Planning

Minutes HILLINGDON PLANNING COMMITTEE 15 September 2026 Meeting held at Committee Room 5 - Civic Centre Committee Members Present: Councillor Philip Corthorne (Chair) Councillor Peter Smallwood OBE Councillor James Bourke Councillor John Garner Councillor Shehryar Ahmad-Wallana Councillor Ella Garelick Councillor Jagjit Singh Officers Present: Ed Laughton – Area Planning Service Manager (Central & South) Grace Liu – Area Planning Service Manager (North) Chris Brady – Team Leader (Central & South) Mike Kemp – Deputy Team Leader Sally Robbins – Deputy Team Leader Rhian Thomas – Planning Officer Dr Alan Tilly – Transport Planning and Development Team Manager Salleh Jobbi – Legal Advisor Ryan Dell – Democratic Services 190. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) Apologies had been received from Councillor Darran Davies with Co uncillor Peter Smallwood OBE substituting. 191. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS COMING BEFORE THIS MEETING (Agenda Item 2) Councillor Philip Corthorne declared a non -pecuniary interest in items 6 and 7. He disclosed that he was a joint owner of one nearby apartment, which he had previously declared to the Council's Monitoring Officer and was included in the Members’ Interest register. Councillor Corthorne noted that this was a non -pecuniary interest in relation to these applications and that he was of an open mind and would make his decisions after considering the officer reports and all the representations made based on the merits of the applications. He remained in the room and took part in the discussion and vote. Councillor Peter Sm allwood OBE declared a non -pecuniary interest in item 10 as he had made statements online in support of the application. He left the room for the discussion and vote. Councillor John Garner declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 10. He had previously visited the site which was in his ward. He confirmed that would weigh up everything that he heard on the merits of the evidence. He remained in the room and took part in the discussion and vote. Councillor Shehryar Ahmad-Wallana declared a non -pecuniary interest in item 9 as he had visited the site, spoken to residents and had spoken to the petitioner today on the phone. He did not discuss his opinion of the application. He remained in the room and took part in the discussion and vote. 192. TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3) RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 14 July 2026 be agreed as an accurate record. 193. MATTERS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OR URGENT (Agenda Item 4) None. 194. 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. 195. THE BARN HOTEL - 7969/APP/2024/2451 (Agenda Item 6) 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 co nversion of the Listed Buildings to a ccommodate 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 residential dwellings within the development) 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 (Pla nning Application linked to LBC Refer ence 7969/APP/2024/2452). (AMENDED PLANS and DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT CHANGE 24/04/26) Officers introduced the application. The lead petitioner submitted a written representation, which was read out:  There are wider concerns about a development of this scale including additional traffic along West End Road and into Ickenham, worsening existing congestion and potentially increasing risks around the junction outside Ruislip Rugby Club for children and families attending Sacred Heart School.  It will also place further pressure on local services.  However, I write primarily on behalf of the residents directly affected, 37 -45 Eversley Crescent and 1-3 Willow Grove.  These are the established homes backing onto the develop ment whose residents have paid a premium for the privacy the Barn Hotel currently provides and who are entitled to maintain that privacy, outlook and residential amenity.  We are the residents who have already experienced noise, waste and safety issues associated with the current and unconsented use of the Barn Hotel.  Our principal concern is the proposed railway block, Block K.  We have raised concerns with the developer and proposed moving Block K towards the West End Road side of the development, where larger scale development is more appropriate and existing residents would be less directly affected. This has been ignored. Height and massing  The Council's own report describes Block K as part two, part three and part four storeys, providing 31 flats.  It sits beside a low -rise residential area. Eversley Crescent is predominantly single-storey bungalows and two -storey semi -detached homes, while Willow Grove is characterised by bungalows.  A four-storey building of this scale creates an excessive and abrup t change in heights and massing at the residential boundary. The Council's own boundary height principle  The report expressly states that building heights should be moderated towards site boundaries to ensure a sensitive relationship with neighbouring pro perties and to reduce overlooking daylight and sense of enclosure impacts.  Block K appears inconsistent with this principle. A four -storey element immediately beside low -rise homes is precisely where heights should be moderated. Only 15 to 22 metre separation  The report identifies only 15 to 22 metres between Block K and number 45 Eversley Crescent.  Hillingdon's Local Plan identifies a minimum 21 metre separation between habitable room windows to maintain privacy and prevent overlooking.  The fact that p art of this relationship falls below 21 metres should therefore be given significant weight. Block H demonstrates a better relationship is achievable  Block H is a two -storey building backing onto Eversley Crescent and is more than 21 metres from neighbouring homes.  The Council considers this relationship acceptable and demonstrates that a lower and better separated form is achievable within the development.  Loss of outlook and enclosure  This is not simply a question of whether windows can be obscured.  A large multi-storey building close to existing gardens will materially change the outlook from neighbouring homes and create a greater sense of enclosure.  Obscured glazing may restrict direct views, but it cannot remove the height, bulk, and physical dominance of Block K.  The proposed balconies worsen the privacy impacts by introducing elevated, occupied external spaces from which residents could look towards established private gardens, particularly number 45 and adjoining properties.  This creates actual and perceived overlooking which does not currently exist.  Balconies facing homes and gardens should therefore be removed. Parking and displaced parking  The proposal provides only 22 residential parking spaces against the reported maximum range of 36 to 54 spaces.  The surrounding residential rows must therefore be considered carefully.  Permit restrictions within the development do not make displaced vehicles disappear.  They may simply transfer parking demands onto Eversley Crescent, Willow Grove and neighbouring streets.  The assessment should address where displaced vehicles will park and the cumulative impact on existing residents.  Reducing Block K could also release land for additional on-site parking. The preferred solution  Moving Block K towards the west end road sides would address several concerns simultaneously.  Height, massing, privacy, outlook, enclosure and residential amenity while placing the taller element closer to an area already characterised by larger scale development.  If relocati on is rejected, we ask Members to req uire a two -storey dwelling in keeping with Block H, greater separation from existing homes and removal of balconies overlooking neighbouring gardens.  Finally, we ask the Council to explain how its position has changed. Previous advice and assessment from the Council raised objections to this form of development. What has materially changed since that earlier advice to justify a conclusion that the scheme can now be accepted? What evidence or change in circumstances has made a sufficiently significant diffe rence to overcome the council's previous concerns? The residents of Willow Grove and Eversley Crescent cannot find that evidence. The applicant and agent were not in attendance. Members asked for clarification on the absence of affordable housing within the proposed development and why Members should support a scheme providing no affordable housing, together with the likelihood of the proposed viability review mechanisms securing affordable housing in the future. Offi cers advised that the development had been assessed through the viability -tested route, rather than the policy-compliant route that would ordinarily require 35% affordable housing. Officers explained that the applicant had submitted a Financial Viability A ssessment, which had been independently reviewed on behalf of the Council by a specialist viability consultant. Following assessment, it had been concluded that the scheme generated a viability deficit. Officers clarified that the purpose of the early and late-stage review mechanisms was not to guarantee the delivery of affordable housing but to monitor the financial performance of the development over time. Should a surplus arise during implementation, the Council would seek an affordable housing financial contribution in accordance with the agreed review process. Members raised concerns expressed by local residents regarding construction traffic, particularly the potential impact on surrounding residential roads. Members asked whether stronger measures could be included to direct construction traffic via West End Road. Officers confirmed that a detailed Construction Logistics and Management Plan would be required by condition and would be subject to consultation with the Highway Authority. While acknowledg ing residents' concerns regarding construction vehicles using narrow residential streets, officers considered it premature to dictate final routing arrangements prior to the submission and assessment of detailed information, including vehicle tracking and route analysis. Officers advised that the objective would be to minimise impacts on residents whilst ensuring construction could be undertaken safely and efficiently. Members sought further information regarding the viability review mechanism and how it operated in practice. Officers advised that early and late -stage review mechanisms were routinely attached to major residential developments where policy -compliant affordable housing provision was not viable. Such mechanisms enabled the Council to review the financial performance of developme nts throughout construction and secure additional contributions where viability improved. Members referenced a page within the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy which referenced Barnet Council and queried whe ther this affected the reliability of the document. Officers advised that the planning application had been subject to a lengthy and detailed assessment process, including multiple reviews by the Council's flood risk consultants. The Council's technical consultants had thoroughly assessed the drainage information submitted and were satisfied with the findings. Appropriate conditions had also been recommended requiring further drainage details. Members queried whether sufficient parking had been provided fo r the proposed 71 residential units. Officers explained that the development significantly exceeded the minimum parking provision typically supported by TfL at such a highly accessible location. The site benefitted from a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 4 and was located within walking distance of two railway stations, local shops, schools and other services. Whilst a car -free development could be justified in principle, officers considered the proposed parking provision appropriate given the inclusion of family - sized dwellings. Members requested further information regarding the air quality contribution secured through the Section 106 Agreement. Officers explained that financial contributions would be pooled with those from other developments and applied through the Council's Air Quality Action Plan to deliver mitigation measures where on -site mitigation could not fully address impacts. Specific projects would be determined through the implementation of the Action Plan. Members welcomed the support received from heritage consultees and enquired whether any additional measures could be secured to commemorate the site's heritage. Officers acknowledged the importance of the heritage assets and advised that the proposal would secure the restorati on of the listed buildings, including the removal of later additions that detracted from their significance. Officers considered that the proposed restoration represented an appropriate heritage outcome and advised that they were not currently seeking any additional commemorative measures beyond those contained within the application. Members sought clarification regarding the impact of the development on traffic flows along Wood Lane, particularly during peak periods. Officers advised that the applicant had submitted a Transport Assessment w hich utilised recognised trip -generation data. The assessment indicated that the proposed residential development would generate fewer vehicle movements than the existing hotel use. Given the limited parking provision and the highly sustainable location, officers concluded that the traffic impacts would be negligible and would not warrant objection from the Highway Authority. Members sought clarification regarding concerns raised by residents relating to separation dist ances, boundary relationships and the overall scale of development. Officers acknowledged that the proposal represented a substantial development but advised that the design had evolved through extensive negotiations with the applicant. Particular attention had been given to reducing the impact of the northern block closest to neighbouring properties. Officers explained that only one unit fell below the normal 21-metre separation standard and that, when assessed in the context of current national and London -wide planning policy promoting housi ng delivery and site optimisation, the impact was considered acceptable. Officers further advised that the Council could not currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and that recent changes to national plan ning policy placed increased emphasis on housing delivery in sustainable locations such as the application site. Whilst local policy standards remained relevant, these considerations needed to be balanced against wider policy objectives. Members sought re assurance that the modern elements of the development would integrate successfully with the retained historic buildings. Officers advised that the scheme had undergone a rigorous design process and that conditions requiring the submission and approval of m aterials would ensure appropriate oversight during implementation. Officers expressed confidence that an appropriate balance between the historic and contemporary elements of the development had been achieved. Members emphasised the importance of robustly assessing the details submitted pursuant to planning conditions, particularly in relation to materials, construction management and design quality. Officers agreed and advised that the recommended conditions were considered robust. Members acknowledged re sidents' concerns regarding the scale of the development but noted that the Committee was required to determine applications in accordance with planning policy and material considerations. Members further observed that, in light of current housing land supply issues and the planning policy framework, a refusal would be unlikely to be sustained on appeal and could result in less favourable outcomes. Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved 196. THE BARN HOTEL (LBC) - 7969/APP/2024/2452 (Agenda Item 7) 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 reside ntial dwellings (C3 Use Class) (LBC linked to planning application reference 7969/APP/2024/2451 for the redevelopment of the remainder of the site). (AMENDED PLANS 24/04/26) Officers introduced the application. Members referred to the comments received from Historic England and sought clarification on how the Council would ensure that demolition, restoration and construction works were undertaken appropriately and that the listed buildings were properly safeguarded throughout the development process. Mem bers also asked whether Historic England would have any ongoing involvement in monitoring the works. In response, officers advised that Historic England had been consulted on the application but had not requested any further involv ement in the discharge of conditions or any formal monitoring role. Officers explained that the Council's own specialist Heritage Officer would oversee the assessment of details submitted pursuant to planning conditions, including the extensive requirement s contained within Condition 4. These submissions would include further surveys and detailed restoration information, which would be carefully assessed before works could proceed. Members emphasised the importance of protecting the Borough's heritage asse ts and sought assurance that robust safeguards were in place to ensure that the specialist restoration works would be carried out appropriately. Officers advised that a comprehensive set of conditions had been recommended to secure detailed information reg arding the repair, restor ation and preservation of the listed buildings. Officers expressed confidence that the proposed conditions would provide a robust framework to prevent further deterioration of the heritage assets and ensure that the approved works were properly implemented. Members sought further clarification as to whether officers could consult Historic England during the implementation phase should specialist advice be required. Officers confirmed that whilst Historic England had not requested a formal role in the disch arge of conditions, there would be no harm in seeking its professional opinion if concerns arose regarding the treatment of the listed buildings or if specialist advice was considered necessary. Any such decision would be made on t he professional judgement of the Council's Heritage Officer. Members asked what safeguards were in place to ensure that the approved restoration works to the listed buildings would be completed and not left unfinished whilst the wider residential developm ent proceeded. Officers a dvised that the matter was addressed within the proposed Section 106 Heads of Terms. These requirements would ensure that the restoration and repair of the listed buildings were completed prior to the completion of Blocks A to C wi thin the wider development. This would secure delivery of the heritage works at an early stage and prevent the listed building restoration from being deferred until the end of the development programme. Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and w hen put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved 197. 13 CLAMMAS WAY - 43721/APP/2026/871 (Agenda Item 8) Subdivision of property into 2x 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, conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer and 2 roof lights. Officers introduced the application. The lead petitioner addressed the Committee and made the following points:  One additional concern was that number 14 was allegedly being used as a brothel. Members asked and the petitioner clarified that the above point did relate to number 14. The applicant and agent were not in attendance. Members sought clarification regarding the location and security of the proposed refuse and cycle storage facilities. Officers advised that the refuse storage area would be located adjacent to the parking spaces and that further details would be secured through a landscapin g condition requiring appropriate enclosure and screening. Officers further advised that cycle storage would be located within the rear garden areas and accessed via the side passage. A planning condition would require the provision of secure, covered cycle storage at a rate of two spaces per dwelling, with detailed specifications to be submitted to and approved by the Council. Members requested further information regarding parking provision and current parking pressures within the surrounding area. Officers advised that the proposal provided one parking space per dwelling, which was close to the maximum level of provision normally sought in sustainable locations. The site was located within walking distance of the town centre, local bus servi ces, recreation facilities and other amenities, making it a sustainable location for residential development. Officers therefore considered the parking provision to be acceptable and proportionate to the scale of the proposal. Members referred to the conc lusion that t he proposal would not harm neighbouring amenity and asked why the intensification of the site from one dwelling to two dwellings would not result in increased noise, disturbance or activity for neighbouring residents. Officers explained that b oth units would remain residential in nature and would comprise two-bedroom dwellings. It was considered that the level of activity generated by two modest residential units would not materially differ from that associated with occupation of a single dwell ing. Consequently, no additional mitigation measures were considered necessary in respect of noise or disturbance. Members referred to concerns raised by residents regarding the potential future use of the property as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) and asked what safeguards existed should such a situation arise. Officers advised that the Borough -wide Article 4 Direction removed permitted development rights for changes of use to HMOs, meaning that planning permission would be required before such a us e could lawfu lly occur. Officers further noted that recent national planning policy strengthened enforcement powers available to local authorities where planning controls were breached. Any allegations regarding unlawful HMO use would be investigated throu gh the Council's Enforcement Team. Members sought clarification regarding references in the report to the loss of family housing. Officers advised that, under London Plan definitions, family -sized accommodation generally referred to dwellings with three o r more bedroo ms. As the existing property was a two-bedroom dwelling, the proposal would not result in the loss of family-sized accommodation. Members queried the application of Policy DMHB 4 and whether the policy threshold relating to changes within re sidential streets applied to conversions. Officers clarified that the 10% threshold contained within Policy DMHB 4 related specifically to redevelopment proposals rather than conversions. Members further asked whether the Council's housing land supply po sition should be afforded significant weight when assessing such proposals. Officers advised that housing supply considerations were an important material consideration and would need to be balanced against other planning considerations, including the suit ability of a property for conversion and the retention of family -sized homes. The assessment required careful consideration of all relevant planning factors on a case-by-case basis. Members sought further assurance regarding compliance with internal space and amenity standards. Officers advised that both proposed units exceeded the minimum internal floorspace standards set out within the London Plan. In addition, each dwelling would benefit from private garden space that exceeded the Council's minimum amen ity space requirements. Officers therefore considered the proposed living environment to be acceptable. Members referred to cycle storage arrangements and questioned whether the location of the storage areas might discourage cycling. Officers explained th at whilst Lon don cycling design guidance generally favoured storage located to the front of properties, practical considerations also needed to be taken into account. In this instance, officers considered rear garden cycle storage to be acceptable, secure and appropriate, particularly as it would not result in any loss of usable amenity space. Members referred to concerns raised by petitioners regarding allegations of unlawful activity and sought clarification as to whether such matters were relevant to t he planning a pplication. Officers advised that such issues were not material planning considerations in the determination of the application. However, concerns raised would be referred to the Council's Enforcement Team and other relevant agencies, includin g the Police, for consideration where appropriate. Members referred to a request from petitioners for the planting of a tree within the site and enquired whether this could be secured. Officers advised that a landscaping condition requiring details of sof t landscaping and planting had been recommended. Whilst no existing trees would be removed and none were protected by a Tree Preservation Order, officers confirmed that the inclusion of a new tree could be considered through the discharge of the landscapin g condition, provided this did not compromise the usability of the proposed garden spaces. Members would support officers considering the provision of a suitable tree as part of the landscaping details. Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and w hen put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved 198. 42 PIELD HEATH ROAD - 17611/APP/2026/400 (Agenda Item 9) Proposed first-floor rear extension to create additional rooms and a single storey rear infill extension to create an accessible room (amended drawings) Officers introduced the application. The lead petitioner addressed the Committee and made the following points:  The residents’ view was that the proposal to expand the guest house exceeded the capacity and constraints of the site and given that it sat within a residential area.  The net increase in the number of guest rooms might only be one, but using the applicant's own figures show that there's an increase in the gross internal floor area. The gain was 187 square metres on an existing floor space of 254 square metres, which is an increase of 74%. Therefore, the proposed development was more than modest.  The petitioner displayed an image showing the existing view from the kitchen window of 1 Newlyn Close looking out to the back of the guest house at 42 Pield Heath Road. There was no screening, vegetation or trees.  The petitioner displayed an image showing the proposed first floor extension. The proposal still constituted a visual intrusion and a blocking of light.  The condition that required fully obscured glass windows was most welcome and much appreciated.  There was still overlooking of the back garden of 3 Newlyn Close and therefore there will be a loss of privacy.  The applicant stated that there were 12 parking spaces. The petitioner displayed an image showing four vans taking up much of the car park in the front of the guest house. Guests with vans were common.  The petitioner displayed an image showing eight vehicles filling up the car p ark with ad hoc parking behaviour. There was no space for four additional vehicles.  Cars, particularly SUVs, have been getting larger and SUVs have become more prevalent. The petitioner highlighted an article that stated that many car models were now too big for parking bays.  It was suggested that in Britain, six out of ten of the best selling models in 2023 were SUVs or SUV crossovers. This meant that there would be less than 12 spaces.  Limited parking capacity increased the probability of vehicles rever sing across the pavement. Twice a day during term time about eight school children passed by the entrance to the guest house. Therefore, while the day -to-day risk of an incident may be low, the impact would be catastrophic.  It was suggested that an additi onal planning condition be added to replace the front boundary walls with something that would be more transparent such as railings.  Residents had to put up with anti -social behaviour such as noise, particularly first thing in the morning and litter being thrown over garden fences. It was suggested that a further planning condition b added for external litter bins. Members sought clarification from the petitioner regarding suggested conditions. The petitioner explained that visibility for both pedestrians and vehicles exiting the site could be improved through amendments to the existing front boundary treatment. It was suggested that sections of the existing brick wall could be replaced with railings or a similar form of open boundary treatment to improve s ightlines. The petitioner also suggested the installation of external litter bins outside the property to deter rubbish being discarded over neighbouring garden fences. The applicant and agent were not in attendance. Members referred to residents' conce rns regarding parking pressure and asked what evidence existed to demonstrate that the current parking arrangements could accommodate existing demand together with the additional bedroom proposed. Officers advised that parking concerns had not formed part of the reasons for refusal associated with the previous application on the site, which limited the scope for objection on highway grounds in the current application. Officers corrected that the increase in floor space was approximately 67 square metres rather than the stated 187 square metres. Officers therefore suggested that, should Members be minded to approve the application, a condition could be imposed requiring the submission and implementation of a Parking Layout and Management Plan. Officers adv ised that this would enable the marking out of parking spaces, the provision of appropriate bay dimensions and aisle widths and provide a more formalised arrangement than currently existed. Members referred to concerns regarding overlooking of neighbourin g properties and enquired whether additional obscure glazing could be secured in relation to a window that might overlook No. 3 Newlyn Close. Officers advised that the window in question was located a considerable distance from the neighbouring property an d did not give rise to unacceptable overlooking. Officers also noted that other windows facing more sensitive neighbouring relationships were already proposed to be obscure glazed. It was considered that requiring the additional window to be obscure glazed would be disproportionate and would significantly reduce daylight, outlook and the quality of accommodation for future occupants. Members thanked the petitioner for their detailed presentation and referred to visual material submitted in support of the o bjections. Members enquired whether there were comparable examples of similar first -floor extensions within the surrounding area. Officers acknowledged the effort that had been made by the petitioner in preparing the images but advised that the images pres ented did not constitute a verified representation of the proposed development. Officers stated that the key consideration was the planning impact of the proposal before the Committee rather than comparisons with other properties. Officers advised that the proposed extension would maintain a separation distance of approximately 28 metres from neighbouring properties and would not result in significant visual harm or adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity. Consequently, officers did not consider there to be sufficient grounds to warrant refusal. Members expressed concern regarding the potential impact of vehicle movements associated with the guest house on traffic and emergency vehicle access to the nearby hospital, particularly where larger vehicles such a s minibuses may be entering or exiting the site. Officers advised that the situation represented an existing and largely uncontrolled arrangement and that the proposal itself would result in only a modest increase in accommodation. Officers explained that there would be limited justification to impose specific controls over vehicle movements given that highway concerns had not previously formed reasons for refusal. It was suggested that discussions could take place with the applicant following the meeting t o explore whether amendments to the site's boundary treatment, potentially including railings or more open forms of enclosure, could be incorporated through the Parking Management Plan or associated landscaping details to improve visibility for vehicles and pedestrians. Members asked what changes had been made to the proposal that gave officers confidence that the concerns underpinning the previous refusal had now been addressed. Officers advised that the earlier scheme had included first -floor extensions to both sides of the rear elevation, resulting in unacceptable impacts upon neighbouring properties. The current proposal removed one of these first -floor elements, substantially increasing separation distances and reducing the extent of overlooking and vi sual impact. Officers were therefore satisfied that the previous reasons for refusal had been overcome. Members observed that the Committee's ability to raise objections on highway grounds was constrained by the planning history of the site and previous d ecisions. Members considered that the proposed Parking Layout and Management Plan represented a proportionate means of addressing the parking concerns raised whilst delivering meaningful mitigation should the application be approved. Members considered that there were insufficient grounds to robustly defend a refusal at appeal and that approval subject to appropriate conditions would provide the greatest opportunity to mitigate impacts. Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote , unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved Note: a proposal to adjourn for five minutes was proposed, seconded and agreed. 