/06/2026 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 07/09/2026 Application Type: Full Ward: Wood End Applicant: London Borough of Hillingdon Council Site Address: Land to the West of Abbotswood Way, Hayes, UB3 3PQ Proposal: Formation of new landscaping and public realm works. 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 – 15th September 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 Permission is sought for hard and soft landscaping works located on a small strip of land adjoining Abbotswood Way on the eastern edge of the Avondale Drive Estate in Hayes. The proposed works wo uld sit alongside the development proposed under hybrid planning application 76551/APP/2025/2861 and Reserved Matters Application 76551/APP/2025/3242 and are intended to ensure that this remaining parcel of land adjoining the site is not left in its current condition, which would not relate or tie into the landscaping proposals to be delivered along the remaining frontage with Abbotswood Way. 1.2 In design terms the proposals would read as a logical continuation of the landscaping proposed under the applications referenced above with further planting ensuring that a green aspect to Avondale Drive is retained. In accessibility terms the proposals would ensure a continuation of the pedestrian route alongside Avondale Drive, which would be of benefit to the safety of pedestrians. The proposals would provide some minor e nhancements to the amenity of the occupiers of the proposed ground floor flat adjoining the site by providing a minor increase in defensible landscaped space and private amenity space. 1.3 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. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The site consists of a small 16sqm section of land adjoining Abbotswood Way in Hayes. The land in question falls outside the application boundary of the original hybrid planning permission (ref. 76551/APP/2021/4502) for the redevelopment of the Avondale Drive Estate and the pending Reserved Matters Application (ref. 76551/APP/2025/3242). The land subject of this ap plication consists of part of a grass verge adjoining Abbotswood Way extending between two footpaths. The Avondale Drive Estate consists of three 13-storey blocks of flats, each containing 48 flats (total 144 homes). All existing dwellings are two -bedroom flats with the blocks being constructed in the late 1960's. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (Reserved Matters site area outlined in red) Figure 2: Aerial Image of Application Site Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Street View image towards application site looking north adjoining Abbotswood Way Figure 4: Street View image towards application site looking south adjoining Abbotswood Way Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 Permission is sought for hard and soft landscaping works located on a small strip of land adjoining Abbotswood Way on the eastern edge of the Avondale Drive Estate in Hayes. The works are proposed in connection with hybrid planning application 76551/APP/2025/2861 and Reserved Matters a pplication 76551/APP/2025/3242, which relate to the comprehensive redevelopment of the estate at Avondale Drive, including the demolition of the existing tower blocks and construction of new residential dwellings. 3.2 The proposals relate to a small area of works (measuring 16sqm) falling just outside of, but immediately adjacent to the area relating to hybrid planning application 76551/APP/2025/2861 where works cannot be secured under the Highways Act, as the land in question is neither adopted highway land nor proposed for future adoption. A combination of soft landscaping/planting, tarmac surfacing and block paving is proposed. Figure 3: Landscaping Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 Applications of primary relevance to the planning application are hybrid planning permission 76551/APP/2021/4502, as well as Section 73 application 76551/APP/2025/2861 recently considered by Members at the planning Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press committee held on 11 th March 2026. Members resolved to approve Section 73 application 76551/APP/2025/2861 subject to a Deed of Variation. 4.2 A resolution to grant Reserved Matte rs approval (76551/APP/2025/3242) was determined at the planning committee held on 21 st April 2026 for the detailed design approach relating to Section 73 application 76551/APP/2025/2861. The scheme within the proposed application relates directly to the design, layout and landscaping determined for approval under Reserved Matters app lication 76551/APP/2025/3242. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. Emerging Planning Policies 5.2 Policy DM4, paragraph 1, of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2026 states: “1. When preparing and considering develop ment proposals, relevant policies in emerging development plans may be given weight according to: a. The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); b. The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objecti ons, the greater the weight that may be given); and c. The degree of compliance of the relevant policies in the emerging plan with the policies for plan-making in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework, the greater the weight that may be given to them).” Draft London Plan (July 2026) 5.3 The GLA are consulting on a draft new London Plan between 16th July and 15th October 2026 with the intention of replacing the previous versions of the existing London Plan. Following the consultation, t he draft London Plan will be subject to an independent Examination in Public before final adoption, expected in early 2028. 