199. HOMEBASE VICTORIA RETAIL PARK, VICTORIA ROAD, RUISLIP - 50209/APP/2026/372 (Agenda Item 10) 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) Councillor Smallwood left the room for this item. Officers introduced the application, noting two verbal update s: since th e publication of the agenda, four further representations had been received, three in support and one in objection. This took the total to 1,161 representations of which 88 where in objection and 1,073 in support. These representations did not raise any ne w material planning considerations and did not alter the officer recommendation. Secondly, a service and delivery management plan was also being secured by condition and had been agreed by the applicant. This would require the plan to be submitt ed and appr oved in writing prior to the first use of the premises following completion of the development, and would manage delivery, frequency, timing and coordination. It was clarified that there was a separate related application dealing with the reconfiguration and extension of the mezzanine. Members sought clarification regarding the requirement for a sequential test and its relationship to the convenience retail element of the proposal. Officers advised that the inclusion of convenience retail floor space trigg ered the requirement to undertake a sequential assessment to demonstrate that no preferable and available sites existed within nearby town centres. Members also sought reassurance regarding any potential impact upon the existing Marks & Spencer store in Ux bridge. Officers advised that the submitted Retail Impact Assessment had considered trade and travel patterns which had enabled consideration of the effect on competing retail centres within the wider area. Officers were satisfied that the asses sment appro priately considered potential impacts and did not identify any unacceptable effects on existing centres. Members referred to the reported creation of approximately 120 additional jobs and welcomed the economic benefits associated with the proposal. Howeve r, concern was expressed regarding the potential impact on employees currently working at the site and whether opportunities would be available for affected staff to apply for positions created by the new store. Officers advised that employment arrangements between retailers and employees were not matters that could generally be controlled through the planning process. However, Members were informed that the linked mezzanine floor application had triggered consultation with the Council's Economic Development Team. Officers explained that, through the associated legal agreement, obligations would be secured requiring the promotion of local employment opportunities. These measures would involve engagement with local employment services, including Jo b Centre Plus, and would encourage the recruitment of local residents. Members were also advised that a financial contribution of £12,000 would be secured to support local employment and training initiatives. Members welcomed the proposal, noting that the developmen t would provide a valuable shopping opportunity for local residents, and further welcomed the employment opportunities that would arise from the scheme. Members noted that they were satisfied that the proposal would secure the occupation and refurbishment of a significant retail unit, support local employment and investment, and would not result in an unacceptable impact on nearby town centres. Members noted that the decision by a retailer of the stature of Marks & Spencer to invest in the Borough shoul d be regarded as a strong vote of confidence in the local economy and the area as a place to do business. Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved 200. HOLLAND AND HOLLAND SHOOTING SCHOOL - 16568/APP/2026/703 (Agenda Item 11) 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 th e existing access, sust ainable drainage measures, and on - site biodiversity net gain enhancements. Officers introduced the application. Members queried whether the substantial increase in building volume proposed would result in significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Officers acknowledged that the proposal would result in an increase in the volume of buildings on the site. However, they advised that Green Belt assessments considered a range of factors in addition to building volume, including the extent of hardstan ding, the spread of development across the site and the overall visual impact. Officers explained that whilst the proposal would have some impact on Green Belt openness, recent changes to national planning policy had raised the threshold for refusing devel opment on previously developed land in the Green Belt, requiring harm to be assessed as ‘substantial’. Taking all relevant factors into account, officers concluded that the proposal would not result in substantial harm to Green Belt openness and was therefore considered acceptable in policy terms. Members sought clarification regarding the potential impact of the development on the nearby National Nature Reserve and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Officers advised that the applicant had submitt ed a range of ecological assessments, including ecological appraisals. These had been reviewed as part of the planning assessment. Given the separation distance between the proposed development and the nature reserve, officers were s atisfied that the devel opment would not result in unacceptable ecological impacts. In response to concerns regarding potential effects on wildlife, officers highlighted a range of ecological conditions, including conditions requiring ecological mitigation and enhancement measu res, wildlife protection measures and controls over external lighting to minimise impacts on protected species and habitats. Members asked whether any planning policy protection existed for the loss of the current equestrian use of the site. Officers advi sed that the existing equestrian activity was a private use rather than a publicly accessible or community facility. Consequently, there was no specific planning policy protection that would prevent the replacement of the private equestrian use with an alternative appropriate use. Members referred to concerns raised by residents regarding potential noise impacts arising from the proposed workshop activities. Officers advised that the proposed workshop use fell within a category of em ployment activities con sidered compatible with residential environments. The use would be restricted by condition to a specific category of operation and could not be changed to a more intensive or potentially harmful use without further planning permission. Members were informe d that the manufacturing process involved the production of hand -crafted items within enclosed buildings and did not involve testing activities or other significant noise -generating operations. It was noted that all manufacturing pro cesses would be underta ken internally. Whilst plant equipment associated with the development had the potential to generate some noise, this would be mitigated through acoustic screening and controlled through a noise management condition. Members also noted that clay pigeon shooting activities already took place in the wider locality and therefore formed part of the existing environmental context. Members asked about disposal of waste materials generated through workshop operations, including metal waste, oils and solvents, how waste would be managed and whether any waste would be discharged locally. Officers advised that conditions would prevent external manufacturing processes, external storage of materials or waste, and any associated operations outside the approved buildings . Officers also confirmed that waste generated through workshop activities would not be processed through the site's treatment plant but would instead be physically removed from the site by an authorised commercial waste collection s ervice, secured through the proposed waste management condition. Members referred to concerns raised by local residents and asked about potential harm to the visual character of the area. Officers acknowledged that the proposal would significantly alter the appearance of the si te. However, the existing site comprised a dispersed collection of buildings, structures and hardstanding spread across a wide area. Officers considered that the redevelopment would provide a more consolidated form of development, co nsolidated built form a nd improve the overall appearance of the site. Members were advised that additional controls over materials and finishing details would be secured through planning conditions to ensure a satisfactory outcome. Members queried references within the report d escribing the proposed buildings as workshops and asked whether there was a distinction between the proposed use and a factory operation. Officers advised that, in planning terms, both terms were often used to describe industrial or manufacturing activitie s. They understood that a similar operation elsewhere had also been described as a workshop and noted that such uses could be compatible with residential environments depending upon their scale and operational characteristics. Officers confirmed that the p lanning assessment had focused on the nature and intensity of the proposed use rather than the terminology applied. Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved 201. NOVOTEL 234 BATH ROAD - 41331/APP/2025/3250 (Agenda Item 12) 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) Officers introduced the application. Members noted that the development was intended to operate as largely car -free accommodation and queried why the proposed developme nt still provided 57 parking spaces. Officers advised that the hotel primarily served travellers associated with Heathrow Airport. As part of the proposed planning obligations, the applicant would contribute toward the Hotel Hopper shuttle bus service, providing transport connections between local hotels and Heathrow Airport and reducing dependence on private car use. Officers also noted that the site benefitted from good public transport accessibility, including bus services and access to Hayes & Harlingto n Station. Whilst the proposal incorporated fewer parking spaces than both the previously approved scheme and the parking provision available on the site prior to the alterations, officers considered the remaining parking provision to be acceptable and consistent with the maximum parking standards contained within the London Plan. Officers further advised that surrounding roads were subject to parking controls, reducing the potential for parking displacement. Additionally, the site's Public Transport Access ibility Level (PTAL) rating of 4 demonstrated that the location was well served by public transport. Consequently, there were no highway concerns arose as a result of the reduction in on -site parking provision. Members acknowledged the need for a proportionate response to retrospective planning applications and sought clarification regarding how officers had worked with the applicant to address the situation and prevent similar occurrences in the future. Officers advised that discrepancies between the appr oved scheme and the works undertaken had been identified when the applicant submitted a subsequent planning application. Following discussions with officers and through the Council's pre - application process, advice had been provided to assist the applicant in resolving the matter through th e submission of an appropriate retrospective application. Officers further advised that the failure to construct the development in accordance with the approved plans had resulted in additional planning requirements, incl uding air quality contributions and other planning obligations. Members noted that the works had proceeded without full compliance with the original planning permission and asked what confidence Members could have that the revised Section 106 obligations and planning conditions would be c omplied with going forward. Officers advised that the proposed obligations were subject to ongoing monitoring by officers. Regular dialogue had been maintained with the applicant throughout the process and officers were s atisfied that the necessary financi al contributions and obligations would be secured and implemented in accordance with the legal agreement. Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved 202. LAND TO THE WEST OF ABBOTSWOOD WAY - 76551/APP/2026/1578 (Agenda Item 13) Formation of new landscaping and public realm works. Officers introduced the application. Members requested clarification r egarding the proposed hardstanding. Officers confirmed that the hardstanding formed a continuation of the existing pedestrian pathway and provided a consistent surfaced route for users of the site. Officers also advised that without the hardstanding, the continuity of the pathway would be lost, resulting in a less practical and accessible route for pedestrians. Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: That the application be approved The meeting, which commenced at 7:00 pm, closed at 9:35 pm. These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of the resolutions please contact Ryan Dell on democratic@hillingdon.gov.uk. Circulation of these minutes is to Councillors, Officers, the Press and Members of the Public.

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Emilie Bateman 1787/APP/2025/1849 Date Application Valid: 07.07.25 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 09.10.26 Application Type: Full Ward: Northwood Applicant: Mr Andrew MacDougall Site Address: 44 Murray Road Proposal: Demolition of existing dwellinghouse, and erection of two storey building containing 5no. self -contained flats with associated landscaping, parking, cycle and bin storage Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to section 106 legal agreement and conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 3 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Petition received) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. A) That the Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or any other legislation to secure the following: i. Residential Parking Permits restriction (excluding Blue Badge holders). B) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in preparing the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed. C) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreement and conditions of approval. D) That, if the Legal Agreement has not been finalised within 6 months (or such other time frame as may be agreed by the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth), delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth to refuse planning permission for the following reason: 'The applicant has failed to mitigate the impacts posed by the proposed development (in respect of car parking). The scheme therefore conflicts with Po licies DMT6 and DMHB11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020); Policies T6 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. Deferred at Planning Committee on 14th July 2026 1.1 This application was considered by the Planning Committee on 14th July 2026. Following consideration of the officer presentation, petitioners' concerns and representations made at Committee, Members resolved to defer the application to enable a site visit to be undertaken. The principal matters Members wished to consider further related to the relationship of the proposed development with neighbouring properties, parking conditions, daylight and sunlight impacts, and the character of the surrounding area. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Members Site Visit 1.2 A Members' site visit was undertaken on 22nd September 2026. Members viewed the application site from Murray Road and the surrounding area, including neighbouring residential prope rty, the shared access serving No. 42 Murray Road, parking conditions within the locality and the relationship between the site and the adjoining development at 40 Murray Road. Parking Conditions 1.3 At the Planning Committee meeting, Members sought further clarification regarding existing parking conditions within Murray Road and the potential effects of the development on on -street parking demand. During the Members' site visit, Members had the oppor tunity to observe parking conditions within the locality, including the operation of the existing Controlled Parking Zone and the availability of on-street parking. 1.4 The scheme would provide 5no. on-site parking spaces, including 1no. disabled-compliant space, equating to one parking space per residential unit. The Council's Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal and remains satisfied that the level of parking provision is acceptable in this location. In addition, the recommendation includes a planning condition requiring the submission and approval of a Parking Allocation Scheme prior to occupation to ensure that all on -site parking spaces are allocated and retained for the approved residential units. 1.5 Furthermore, a Section 106 obligation would prevent future occupiers from obtaining permits within any existing or future Controlled Parking Zone. These measures provide additional controls to minimise parking displacement and ensure that the development w ould not result in unacceptable harm to local parking conditions. Officers therefore remain satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in highways and parking terms. Revised Daylight and Sunlight Assessment 1.6 Members also sought clarification regarding the assessment of No. 40 Murray Road and, in particular, whether the conservatory windows beneath the existing canopy structure had been fully assessed. Photo 1 below show the nearest conservatory window facing the site and the roof canopy above. It was noted on site that the existing roof structure and translucent covering materially obstructed direct sunlight from reaching the window (at the time of the visit). Notwithstanding this, diffused daylight could filter through the covering. It was also noted at the site visit that the sun was shining to the front of the property with a significant proportion of the house and garden overshadowed due to the site’s orientation and the timing of the visit. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Petitioner Photo 1: 40 Murray Road 1.7 Following the Committee meeting, the applicant submitted a revised Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessme nt which specifically considers the conservatory windows both with and without the canopy structure in place. Daylight Testing (Vertical Sky component & Daylight Distribution) 1.8 The updated daylight and sunlight assessment considers 34 neighbouring windows, of which 33 would satisfy the BRE criteria for Vertical Sky Component. The sole exception is a flank -facing window serving the conservatory (W4) at No. 40 Murray Road, which wo uld experience a reduction in VSC exceeding 40%. Officers acknowledge that, when considered in isolation, this represents a significant adverse effect at that particular window. However, VSC is a window-based measure and must be considered alongside the daylight -distribution assessment where the layout of the affected room is known. The secondary daylight assessment demonstrates that the distribution of daylight within the conservatory would remain compliant with the BRE guidance, with only a negligible change both with and without the existing external canopy. The conservatory would consequently retain a broadly com parable distribution of daylight, notwithstanding the reduction experie nced at the individual flank -facing window. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Sunlight (Annual and winter sunlight provision) 1.9 In relation to sunlight, one conservatory window falls below the annual probable sunlight-hours target when the existing canopy is included, although a secondary window serving the same room comfortably exceeds the annual target. Two conservatory windows w ould also fall below the winter sunlight target. These effects are localised and would not result in an unacceptable deterioration in the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. 1.10 Furthermore, all principal habitable rooms within No. 40 Murray Road, including the living room, kitchen and bedrooms, continue to meet the relevant BRE daylight and sunlight guidance. The updated daylight and sunlight assessment also considers overshadowing of neighbouring outdoor amenity areas. It finds that the rear garden achieves the BRE target of at least two hours of sunlight on 21 March, or at least 0.8 times its former value for 50% of its area. Although the proposal may cast some additional shadow, this would not result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to the occupiers of that property. Officers have reviewed the revised assessment and are satisfied that the proposal would not result in a material loss of daylight or sunlight to No. 40 Murray Road Policy DMH 4 1.11 Late representations were received post committee which sought further clarification regarding the application of Policy DMH 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020). Since the meeting, Officers have discussed the assessment with the Council's Policy Team and have undertaken a further review of the exist ing flatted developments along Murray Road. Officers remain satisfied that the original assessment was correct and that the proposal complies with Policy DMH 4 and would not result in more than 10% of properties on Murray Road being redeveloped into flats. 1.12 Policy DMH4 distinguishes between the conversion of dwellings into flats and the redevelopment of dwellings into new blocks of flats. In the case of redevelopment proposals, criterion (i) of the policy requires that development should not result in more than 10% of properties on the street being redeveloped into flats. The policy is therefore concerned with the number of properties that have been redeveloped into flats rather than the overall proportion of flats within a street. This interpretation is consistent with the findings of the recent appeal decision at 32 Kingsend Ruislip in December 2025 (APP/R5510/W/25/3362372). 1.13 Officers have undertaken a detailed review of the origins of properties along Murray Road and identified a baseline of frontage properties against which the proposal has been assessed. A ‘worst-case’ assessment was undertaken which included historic redevelopments of dwellinghouses into flats where evidence suggested that such developments had replaced former dwellinghouses. On this basis, the resulting proportion of properties redeveloped into flats, including the application site, remains below the 10% threshold set out in Policy DMH4. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 1.14 Officers also note that the supporting text to Policy DMH4 is material to the assessment. Paragraph 4.11 states that the policy seeks to address issues associated with large concentrations of flatted development occurring "in recent years", including increased parking demand, traffic congestion, the loss of front gardens, reductions in privacy, significant changes to the street scene and the loss of family accommodation. Officers' review indicates that redevelopment of dwellinghouses into flats on Murray Ro ad has been limited in more recent decades, with only one redevelopment of a dwelling into flats identified since before 1999. On this basis, the proportion of properties redeveloped into flats in recent years would be on the lower end of the 10% threshold in Policy DMH4. As such, Murray Road has not experienced the type of concentrated recent redevelopment that Policy DMH4, and in particular paragraph 4.11, seeks to address. 1.15 Furthermore, Officers remain satisfied th at the proposal would not result in the harms identified within paragraph 4.11. The development provides on-site parking, and future occupiers would be e xcluded from obtaining on-street parking permits. No objection has been raised by Highway Officers in relation to congestion or highway safety. The revised scheme retains frontage landscaping, would not result in unacceptable privacy impacts and has been amended to ensure that it sits comfortably within the street scene. Whilst one dwellinghouse would be replaced, the development includes a family -sized three-bedroom unit. Accordingly, Officers remain satisfied that the proposal accords with both the wording and objectives of Policy DMH4 and remains acceptable in planning terms. Other Considerations (New NPPF) 1.16 Since the application was deferred, the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 17 August 2026 and is a material consideration in determining the application. Policy S3 directs that proposals within settlements be considered under Policy S4, which supports development within settlements unless its benefits would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects when assessed against the Framework’s national decision- making policies. The proposed replacement of one dwelling with five flats would provide a net increase of four homes in an established urban location close to Northwood town centre. Policies L2 and L3 also support the sensitive redevelopment of existing residential plots and an increase in residential density within settlements. These policies give support to making more effective use of the site, while requiring the proposal to respond to the street scene and provide acceptable living conditions for existing and future residents, including in respect of daylight, sunlight, privacy and amenity space. The scheme’s design, neighbour impacts and other relevant considerations therefore remain central to the overall planning balance. Conclusion 1.17 Having regard to the findings of the site visit, the revised daylight and sunlight assessment and the further review undertaken in respect of Policy DMH 4, Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Officers remain satisfied that the proposal is acceptable and recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the completion of the Section 106 Agreement and the conditions contained within Appendix 1. (Please note that the original committee report presented at the 14th July 2026 follows) 2 Executive Summary 2.1 The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwellinghouse and the erection of a two -storey building containing 5no. self- contained flats, with associated landscaping, parking, cycle storage and refuse storage at 44 Murray Road, Northwood. 2.2 The application is required to be determined at planning committee as a petition of objection has been received. The petition contains 50 signatures and the desired outcome of the petition is for th e application to be refused. The main concerns raised through consultation are summarised in Section 6 of this report. 2.3 The committee report seeks to provide a comprehensive assessment of the full planning application and supporting documentation. All material planning considerations have been considered. 2.4 The site is located within an established residential area and the proposal would provide a net increase of 4no. residential units. The inclusion of a three-bedroom unit would retain family-sized accommodation on the site. The scheme would also remain below the 10% threshold for flatted redevelopment under Policy DMH 4 and is therefore considered acceptable in principle. 2.5 The revised scheme is considered acceptable in respect of design, character and appearance, neighbouring amenity, highways, parking, trees, landscaping, drainage, ecology, biodiversity net gain and the quality of accommodation for future occupiers, subject to the recommended conditions. 2.6 The revised design is considered acceptable in terms of scale, siting, form and appearance. The building would sit between two -storey residential development and the three -storey flatted development at Lingfield Close,and would be appropriate in scale. The revised frontage treatment, retention of existing planting and architectural approach would ensure the development sits acceptably within the street scene. 2.7 It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions (Appendix 1), as the development would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, would not harm neighbouring amenity or highway safety, and would deliver additional family housing. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 The Site and Locality 3.1 The application site is located on the western side of Murray Road and comprises a single-storey detached bungalow with a pitched roof, finished in brick and roof tiles. An outbuilding is also located within the rear garden of the property. The site is accessed from Murray Road via an existing vehicular access, which also serves No. 42 Murray Road to the rear. 3.2 The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and comprises a varied mix of single -storey bungalows, two-storey dwellings and three- storey flatted developments. Buildings within the locality are generally finished in brick, render, pebble dash, or a combination of these materials. Properties are typically set back from the highway, allowing space for front gardens, landscaping and/or off -street parking. Trees and soft landscaping are a common feature within the street scene and contribute positively to the leafy suburban character of the area. 3.3 The application site has a Public Transpo rt Accessibility Level of 2, indicating a relatively low level of public transport accessibility. There are no designated or non -designated heritage assets within the site, and the site is not subject to any specific constraints. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: 3D Birdseye View of the app lication site (application site marked with red X) Figure 3: Street View Images of the Application Site Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4 Proposal 4.1 The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing single- storey dwellinghouse and the erection of a two -storey building with habitable accommodation in the roof containing 5no. self- contained residential flats, together with associated landscaping , car parking, cycle parking and refuse storage. 4.2 The proposal has been revised during the course of the application. The amendments include changes to the siting, design and external appearance of the building, the relocation of balcony provision, changes to the front landscaping arrangement, and revised locations/details for cycle and refuse storage. Updated daylight, sunlight and overshadowing information has also been submitted following clarification of the internal layout of No. 42 Murray Road and the revised siting of the proposed building. 4.3 The housing mix proposed under the scheme comprise 1 x three bedroom, 3 x two bedroom and 1 x one bedroom flats which all served by private balcony areas with a further area of communal garden space to the rear of the site. Figure 4: Proposed Site Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 5: Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations 5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 5.2 The relevant planning history for the site comprises application ref. 1787/APP/2023/202, which sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings and their replacement with an up to 2.5 -storey building comprising 5no. self -contained fl ats, with associated parking, cycle and bin storage and landscaping. This application was withdrawn on 16th May 2023. 5.3 The current application seeks to respond to concerns raised during the consideration of the previous scheme, including the relationship of the development with neighbouring properties, the overall design and appearance of the building, the treatment of the site frontage, and the arrangement of parking, cycle storage, refuse storage and landsca ping. The current proposal has been amended during the course of the application to further address these matters. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 6 Planning Policy 6.1 A list of planning policies relevant to th e consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 7 Consultations and Representations 7.1 Letters were sent to neighbouring properties on 16th July 2025. 7.2 During the process of the application, revised drawings were received and neighbours were re -consulted twice. The consultation period expired 3 rd of July 2026. 7.3 A petition has been received in objection to the application containing 50 signatures. 7.4 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response A petition of 50 signatures has been received in objection to the application requesting refusal. I. Concerns regarding the principle of replacing the existing bungalow with 5no. flats The principle of development, including the loss of the existing dwelling and provision of additional housing, is assessed at paragraphs 8.1 –8.5 of this report. II. Overdevelopment The scale, layout, density and design of the proposal are assessed at paragraphs 8.6–8.18. The development is not considered to represent overdevelopment of the site. III. Impact on the character of Murray Road The impact on the character and appearance of the area, including the relationship with the established street scene and urban grain of Murray Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Road, is assessed at paragraphs 8.6–8.18. IV. Loss of garden/green space The impact on landscaping, trees, ecology and biodiversity is assessed at paragraphs 8.56 –8.68. V. Increased traffic and parking pressure Highway, parking and traffic impacts are assessed at paragraphs 8.39 –8.49. The Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal. VI. Impact on neighbouring amenity Residential amenity impacts, including privacy, outlook, daylight, sunlight and overbearing impacts, are assessed at paragraphs 8.19–8.30. VII. Construction disturbance Construction impacts are temporary in nature. A Construction Management Plan is recommended by condition to control matters such as working hours, vehicle routing, dust suppression and site management during construction. VIII. Lack of solar panels/heat pumps Sustainability measures and energy efficiency are assessed at paragraphs 8.79 –8.81. The proposal has been assessed against the relevant planning policy requirements. IX. Failure on compliance with Policy DMH 4. Compliance with Policy DMH 4, including the concentration of flatted development on Murray Road, is assessed at paragraphs 8.1-8.5. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press X. Inaccuracies in the information submitted The application has been assessed on the basis of the submitted plans and supporting information, together with amended plans and additional technical information submitted during the course of the application. Any material matters relevant to the determination of the application have been considered wit hin this report. XI. Noise/disturbance from visitors The site would remain in residential use. Noise impacts associated with normal residential occupation are considered at paragraphs 8.50–8.52 and are not considered to result in unacceptable harm. XII. Subsistence concerns from excavation Subsidence, foundation design and structural matters are primarily matters addressed through the Building Regulations regime and are not determinative planning considerations . Multiple letters of objection have been received from 7 households. I. Principle of flatted redevelopment and loss of existing family dwelling. This is discussed at paragraphs 8.1–8.5 of this report. II. Concerns regarding future occupation, subletting/temporary accommodation. Concerns regarding potential future temporary accommodation or HMO- style occupation are noted. A condition is recommended restricting the use of the approved units to self-contained Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press residential dwellings within Use Class C3. III. Compliance with Policy DMH 4 and existing concentration of flats on Murray Road. This is discussed at paragraphs 8.1–8.5 of this report. IV. Impact on character and appearance of Murray Road. This is discussed at paragraphs 8.6–8.18 of this report. V. Height, scale, bulk and alleged overdevelopment. This is discussed at paragraphs 8.6–8.17 of this report. VI. Loss of garden land, greenery and wildlife habitat. This is discussed at paragraphs 8.56–8.68 of this report. VII. Amenity impacts (Overlooking, privacy, outlook, daylight/sunlight and overbearing) This is discussed at paragraphs 8.19–8.30 of this report. VIII. Disturbance from construction activity, including noise, dust, pollution which impact on nearby residents health and traffic disruption. Disturbance arising from construction works, such as noise, dust, and traffic, is not a material planning consideration in itself as it is temporary in nature. However, to minimise impacts, a Construction Management Plan would be secured by condition (see Condition 4) requiring details of working hours, vehicle routing, site set-up and mitigation measures. The development would also be required to ensure that suitable netting and hoarding is in place to minimise any excess dust from the ongoing works. An informative would also be added to remind the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press applicant of their obligations under environmental health legislation regarding construction noise and site practices. IX. Accuracy of the daylight/sunlight assessment and amenity impact on Nos. 40, 40B, 42 Murray Road and Lingfield Close. Updated daylight, sunlight and overshadowing information has been submitted during the course of the application, including assessment of Nos. 40, 40B, 42 Murray Road and Lingfield Close. This included further assessment of the ground floor habitable room at No. 42 Murray Road. The submitted assessment concludes that the relevant BRE guidance would be met. This is discussed at paragraphs 8.19–8.30 of this report. X. Impact on the shared access serving No. 42 Murray Road. The existing shared access serving No. 42 Murray Road would be retained and would continue to provide access to that property. The Highway Authority has reviewed the proposed access and parking arrangements and has raised no objection. Vehicles would be able to enter and leave the site in a forward gear, and the additional vehicle movements associated with the development are not considered to result in unacceptable harm to highway safety or the operation of the shared access. The proposal also includes resurfacing of the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press shared driveway with permeable block paving, which would improve the existing surface treatment. Any private rights of access, ownership or maintenance obligations are civil matters between the relevant parties and are not determinative of the planning application. XI. Parking pressure, traffic generation, congestion and highway safety. This is discussed at paragraphs 8.39–8.49 of this report. The Highway Authority has reviewed the proposal and has raised no objection, subject to conditions. XII. Adequacy and location of cycle storage and bin storage. Cycle storage is discussed at paragraph 8.44 of this report. Refuse and recycling storage is discussed at paragraphs 8.76 –8.78 of this report. XIII. Quality of accommodation, including Flat 5 ceiling heights. This is discussed at paragraphs 8.31–8.38 of this report. IV. Adequacy and usability of private and communal amenity space. This is discussed at paragraphs 8.35–8.38 of this report. XV. Impact on trees, hedges and landscaping which contribute to ecology, wildlife and BNG This is discussed at paragraphs 8.56–8.68 of this report. VI. Drainage, flood risk and utility capacity. This is discussed at paragraphs 8.69–8.75 of this report. VII. Sustainability, including lack of solar panels or This is discussed at paragraphs 8.79–8.81 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press heat pumps which help with decarbonisation VIII. Subsidence, foundations and structural damage. These are primarily Building Regulations and civil matters. IX. Site notice, neighbour notification and re- consultation concerns. The application has been publicised in accordance with statutory requirements and the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement. Neighbours were re -consulted following receipt of revised plans and additional supporting information. XX. Human rights, rights to light, private nuisance and legal access rights. Human Rights are considered at paragraph 8.1. Rights to light, easements, private nuisance and legal access rights are primarily civil matters. XI. Impact on property values. This is not a material planning consideration. XII. Concern that a similar previous application was refused/withdrawn. The relevant planning history is set out in Section 5. The previous application was withdrawn and was not refused. This application has been assessed on its own merits against current policy and the revised plans . Northwood Residents Association 30-07-25: Objection raised on the basis that only 5 car parking spaces are shown, one of which is disabled, with no on -site visitor parking. Concerns raised that Murray Road is already congested and that the proposal would worsen parking and traffic The matters raised are addressed in the main body of the report. The principle of flatted redevelopment and compliance with Policy DMH 4 are assessed at paragraphs 8.1–8.5. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press conditions. Objection also raised regarding loss of front garden, limited rear amenity space for 5no. flats, overdevelopment/cramped layout, loss of privacy from side windows, poor accommodation if habitable rooms require obscure glazing, and conflict with Policy DMH 4 due to flatted development resulting in parking pressure, loss of front gardens, privacy impacts, changes to the street scene and loss of family accommodation. Further objection 16-07- 25: Request that all side windows are obscure glazed and non -opening below 1.8m to prevent overlooking. Further objection 6-04- 26: Previous objection maintained. Concern raised that a window at No. 42 Murray Road is omitted from the submitted plans. Further objection 23-06- 26: The previous objections still apply with the loss of the front garden which becomes a car park being an adverse change to the streetscene, the loss of amenity space for the residents, no car parking on -site for visitors, habitable rooms having obscured glazing to avoid overlooking of the Design, frontage treatment, loss of front garden space and impact on the street scene are assessed at paragraphs 8.6 –8.18. Neighbouring amenity, including overlooking, obscure -glazed side windows, privacy, outlook, daylight/sunlight and the relationship with No. 42 Murray Road, is assessed at paragraphs 8.19–8.30. It has been clarified during the course of the application that the ground floor window at No. 42 serves a habitable room. Updated daylight, sunlight and overshadowing information has been submitted on this basis and is considered within the report. Parking, visitor parking, access and traffic impacts are assessed at paragraphs 8.39–8.49. The Highway Authority has reviewed the proposal and has raised no objection, subject to conditions. External amenity space for future occupiers is assessed at paragraphs 8.35 –8.38. Conditions are recommended to secure obscure glazing/non - opening side windows, privacy screens, landscaping, parking allocation, cycle storage Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press neighbours, and general overdevelopment. and refuse/recycling storage. David Simmonds Member of Parliament for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner I refer to the above application which falls within my constituency. Constituents have contacted me with their concerns regarding this application and I understand that a petition has been lodged with the Council. I would ask that you please take their concerns into consideration when determining this application. Noted. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Design and Landscape Officer Initial concerns were raised regarding the reduction in soft landscaping to the frontage, with the frontage dominated by hardstanding, bin storage and parking. Concern was also raised that the architecture appeared overly complex for the character of the street, including the porch depth, recessed “negative spaces” and projecting bays. It was recommended that the porch be simplified, the projecting bays removed, and a more traditional elevational arrangement secured. Further details were also requested in respect of the lift overrun, recessed balconies, rear dormer, CGI views, ground floor privacy/defensible space, the positioning of cycle/bin storage and the rear separation distance. Following revised drawings, the re tention of frontage trees, simplified porch, and removal of projecting bays at first-floor level were welcomed. The Design Officer requested an Arboricultural Method Statement to demonstrate that parking spaces can be installed without harm to retained trees, updated CGI visuals to include the lift overrun, The comments are noted. Following the Design and Landscape Officer’s comments, amended plans and additional information were submitted. These included a simplified porch design, removal of the projecting first -floor bays, relocation of cycle storage to the rear, retention of frontage trees and hedging, revised frontage landscaping, updated CGI views, clarification of the lift overrun and rear dormer, and clearer details of private amenity/defensible Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press and clear indication of the private garden areas serving the ground floor flats. space for the ground floor flats. The amendments are considered to have largely addressed the concerns raised. Final details of materials, landscaping, boundary treatments, tree protection and relevant external features are secured by condition. Access Officer No concerns were raised in respect of London Plan Policy D7. The Access Officer recommended conditions requiring details of step -free access via all points of entry and exit prior to works above damp proof course level, and certification prior to occupation demonstrating compliance with the technical specifications for an M4(2) dwelling, as set out in Approved Document M to the Building Regulations. The comments have been noted, and the relevant conditions have been added. Highways Authority No objection, subject to conditions. The Highway Officer noted that the site is located within a CPZ operating between 1pm and 2pm Monday to Friday, and that the site has a moderate PTAL rating. A legal agreement is recommended to restrict future residents from joining a Parking Management Scheme. The proposal would provide 5no. on-site parking spaces, including 1no. disabled-compliant space. Although this marginally exceeds the London Plan maximum parking standard, the provision is considered acceptable given the site’s public transport accessibility and the benefit of limiting on- street parking displacement. All 5no. spaces would have active EV charging. Cycle parking provision would exceed minimum requirements. Traffic generation would be modest and capable of being accommodated on the local highway network. The existing shared access with No. 42 would remain and is considered fit for purpose, with vehicles able to enter and leave in a forward gear. The proposed The comments have been noted, and the relevant legal agreement and conditions have been added. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press resurfacing of the driveway with permeable block paving was noted as an improvement. Refuse collection from Murray Road is acceptable, subject to the bin store being located within the Council’s collection distance. A Construction Management Plan condition is recommended. Waste Officer The proposed bin store does not include provision for a 140L communal food waste bin. Concerns were also raised that a collection strategy has not been demonstrated. Given the scale of the development, it is considered that these matters can be satisfactorily addressed through a planning condition requiring full details of refuse and recycling storage, including provision for food waste, access arrangements, a collection/presentatio n point and a refuse collection methodology. Subject to this condition, the proposal is considered acceptable in waste management terms. 8 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 8.1 The application seeks the demolition of the existing single dwellinghouse and its replacement with 5no. self -contained flats, resulting in a net increase of 4no. homes on the site. The proposed accommodation would comprise 1no. three- bedroom flat, 1no. one -bedroom flat and 3no. two- bedroom flats. Whilst the existing dwellinghouse would be lost, the provision of a three -bedroom, five- person unit would retain family-sized accommodation within the development and would therefore materially mitigate concerns regarding the loss of family housing. 8.2 This is a relevant consideration in the assessment of Policy DMH 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020), which seeks to manage the redevelopment of dwellings into flats where this would result in an over- concentration of flatted accommodation, with associated impacts including pressure on parking, reductions in privacy, loss of front gardens, changes to the character of residential streets and the loss of family accommodation. Policy DMH 4 permits such development where the relevant criteria are satisfied, including Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press where no more than 10% of properties on the residential street would be redeveloped into flats. 8.3 Murray Road is less than 1km in length and has therefore been assessed as a whole. Officers have reviewed the flat ted development position along Murray Road and are satisfied that the proposal would not result in more than 10% of properties on the street being redeveloped into flats, in accordance with Policy DMH 4. The existing bungalow is of limited architectural merit and has an unusual siting that does not address the street in the prevailing manner. Its replacement with a frontage building would better reflect the established urban grain and optimise the capacity of the site for additional residential units at an appropriate density, consistent with the design-led approach in London Plan Policy D3. 8.4 The site is located within an established residential area and comprises previously developed residential land. The redevel opment of the site would therefore represent an efficient use of land for housing with an appropriate mix , consistent with national, regional and local planning policy, which seeks to optimise site capacit y. In the context of the Council’s current five- year housing land supply position, the delivery of additional housing attracts positive weight. This does not automatically override all other planning considerations, but it is a material consideration which weighs in favour of the proposal. 8.5 Overall, the proposal would remain with in the Policy DMH 4 threshold, would provide a net increase of 4no. residential units, and would retain family -sized accommodation on the site through the provision of a three-bedroom ground floor flat. The principle of residential redevelopment is therefore considered acceptable, subject to the detailed assessment of design, character and appearance, residential amenity, highways and parking , landscaping, biodiversity, drainage and all other material planning considerations. The weight to be afforded to housing delivery, including in the context of the Council’s five -year housing land supply position, is considered further in the planning balance. Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 8.6 Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One (2012) seeks high quality design which responds positively to local charac ter. Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020) require development to be appropriate in terms of siting, scale, bulk, layout, appearance, landscaping and impact on the street scene. London Plan Policy D3 also requires development to follow a design -led approach which optimises site capacity while responding to local context. Site Context 8.7 The application site currently comprises a modest single-storey bungalow set within a relatively generous plot on the western side of Murray Road. The existing dwelling is set back from the highway, with vegetation and trees contributing to the landscaped character of the frontage. However, the building itself is unusual within this part of the street, as its flank elevation addresses Murray Road rather than a Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press principal frontage. The surrounding area is predominantly residential but varied in form and tenure. The prevailing pattern is generally one of buildings fronting the highway with a broadly consistent buildin g line, although there are examples of backland and infill development to the rear, including Nos. 38, 40A and 42 Murray Road. The wider street also includes single -storey bungalows, two- storey dwellings, properties with roof accommodation and three storey purpose- built flats, notably next door at Lingfield Close. Roof forms include hipped roofs and gable features, with materials generally comprising brick, render or a combination of both. 8.8 The proposal would replace the existing bungalow with a two-storey building containing 5no. self-contained flats. While the proposed building would be larger than the existing dwelling and would repres ent an intensification of built form on the site, it would remain residential in scale and appearance. It would also introduce a more conventional frontage relationship with Murray Road, in keeping with the established urban grain, while sitt ing within the varied suburban context described above. Proposed dwellings 8.9 The originally submitted scheme raised concerns regarding the complexity of the front elevation and the treatment of the frontage, including the use of front -facing balconies, projecting bay features, a deeper porch arrangement, and the extent of hardstanding and ancillary structures within the front garden. Revised plans were subsequently submitted, with the final amended plans received on 30 th of March 2026. These revisions removed the front -facing balconies, relocated balcony provision to the rear elevation, omi tted the projecting bay features at first -floor level, simplified the porch, amended the fenestration to provide a clearer vertical hierarchy, relocated the cycle store to the rear and improved the frontage landscaping arrangement. Additional CGI views, sections and elevational information were also submitted to demonstrate the appearance of the revised scheme, including the rear elevation, dormer, balcony arrangement and roof profile. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 6: CGI of Front Elevation 8.10 As revised, the front elevation would comprise a balanced residential façade with two front -facing gables and ground floor bay windows. These features reflect elements already present within the surrounding street scene, where gables, bay windows, pitched roof forms and traditional domestic proportions form part of the local architectural character. The bay windows would provide articulation and rhythm to the frontage, while the simplified porch and more ordered window arrangement would create a clearer and more traditional architectural composition. Figure 7: Proposed Streetscene Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 8.11 The eaves height would maintain a broadly consistent relationship with neighbouring development. While the main ridge would sit slightly above the immediately adjoining dwelling, the overall height would remain comparable with other two-storey and roof-form development within the wider street. The retained gaps to either side of the building would also ensure that it sits comfortably within the plot, maintaining a sense of openness and avoiding a cramped appearance. Overall, the revised design would read as a coherent residential building rather than an overly complex flatted block. Figure 8: Streetscene Section 8.12 The submitted section drawing demonstrates the relationship between the proposed building, the retained frontage hedge and Murray Road. From the footway immediately adjacent to the site, views would be largely screened by the retained hedge, with the line of sight extending above the building towards the sky due to the set -back position of the proposed building and the change in levels. From the opposite side of Murray Road, views would include the top of the hedge and the lower part of the front elevation, with the retained landscaping continuing to soften the appearance of the development in the street scene. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 9: Proposed Site Plan 8.13 The siting of the building has also been amended, with the footprint moved slightly forward so that the building sits more comfortably in relation to the neighbouring building line, while reducing the rearward projection. This assists the development in integrating with the established pattern of development along Murray Road and improves its relationship with the rear part of the site. 8.14 The revised frontage arrangement is also considered acceptable. The relocation of the cycle store to the rear reduces built form and visual clutter within the front garden, while the retention of the exist ing hedge and frontage trees would help preserve the verdant character of the stre et. It is also noted that a number of properties along Murray Road, including between Nos. 14 and 44 and on the opposite side of the road, contain sign ificant areas of frontage hardstanding for parking. In this context, the proposed level of hardstanding would not appear uncharacteristic. The retained hedge, frontage trees and proposed planting would ensure that a soft landscaped element is maintained, preserving the leafy suburban character of the street scene. Full details of hard and soft landscaping, tree protection, boundary treatments an d long-term maintenance can be secured by condition. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 10: CGI of Rear Elevation 8.15 To the rear, the building would include hi pped roof forms, a modest rear dormer and recessed balcony. These elements would be positioned away from the principal street frontage and would not appear prominent within the public realm. The dormer is a modest scale and the recessed balcony provides a well-designed private space without compromising the roof form or creating any privacy issues to adjoining residents given it would be recessed. The lift overrun would be accommodated within the profile of the roof, rather than appearing as a separate rooftop structure, which is welcomed as it limits visual clutter and avoids unnecessary additional roof-level bulk. 8.16 The height, scale and massing of the proposed building are considered acceptable in the context of the surrounding area. While the building would be larger than the existing bungalow, it would remain two storeys in appearance and would sit comfortably betw een the two-storey residential development to the north and the three-storey flatted development to the south. The pitched roof form, gabled frontage and domestic elevational treatment would help the building respond to the residential character of Murray Road, while the simplified design would avoid appearing unduly prominent or incongruous within the street scene. The upper- floor balconies would be located to the rear and would be modest in scale, with Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press privacy screening to the sides. They would not appear as visually dominant additions or result in excessive clutter to the rear elevation. Final external materials would be secured by condition to ensure a high-quality finish. Subject to such details, the proposed architectural approach is considered acceptable and would provide an appropriate residential appearance within the varied street scene. 8.17 Overall, having regard to the varied character of Murray Road, the two-storey scale of the building, its transitional relationship between neighbouring two and three -storey development, the simplified architectural approach, the use of gables and bay windows to the frontage, the contained roof form, improved frontage arrangement and retention of important existing landscaping, the proposal is considered to sit acceptably within the street scene. The development would not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and would accord with Policies BE1, DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHB 14, London Plan Policy D3 and the design objectives of the NPPF. Heritage 8.18 The application site is not located within a Conservation Area and the existing building is not listed or locally listed . The Northwood Town Centre, Green Lane Conservation Area lies to the north of the site, a short distance away. Having regard to the intervening residentia l development, the established built-up character of Murray Road, and the revised design and quality of the proposed materials, the development would not advers ely affect the setting or significance of the Conservation Area. There are no designated or non -designated heritage assets within the site itself. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in heritage terms and would accord with Policies DMHB 1, DMHB 2 and DMHB 3 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020), Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and the heritage provisions of the NPPF (2024). Residential Amenity 8.19 Policy DHMB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) states that development proposals should not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. An assessment of the potential impact on neighbouring residential amenity is discussed below. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 11: Location in relation to neighbouring dwellings 8.20 The application site has a relatively complex relationship with surrounding properties. No. 40 Murray Road lies immediately to the north. An access road runs along the southern side of the application site and provides access to No. 42 Murray Road, which is located to the rear of the site. No. 40 also has a side access road on its opposite side, which provides access to No. 40B, another backland/infill dwelling located to the rear and adjacent to No. 42. To the south of the application site, beyond the internal access road , is Lingfield Close, a three -storey flatted development. The impacts on neighbouring properties are therefore considered in turn below. 8.21 The application is supported by an updated Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment, which considers the impact of the revised proposal on Nos. 40, 40B and 42 Murray Road and 2 Lingfield Close. The assessment also includes further consideration of the ground floor habitable room at No. 42 Murray Road following clarification of its internal layout. The updated assessment concludes that the proposal would meet the relevant BRE guidance in respect of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press No. 40 Murray Road Figure 12: Showing No.40 and Roof of Application Site to the Left 8.22 No. 40 Murray Road lies immediately to the north of the application site. The proposed building would be larger than the existing bungalow and would therefore have a greater presence when viewed from this neighbouring property. However, the revised scheme has moved the footprint slightly forward, improving the relationship with this neighbouring dwelling. The proposed development would sit outside the 45 -degree sightline from No. 40 and would not result in an unacceptable loss of outlook, daylight or su nlight to this property. The updated daylight and sunlight assessment consider ed 11 windows at No. 40, all of which would meet the relevant BRE daylight guidance. The assessed windows would also meet the relevant sunlight target s. The rear balconies would include 1.8m privacy screens to the side, which would li mit overlooking towards No. 40 and its rear garden. The proposed side windows would be obscurely glazed and non- opening below 1.8m. Subject to these details being secured by condition and retained thereafter, the proposal is not considered to result in unacceptable overlooking, loss of privacy, enclosure or overdominance to occupiers of No. 40. No. 40B Murray Road 8.23 No. 40B is located diagonally to the rear of the application site and adjacent to No. 42. It would be approximately 21m from the rear windows/balconies of the proposed development, with views occurr ing at an oblique angle rather than directly facing. Given this separation distance and the angled relationship, the proposal is not considered to result in unacceptable overlooking, loss of privacy, Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press outlook or overdominance to occupie rs of No. 40B. The updated daylight and sunlight assessment considered six windows at No. 40B, all of which would meet the relevant BRE daylight guidance and sunl ight targets. The garden area would also continue to receive acceptable level s of sunlight. This further supports the conclusion that the proposal would no t result in unacceptable harm to this property. No. 42 Murray Road Figure 13: Showing Application Site and No.42 8.24 No. 42 Murray Road is located to the rear of the application site and is accessed via the internal access road running along the southern side of the site. The relationship with this property has been carefully considered following concerns raised by the occupiers regarding the accuracy of the original daylight and sunlight assessment. The original assessment identified a minor adverse impact to a ground floor window within the flank elevation of No. 42. During the course of the application it was clarified that this window serves a habitable family room rather than a garage. In response, the applicant submitted an updated Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment and amended the siting of the proposed building, moving it slightly forward with in the plot and increasing the separation distance to No. 42. 8.25 The updated assessment confirms that all four assessed windows at No. 42 would meet the relevant BRE daylight guidance and that the family room would also satisfy the daylight distribution test. All assessed windows would meet the relevant Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press sunlight targets and the garden amenity area would continue to receive acceptable levels of sunlight. The assessment theref ore concludes that the proposal would not result in unacceptable daylight or sunlight impacts to No. 42. Figure 14: View from Window of Bedroom 1 Ground Floor Unit 1 8.26 Officers have also undertaken an assessment of outlook, privacy and overbearing impact. Whilst the ground floor family room window faces towards the application site, it already has a relatively enclos ed outlook due to the existing boundary treatment and vegetation between the properties. Views between the ground floor window at No. 42 and the application site would be limited by the intervening boundary treatment, landscaping and the angled relationship between the properties. Furthermore, the application site could erect a boundary fence of up to 2m in height without requiring planning permission. Having regard to the separation distance, intervening landscaping, orientation of the properties and the updated technical assessment, the proposal is not considered to result in unacceptable harm to the occupiers of No. 42 in terms of outlook, privacy, enclosure, daylight, sunlight or overbearing impact. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Lingfield Close Figure 15: Showing Application Site Entrance and Lingfield Close 8.27 Lingfield Close lies to the south of th e application site and comprises a three- storey flatted development. It is separated from the site by the internal access road serving No. 42 Murray Road. Concerns have been raised regarding the potential impact on windows serving flats within Lingfield Close, including bedroom windows facing towards the application site. The updated daylight and sunlight assessment considered the relevant windows at Lingfield Close, including those serving No. 12 Lingfield Close, and confirms that they would meet the relevant BRE daylight guidance. No sunlight assessment was required for these windows as they face within 90 degrees of due north. Given the separation provided by the access road, the orientation of the buildings, the scale of the existing flatted development and the findings of the updated technical assessment, the proposal would not result in unacceptable loss of light, outlook, privacy or overbearing impact to occupiers of Lingfield Close. The proposed side windows facing south would also be obscurely glazed and non -opening below 1.8m, secured by condition, to prevent overlooking. 8.28 The properties on the opposite side of Murray Road are located over 34m from the front elevation of the proposed development. This distance is sufficient to ensure that the proposal would not result in unacceptable overlooking, loss of privacy, loss of outlook or overdominance to these occupiers. The removal of the front -facing balconies from the revised scheme also reduces the potential for overlooking towards properties opposite. The existing hedge and frontage trees are also to be retained, which would assist in filtering views of the development from the street. 8.29 The proposed ground floor terraces, upper floor balconies, recessed roof-level balcony and communal amenity space have also been considered in terms of neighbouring amenity. The rear balconies would be modest in scale and would include privacy screening where necessary to prevent harmful overlooking. The ground floor terraces would be enclosed and supported by defensible planting, with final boundary treatment and land scaping details secured by condition.