5.4 As the unresolved objections have not yet been submitted and published for decision-makers to review, limited weight can be afforded to the Draft London Plan (July 2026) at present. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 A total of 63 neighbouring properties were consulted directly regarding the proposed development. Site notices were posted surrounding the site on 22nd July Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2026. No representations have been receiv ed from members of the public in relation to the planning application. 6.2 Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 1 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Highways Authority (London Borough of Hillingdon) No objection Noted 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The area of the site where the development is proposed consists of a grass verge adjoining Abbotswood Road and the proposals relate to a continuation of the use of this land for landscaping and access. As noted above, the works are proposed in connection w ith hybrid planning application 76551/APP/2025/2861 and Reserved Matters Application 76551/APP/2025/3242 and are intended to ensure that this remaining parcel of land adjoining the site is not left in its current condition, which would not relate to the landscaping proposals along the remaining frontage with Abbotswood Way. The principle of development is considered acceptable subject to wider assessment of the proposals against all relevant planning policies. Design, Density and Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.2 Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2 020); Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies (2012) Policy BE1; as well as Policies D1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) seek to ensure that development achieves the highest standard of design, which integrates positively to the character its surroundings. 7.3 As noted above, the works are proposed in connection with hybrid planning application 76551/APP/2025/2861 and Reserved Matters A pplication 76551/APP/2025/3242 and are intended to ensure that this remaining parcel of land adjoining the site is not left in its current condition, which does not relate to the landscaping proposals along the remaining frontage with Abbotswood Way. 7.4 Presently the site consists of a grass verge adjoining a pedestrian footpath. The proposals include the provision of soft landscaping in the form of herbaceous plants, ferns and grasses which retain a green aspect along Abbotswood Way. Hard landscaping in the form of tarmac surfacing and block paving is proposed in Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the southern section of the site. This is intended to ensure that continuous pedestrian access is provided between the footpath adjoining Abbotswood Way. A small extension is also proposed to the outside amenity space serving one of the 4-bedroom flats within the north eastern block consented under R eserved Matters application 76551/APP/2025/3242 consisting of a small extension to the block paving and repositioning of railings into the area of land subject of this application. Overall, the proposals are resp onsive to the design of the proposed development on the adjoining site and would relate appropriately to the future character of the street scene along Abbotswood Way. 7.5 The design approach is considered appropriate, and the proposals would comply with Policies D3 of The London Plan, Policy BE1 of the Local Plan Part 1, and Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Local Plan Part 2. Residential Amenity 7.6 DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan seeks to ensure a satisfactory relationship with adjacent dwellings and no unacceptable loss of outlook, amenity, daylight and sunlight to neighbouring occupiers. Part B of the policy states that development proposals should not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. 7.7 The application site adjoins a 4-bedroom flat within the north eastern block of the development shown within the plans accompanying Reserved Matters application 76551/APP/2025/3242. The proposals would extend the extent of soft landscaping located to the east of this flat prov iding additional defensible space. As noted above, it is proposed that the private outdo or amenity space associated with this flat would be marginally increased in area and consequently would provide some enhancement to the standard of outside space associated with this unit. No existing residential occupiers along Abbotswood Way would be impacted materially by the proposed works. 7.8 In summary, it can be concluded that the development would not have a significantly adverse impact on the amenity of any adjoining properties and the development would provide some minor benefit to future occupiers of the adjacent approved development. The proposals therefore comply with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Transport, Highway Impact and Parking 7.9 The proposals do not involve works to the public highway. There would also be no reduction in existing or future parking as a result of the works. The proposals would ensure that the existing pedestrian route alongside Abbotswood Way is continuous as leaving the land within the red line site area in its current condition would otherwise sever the proposed pedestrian route adjoining Abbotswood Way. On this basis, the proposals are consid ered beneficial in providing safe and suitable access for pedestrians, avoiding the need for pedestrians to have to cross an unsurfaced section of land, or take an otherwise convoluted route. The Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal, acknowledging that the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press development would not impact negatively on highway amenity, or the safety of road users. 7.10 Having regard to the above, the proposal is considered acceptable in highways terms and compliant with Policies DMT 2 and DMT 5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and Policy T2 of the London Plan (2021). Trees, Landscaping and Urban Greening 7.11 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. 7.12 There are no trees within or adjoining the application site and no replacement planting is proposed on the adjoining land under the Reserved Matters application, albeit that this permission is subject to a condition requiring the submission of a detailed landscaping plan. As noted in the design section of the report, the proposals include enhancement in the form of additional planting, which is considered to offer acceptable mitigation for the loss of the existing highway grass verge. Considered alongside the landsca ping proposals on the adjoining site, there would be an overall enhancement to the public realm as a result of the works. 7.13 The proposals would therefore comply with Policy DMHB 14 of the Local Plan and Policy G5 of the London Plan. Ecology 7.14 In England, Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is mandatory under Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021). Developers must deliver a BNG of ten per cent. This means a development will result i n more or better- quality natural habitats than there were before development. 7.15 The NPPG sets out that BNG does not apply to developments that impact less than 25sqm of on-site habitat. The site, which measures 19sqm in area falls below the threshold whereby delivery of BNG would be required. The proposals in any event would result in only a very small-scale loss of non-priority habitat , whilst additional shrub and other planting is proposed as a compensatory measure. It is therefore considered that the development would not have a negative impact on biodiversity or ecology. Flooding and Drainage 7.16 The application site is not located within Flood Zone 2 or Flood Zone 3, and is therefore, at low risk of fluvial flooding. 7.17 A Drainage Strategy and Flood Risk Assessment was submitted alongside the hybrid planning application on the adjoin ing land. A detailed Drainage Strategy relating to the works on the adjoining site is also required by planning condition. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press The proposed landscaping works would not inhibit the implementation of the drainage proposals on the adjoining land. It would not be necessary to require the inclusion of further drainage measures relating to the specific proposals contained within the application site as the development would not materially affect surface water drainage patterns or increase flood risk on or off site. Accordingly, the proposal is considered acceptable in flood risk and drainage terms. It is considered that the proposed development complies with Policy SI 13 of The London Plan (2021) and DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020) Land Contamination 7.18 The original planning application was accompanied by a Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Desk Study Report which was deemed to provide a comprehensive account of the site and its surroundings in respect of land contamination risk. A condition was attached requiring that the development shall not commence (except for demolition, ground and enabling works) until a scheme to deal with contamination in relation to any phase of the proposed development has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The amendments proposed under the current application would not alter the relative risk associated with contamination. 7.19 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. 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 15th September 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 8.3 There would be no increase in floorspace created within the full element of the planning permission and therefore no CIL would be payable on this element of the planning application. 8.4 In relation to the outline phase of the development, CIL would be payable on floorspace created under subsequent Reserved Matters applications at such time that development commences on these later relevant phases of the development. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The proposed works would sit alongside the development proposed under hybrid planning application 76551/APP/2025/2861 and Reserved M atters application 76551/APP/2025/3242 and are intended to ensure that this remaining parcel of land adjoining the site is not left in its cu rrent condition, which would not relate to the landscaping proposals along the remaining frontage with Abbotswood Way. 9.2 In design terms the proposals would read as a logical continuation of the landscaping proposed under the applications referenced above with further planting ensuring that a green aspect to Avondale Drive is retained. In accessibility terms the proposals would ensure a continuation of the pedestrian route alongside Avondale Drive, which would be of benefit to the safety of pedestrians. The proposals would provide some minor e nhancements to the amenity of the occupiers of the proposed ground floor flat adjoining the site by providing a minor increase in defensible landscaped space and private amenity space. 9.3 The proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan, and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents taken into account in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential information) are available on the Council's website here, by entering the planning application number at the top of this report and using the search facility. Planning appl ications are also available to inspect electronically at the Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW upon appointment, by contacting Planning Services at planning@hillingdon.gov.uk. 10.2 This report has been prepared with re ference to the background papers listed below, which have been relied upon to a material extent in its preparation and are available for public inspection, subject to any necessary redaction for exempt or confidential information. 10.3 Internal Consultee Comments – Highway Authority 14.07.26 AAPPENDICES Planning Application 76551/APP/2026/1578 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 6 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: AVD-LLA-ZZ-GND-GA-L01-1701 Rev P02 AVD-LLA-ZZ-GND-GA-L01-1702 Rev P01 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). Informatives Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 6 AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History 76551/APP/2021/4502 Land At Avondale Drive Hayes Hybrid planning application seeking OUTLINE permission (with all matters reserved) for residential floorspace (Class C3) including demolition of all existing buildings and structures; erection of new buildings; new pedestrian and vehicular accesses; associated amenity space, open space, landscaping; car and cycle parking spaces; plant, refuse storage, servicing area and other works incidental to the proposed development; and FULL planning permission for Block A comprising 30 residential units (Class C3); new pedestrian access; associated amenity space and landscaping; cycle parking, refuse storage, and other associated infrastructure. Decision: 29-03-2022 Approved 76551/APP/2025/2861 Land At Avondale Drive Hayes Application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary Conditions 3 (Approved Plans); 4 (Approved Supporting Plans/Documents); 5 (Development Scope); 6 (Mix of Units); 7 (Phasing); 9 (Residential Density); 10 (Development Height); and 15 (Landscaping) of planning permission ref. 76551/APP/2021/4502 dated 28-09-2022. (Hybrid planning application seeking OUTLINE permission (with all matters reserved) for residential floorspace (Class C3) including demolition of all existing buildings and structures; erection of new buildings; new pedestrian and vehicular accesses; associated amenity space, open space, landscaping; car and cycle parking spaces; plant, refuse storage, servicing area and other works incidental to the proposed development; and FULL planning permission for Block A comprising 30 residential units (Class C3); new pedestrian access; associated amenity space and landscaping; cycle parking, refuse storage, and other associated infrastructure) to increase the number of homes, remove the existing parking court and increase podium size, revise the height strategy, removal of vehicle access and increase separation distances to create a new public square. 76551/APP/2025/3242 Land At Avondale Drive Hayes Reserved Matters Application (Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale) pursuant to Condition 1 of Application ref: 76551/APP/2025/2861 (Application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary Conditions 3 (Approved Plans); 4 (Approved Supporting Plans/Documents); 5 (Development Scope); 6 (Mix of Units); 7 (Phasing); 9 (Residential Density); 10 (Development Height); and 15 (Landscaping) of planning permission ref. 76551/APP/2021/4502 dated 28-09-2022. (Hybrid planning application seeking OUTLINE permission (with all matters reserved) for residential floorspace (Class C3) including demolition of all existing buildings and structures; erection of new buildings; new pedestrian and vehicular accesses; associated amenity space, open Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 6 space, landscaping; car and cycle parking spaces; plant, refuse storage, servicing area and other works incidental to the proposed development; and FULL planning permission for Block A comprising 30 residential units (Class C3); new pedestrian access; associated amenity space and landscaping; cycle parking, refuse storage, and other associated infrastructure) to increase the number of homes, remove the existing parking court and increase podium size, revise the height strategy, removal of vehicle access and increase separation distances to create a new public square). H Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 6 AAppendix 3: List of Relevant Planning Policies The following Local Plan Policies are considered relevant to the application:- Part 1 Policies: PT1.EM6 (2012) Flood Risk Management Part 2 Policies: DMEI 1 Living Walls and Roofs and Onsite Vegetation DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 15 Planning for Safer Places DMHB 18 Private Outdoor Amenity Space DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists LPP GG3 (2021) Creating a healthy city LPP D1 (2021) London's form, character and capacity for growth LPP D8 (2021) Public realm LPP G5 (2021) Urban greening LPP GG1 (2021) Building strong and inclusive communities LPP SI12 (2021) Flood risk management LPP SI13 (2021) Sustainable drainage LPP T2 (2021) Healthy Streets LPP T4 (2021) Assessing and mitigating transport impacts LPP T5 (2021) Cycling LPP T6 (2021) Car parking Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 6 LPP T6.1 (2021) Residential parking HHillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 6