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Sharan Singh 26564/APP/2026/370 Date Application Valid: 24-02-26 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 13-10-26 Application Type: Householder Ward: Northwood Hills Applicant: Mr Kevin Vara Site Address: 6 WOODGATE CRESCENT, NORTHWOOD Proposal: Erection of single storey front and rear extensions, a first floor side extension, enlargement of the rear terrace, with patio space at the rear and amendment to the front fenestration Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 3 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Petition received) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 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 householder planning application proposes extensions and alterations to No. 6 Woodgate Crescent (‘the site’). The amended scheme comprises the erection of a single -storey front extension/front porch and single- storey rear extension, a first-floor side extension, enlargement of the rear terrace to provide additional patio space, and amendments to the fenestration. 1.2 The application has been amended during its consideration, most notably through the removal of the previously proposed rear dormer. The amended proposal has therefore reduced the extent of built form at roof level and removes the potential for additional elevated rear-facing views associated with the dormer. 1.3 When considered cumulatively, the proposed extensions and alterations are of an appropriate scale, form and design having regard to the host dwelling, the established character of Woodgate Crescent and the wider residential area. The surrounding street scene is varied, with a mixture of semi-detached and detached two-storey dwellings, many of which have been subject to extensions and other alterations of differing scales and designs. In this context, the amended proposal would not appear as an incongruous or excessive addition to the host dwelling. 1.4 The proposed extensions would use materials and detailing that complement the existing dwelling. The amended front elev ation, including the additional front- facing window, would provide a more balanced and symmetrical appearance to the principal elevation. The enlarged rear terrace and patio would remain an ancillary feature associated with the existing residential use and would not result in an unacceptable intensification of the use of the property. 1.5 The proposal would also maintain an acceptable relationship with neighbouring properties. Having regard to the scale and siting of the extensions, existing boundary screening, separation distances and the established urban residential context, the development would not result in an unacceptable loss of outlook, daylight or sunlight, nor would it give rise to an unacceptable increase in overlooking. In particular, the removal of the rear dormer reduces the potential for elevated overlooking towards neighbouring properties. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 1.6 The existence of views from conventional first-floor windows is an established feature of urban residential areas, inc luding suburban London. The relevant consideration is therefore whether the proposal would introduce an unacceptable degree of additional overlooking having rega rd to the position and orientation of windows, separation distances, boundary treatment and surrounding built form. In this case, the potential for material additional overlooking is considered limited and would not result in harm sufficient to warrant refusal. 1.7 The development would retain appropriate private amenity space for the application property and would not adversely affect the wider residential amenity or character of the neighbourhood. The cumulative form of the development would remain proportionate to the plot and the established pattern of development along Woodgate Crescent. 1.8 The proposal would not adversely affect highway safety. The existing off-street parking provision would be broadly maintained, and the Council’s Highways Officer has raised no objection to the pr oposal. The site is not located within a Flood Zone or Critical Drainage Area. Due regard has been given to the drainage and flooding concerns raised during consultation. Matters relating to detailed foul and surface water drainage are subject to Building Regulations and other relevant legislation, and no site -specific planning reason has been identified to conclude that the proposal would result in an unacceptable drainage impact. 1.9 The matters raised, including concerns regarding scale, design, land levels, overlooking, privacy, the previously proposed dormer, drainage and the cumulative extent of development, have been carefully considered in the assessment below. The amended scheme, in cluding the removal of the dormer, addresses a number of the concerns raised and the remaining impacts are not considered to amount to unacceptable planning harm. 1.10 The proposal is considered to comply with the relevant Development Plan policies and there are no material considerations which indicate that planning permission should be withheld. 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 property is a detached d welling, located on the southern side of Woodgate Crescent (refer to figure 1 below). 2.2 The surrounding area is predominantly residential and comprises a mixture of semi-detached and two- storey detached dwellings. The character of the area is varied, with properties having been altered over time through extensions, additions and other domestic alterations of differing scales and architectural approaches. 2.3 The application property benefits from off-street parking accessed from the highway via an existing vehicular crossover, with parking provision for Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press approximately two vehicles. To the rear of the property is a moderately sized private garden. 2.4 The application property is situated between two established two-storey residential properties, with No. 4 Woodgate Crescent located to the west and No. 8 Woodgate Crescent located to the East. Directly South or to the rea lies the private amenity gardens of Nos 2 Woodgate Crescent and No 13 W ieland Road. Existing boundary treatment and vegetation provide a degree of screening between the application property and adjoining residential properties. Figure 1: Site Location Plan (With Red Line) Figure 2: Ariel View (Google Maps) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Street View Image of the Application Property Figure 4: Rear View Image of the Application Property Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 The application has been amended and now proposes: • a single-storey front extension/front porch; • a single-storey rear extension; • a first-floor side extension; • an enlarged rear terrace incorporating additional patio space; and • amendments to the fenestration. The previously proposed rear dormer has been removed from the amended scheme. 3.2 The scheme proposes a single storey fron t and rear extension, a first-floor side extension and an enlarged rear terrace with patio area with amendments to the fenestration which are as measured: The amended dimensions of the principal elements of the proposal are approximately as follows: - First-floor side extension: 8.3 metres in height, 2.42 metres in width and 5.7 metres in depth; - Single-storey rear extension: 5.1 metres in width, 3.2 metres in height and 1.2 metres in depth; and - Single-storey front porch: 5.7 metres in width, 2.23 metres in depth and 3.3 metres in height. - Rear terrace / Patio element: 44.5m2 (8sqm added) Figure 5: Proposed Plans (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 The site has an established planning history. In particular, full planning permission was granted in 1979 under reference 26564/79/0534 for an extension to form a games room and kitchen addition. This permission was subsequently implemented. The existing property has therefore previously been subject to extensions and alterations, and the current proposal must be considered in the context of the established form and character of the dwelling and surrounding development. 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 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) 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. 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. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Consultation for the scheme started on 26-2-26 and expired on 19-3-26. Following consultation of 13 consultees and 3 objections (including Northwood Residents Association and Glebe Residents Association), 2 comments and one petition was received. 6.2 Following this the application was referred to committee. 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 been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response Petition The scale of the development is not in keeping with the existing street scene and is an overdevelopment of the current site The scale and appearance of the amended proposal are considered at paragraphs 7.4 –7.28, with the wider neighbourhood and cumulative impact considered at paragraphs. 7. 29–7.44. The street scene is varied, with several properties having been extended or altered over time. The amended scheme would retain the established two -storey character of the dwelling, with the principal additions being single -storey apart from the side extension, and the previously proposed dormer has been removed. The proposal would not therefore result in an unacceptable intensification or overdevelopment of the site 2 individual objections have i. Loss of Privacy The relationship between the proposed development Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press also been received. and neighbouring properties is considered in detail at paragr aphs 7.29 – 7.42 of this report. The removal of the previously proposed dormer materially reduces the potential for additional elevated rear -facing views. The remaining windows would be typical of a domestic dwelling within an established urban residential environment and would not result in an unacceptable degree of additional overlooking. ii. Land Levels result in Overlooking Existing boundary vegetation and screening provide a degree of visual separation between the properties. The difference in land levels has therefore been considered together with the position of the proposed extensions, existing boundary treatment and separation distances. It is not considered that the land levels would result in unacceptable additional overlooking. iii. Flooding and Drainage Concerns Discussed at paragraph 7.48-7.50 of this report. The site is not located within a Flood Zone or Critical Drainage Area. The drainage implications of the development have been considered in this report. Detailed drainage matters are also controlled through Building Regulations and other relevant legislati on. No unacceptable planning impact in respect of Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press flooding or drainage has been identified. iv. Excessive Extensions The amended scheme is considered proportionate to the host dwelling and plot. The removal of the dormer significantly reduces the overall bulk of the proposal at roof level. The remaining extensions would not result in an excessive or incongruous form of development within the street scene or wider neighbourhood. v. Oversized Rear Dormer The previously proposed dormer has been removed from the amended scheme. The amended proposal therefore does not include the dormer that was the subject of this concern. Northwood Residents Association Comments i. Dormer windows and overlooking The previously proposed dormer has been removed from the amended scheme. The amended proposal therefore does not include the dormer that was the subject of this concern. ii. 21m separation distance and overlooking This is discussed below in paragraphs 7.24 to 7.42 iii. Difference in land levels Existing boundary vegetation and screening provide a degree of visual separation between the properties. The difference in land levels has therefore been considered together with the position of the proposed extensions, existing boundary treatment and separation distances. It is not considered that the land levels would result in unacceptable additional overlooking. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press iv. Front extension does not appear subordinate Discussed at paragraph 7.12 –7.18 of this report. v. Flooding and Surface Water Discussed at paragraph 7.48-7.50 of this report. The site is not located within a Flood Zone or Critical Drainage Area. The drainage implications of the development have been considered in this report. Detailed drainage matters are also controlled through Building Regulations and other relevant legislati on. No unacceptable planning impact in respect of flooding or drainage has been identified. vi. Impact on No. 2 Woodgate Crescent Discussed at paragraphs 7.36-7.40 of this report. Given there is screening on the boundary concerns are limited. Gatehill Residents Association vii. Dormer Overlooking The previously proposed dormer has been removed from the amended scheme. The amended proposal therefore does not include the dormer that was the subject of this concern.. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Conservation Officer Porch roof and first-floor window: Concern that the porch roof sits too close to the large first-floor window, creating an awkward relationship and potential construction difficulties. Planning Officers have reviewed the relationship of the proposed development on site and are satisfied, the changes proposed woul d blend into the existing dwelling and the wider street scene. The relationship is considered acceptable, with the porch remaining a subordinate element to the main dwelling. Window arrangement: The front elevation should be reconsidered to improve the arrangement and rhythm of the windows, creating a stronger relationship between the different window types and the porch roof. Window arrangement: Traditional window improves symmetry, balance and the overall rhythm of the front elevation. Driveway and frontage: Confirmation was sought that the porch would not interfere with the driveway or require removal of frontage landscaping. Driveway and frontage: The porch can be accommodated without adversely affecting the existing driveway or access the site visit and site pictures confirm there is access to the drive on both sides of the property Frontage greening: If the porch requires removal of the existing frontage greening, concern was raised that the porch should not be supported. Frontage greening: The proposal allows sufficient frontage landscaping to be retained and does not result in unacceptable loss of greenery. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Overall: The front elevation and porch are considered appropriately proportioned and visually coherent, with no unacceptable impact on the character or appearance of the property. 7 Planning Assessment Overview 7.1 The application seeks planning permission for extensions and associated alterations to the existing detached re sidential dwelling at Woodgate Crescent. Following amendments to the scheme, the proposal now comprises a single- storey front extension in the fo rm of an enlarged porch, a single- storey rear extension, a first -floor side extension, an enlarged rear terrace and patio area, together with associated amendments to the fenestration. 7.2 The proposal would retain the established residential use of the property and would not result in the creation of an addi tional residential unit. The principal planning considerations are therefore the effect of the amended development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area, the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers and the future occupiers of the application property, parking and highway conditions, drainage and flood risk, and the representations received. 7.3 The proposal has been assessed against the Development Plan, including the Hillingdon Local Plan Part One – Strategic Policies (2012), the Hillingdon Local Plan Part Two – Development Management Policies (2020), the London Plan (2021), the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and other material considerations. The petition and individual representations have also been taken into account and are addressed under the relevant headings below. Principle of Development 7.4 The application relates to the extension and alteration of an established residential dwelling. It would not change the residential use of the site or create an additional residential unit. The principle of extendi ng the dwelling is therefore acceptable, subject to consideration of the design, scale and siting of the development and its effects on neighbouring properties and the wider area. 7.5 The relevant policies support the reasonable enlargement of existing dwellings where the development is appropriately designed and maintains acceptable living Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press conditions for neighbouring occupiers. The principle of development is therefore supported, subject to the detailed assessment below. Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.6 The proposal must be assessed having regard to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, the immediate streetscene and the wider residential area. Policy DMHB 11 of the Hill ingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) requires all development to be designed to the highest standards and incorporate principles of good design, either complementing or improving the character and appearance of the area. Policy DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) seeks to protect and improve the public realm, including streets. Policy DMHB5 of the Hilling don Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies (2020) requires development within an Area of Special Local Character to reflect the character and original layout of the area. Policy DMHB 6 provides further locally specific guidance for the Gatehill Farm Estate. It seeks development which reflects the pr evailing scale, form, proportions, materials, traditional roof designs and architectural characteristics of the estate. 7.7 In addition to the above, policies D3 of the London Plan (2021), BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 – Strategic Policies (2012), DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 – Development Management Policies (2020) are all directly relevant to the proposal. These policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix, and in summary, seek to secure a high quality of design that enhances and contributes to the area 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. 7.8 These aims are also supported by the NPPF which has recently been adopted in August 2026. Policy DP3 (Key principles for well -designed places) requires development proposals to respond to the history, character and features of the site and its setting, so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings. This includes consideration of the arrangement and form of building, materials and architectural feature 7.9 The assessment has therefore considered the scale and form of neighbouring properties, the established building line, the relationship between built form and garden space, the visibility of the deve lopment from the public realm, and the proposed materials and architectural detailing. Site Context 7.10 The application site comprises a detached two-storey dwelling within Woodgate Crescent. It occupies an established residential plot between two existing two- storey houses. The surrounding area is predominantly residential and includes a variety of dwelling types, architectural treatments and extensions. The property occupies an irregularly shaped plot clos e to the junction with Wieland Road and benefits from established vegetation and boundary screening. The dwelling is Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press finished principally in brown brick and has a hipped roof, with an attached garage and hardstanding to the front. 7.11 A site inspection was conducted in July 2026, and it confirmed that there is no single uniform architectural character with in this section of Woodgate Crescent. Several properties have been altered or extended to varying scales and configurations. Although the properties display some variation in their architectural detailing, scale and positioning, the area has a generally cohesive suburban character derived from the spacing between buildings, their traditional roof forms and the presence of mature landscaping. The proposal has therefore been considered against the prevailing character of the street as it exists today, rather than solely against the original form of the application property. Impact on existing dwelling 7.12 The proposal includes single-storey front and rear extensions, a first-floor side extension, and amendments to the fenestr ation. The proposed side and rear extensions would be subordinate addition s to the existing dwelling. Their scale, height and footprint have been considered in relation to the main two -storey form of the house and surrounding properties. 7.13 The original house would remain clearly identifiable, and the additions would read as extensions rather than as a replacement dwelling. The proposal comprises a combination of a first -floor side extension and single- storey front and rear extensions. The different elements have been designed to respond to their respective locations and to maintain an appropriate hierarchy between the original dwelling and the additions. 7.14 The front extension would form a comparatively modest addition and would remain subordinate to the principal elevation. It s scale, roof form and materials would relate appropriately to the architectu ral composition of the existing dwelling. Although the porch would extend across a substantial proportion of the front elevation, its single -storey scale and domestic form would ensure that it remains visually related to the main dwelling rather than appearing as a separate or dominant structure. The front extension would also retain the overall residential appearance of the property and would not result in an unacceptable disruption to the established building line. Whilst the altered front elevation would be visible from Woodgate Crescent, the proposal would retain the domestic scale and general character of the property and would not appear unduly prominent within the street scene. 7.15 The first-floor side extension would me asure approximately 8.3 metres in height, 2.42 metres in width and 5.7 metres in depth. While the extension would increase the built form of the property at first -floor level, its relatively limited width and its position to the side of the existing dwelling would allow the principal two -storey form of the house to remain clearly legible. The design avoids an excessively bulky or top-heavy addition and maintains an acceptable visual relationship with the original building. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.16 The proposed two-storey rear extensio n would be appropriately assimilated into the existing property. Its form would re main subordinate to the original dwelling through the reduction in height from the original roof profile, creating a clear visual hierarchy between the host building and the extension. This down- step from the original roof form would prevent the rear addition from appearing as an overly dominant continuation of the main house and would allow it to be read as a secondary element. 7.17 Taken together, the different elements of the proposal would result in an enlarged dwelling, but the extensions would remain sufficiently related to the original house in terms of their form, scale and architec tural treatment. The scheme avoids an excessive accumulation of built form at any one point of the property and maintains a clear distinction between the original two -storey dwelling and the single- storey additions. 7.18 The proposed development would respect the established relationship between built form and garden space. The rear extension would have a limited projection into the garden, as the enlarged terrace and patio would remain ancillary to the residential use of the property given the minor increase by 8sqm. The first- floor side extension would be read as an extension to the existing two -storey building rather than as an independent additional storey or separate built form. Fenestration and New Window 7.19 The proposed new front window and Front Porch element would respond to the existing arrangement of openings and provide greater balance to the principal elevation. Its scale and position would be appropriate to the dwelling and would not appear incongruous . The window would improve the symmetry and architectural legibility of the front elevat ion while also providing additional natural light to the relevant accommodation. Toge ther with the retention of the existing building form, roof profile and materials, it would make a positive contribution to the appearance of the property. 7.20 The additional window would also provide increased natural light to the relevant accommodation. Its architectural contribu tion is therefore both functional and visual, helping to improve the overall leg ibility and balance of the front elevation. When considered alongside the proposed porch and the retention of the principal characteristics of the existing dwelling, the amended fenestration would contribute positively to the appearance of the property. Patio element and the rear 7.21 The proposed patio would provide a functional outdoor area associated with the residential use of the property. It would remain ancillary to the dwelling and would not introduce a separate use or result in an unacceptable intensification of activity. Its location and scale, together with th e existing boundary treatment, would not create an unacceptable relationship with neighbouring gardens or result in harmful overlooking. Sufficient private external amenity space would remain following the extensions and patio, with the garden retaining a usable size and configuration. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.22 The rear extension would have limited pu blic visibility, while the side extension would be viewed in the context of the existing dwelling and the established pattern of development along Woodgate Cresc ent. The principal elevation and its relationship with the street would be retained, and the proposal would not disrupt a consistent building line or result in the loss of an important townscape feature. 7.23 The relationship of the terrace and patio with neighbouring properties has also been considered. Existing boundary treatment would provide an appropriate degree of screening and separation. The patio would not, in itself result in an unacceptable loss of privacy or overlooking of adjoining gardens. 7.24 Sufficient private external amenity space would remain following the construction of the extensions and enlargement of the terrace. The remaining garden would continue to provide a usable area for outdoor recreation and enjoyment and would not be reduced to a level where it could reasonably be regarded as inadequate for the dwelling. The enlarged rear terrace and patio are therefore considered to be acceptable components of the overall proposal. Impact on the Area of Special Local Character 7.25 The application site lies within the Gate hill Farm Estate Area of Special Local Character. In accordance with Policy DMHB 5, particular regard has been given to whether the proposal respects the established scale, building line, architectural style, materials and landscaped character of the area. Regard has also been given to the locally distinctive characteristics identified by Policy DMHB 6, including the prevailing form and proportions of buildings, traditional roof forms and the spacious, landscaped setting of the estate 7.26 The site sits between two established two-storey houses, and the scheme has been designed to complete the rhythm of the street while maintaining elements of the original dwelling’s character. The desig n retains the original building footprint and principal elevation alignment, ensuring that the proposed development continues to sit comfortably within the existing plot and streetscape. 7.27 The proposal would respect the established building line and would not introduce an unusual or visually intrusive form of development. The materials palette and architectural detailing are consistent with those of host dwelling and the neighbouring houses, reinforcing visual continuity and ensuring that the dwelling integrates harmoniously with the established suburban character. Subject to a condition securing appropriate external materials, the extensions would integrate satisfactorily with the original dwelling and preserve the architectural and landscaped character of the Gatehill Farm Estate. 7.28 Overall, the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Area of Special Local Character and would comply with Policies DMHB 5, DMHB 6 and DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies (2020), together with Policy DP3 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Residential Amenity 7.29 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 that: ii) a satisfactory relationship with adjacent dwellings is achieved; and v) there is no unacceptable loss of outlook to neighbouring occupiers. 7.30 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. 4 Woodgate Crescent 7.31 No. 4 Woodgate Crescent lies to the west of the application site. The proposed extension would be approximately 1.3 metres from the shared boundary. Together with the existing boundary screening, this would provide an appropriate degree of physical and visual separation. 7.32 The proposed two-storey rear extension wo uld sit comfortably within the rear of the application site and would be reduced in height from the original roof profile. This down -step would assist in maintaining a subordinate relationship with the host dwelling and would reduce its visual prominence when viewed from the neighbouring property. 7.33 This extension would not include side windows, thereby avoiding additional side- facing views towards No. 4. A condition is recommended restricting any additional window to be installed on the flank wall without prior consent. This would ensure that the private amenity space of this nei ghbour is protected. Given its position, roof form, separation from the boundary and absence of side windows, the development would not appear unacceptab ly overbearing or create an undue sense of enclosure when viewed from No. 4. It would not materially obstruct the principal habitable room windows or result in an unacceptable loss of daylight, sunlight or outlook. 7.34 Given its form, limited projection, separation from the boundary and absence of side windows, the extension would not appear unacceptably overbearing when viewed from No. 4. It would not create an undue sense of enclosure or materially obstruct the outlook from the neighbouring property. The proposal would also not result in a significant loss of daylight or sunlight to the neighbouring property. 8 Woodgate Crescent 7.35 8 Woodgate Crescent is the neighbouring pr operty to the east of the site is set some distance. Given this distance there would be no overbearing or overdevelopment concerns on this neighbour. As such, the impact on neighbouring privacy would fall below the threshold of material harm. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2 Woodgate Crescent & 13 Wieland Road 7.36 Concern has been raised that the additional upper-floor windows and enlarged terrace could increase overlooking of neighbouring properties. The rear-facing first floor windows would look primarily across the application site’s own garden which also include a mature hedge on the boundary. 7.37 The additional first-floor window would be viewed in the context of the existing two- storey residential environment. Upper -floor windows and views between properties are an established characterist ic of urban residential areas, including suburban London. The existence of a view from a first- floor window does not, by itself, constitute unacceptable overlooking. The relevant consideration is whether the particular arrangement would create a materially harmful loss of privacy when assessed having regard to the position and orientation of the windows, separation distances, boundary treatments and surrounding built form. 7.38 Having regard to their orientation, the intervening distance, established boundary treatment and the existing pattern of development, they would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers to the south. The proposed windows would be positioned at a similar level to the existing first -floor windows, and any additional views towards neighbouring properties would be predominantly oblique and would not cause a degree of overlooking sufficient to warrant a refusal. 7.39 The enlarged terrace would increase the area available for sitting outside and is a minimal increase of only 8sqm. It would remain associated with the normal residential occupation of a single dwelling and would be positioned adjacent to the existing house and rear garden. There is appropriate screening whereby the terrace would not give rise to an unacceptable perception of overlooking or loss of privacy. 7.40 Given the positioning of the development above the original footprint with no projecting above the single storey rear element, the development would not lead to any overbearing impact or sense of enclosure to either adjoining neighbouring property. Both ne ighbours would continue to receive unrestricted outlook towards their rear gardens. 9-11 Woodgate Crescent 7.41 The relationship with residential properties on the opposite side of Woodgate Road has also been considered. Given the intervening highway, the separation between the respective building frontages and the established pattern of front -facing windows along the street, the proposal wou ld not result in any material increase in overlooking or loss of privacy to those occupiers. The proposal would also have no unacceptable overbearing effect or impact on their outlook, daylight or sunlight. 7.42 For the reasons outlined above, it is co ncluded that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenity in compliance with Policies Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press DMHD 1 and DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Residential Amenity – Application Property 7.43 It is considered that all of the proposed habitable rooms, and those altered by the proposed development, would maintain an adequate outlook and source of natural light, therefore complying with the requirements of Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021). 7.44 A sufficient amount of private amenity space would be retained post development to meet the standards set out in Table 5.3 (Private Outdoor Amenity Space Standards) of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2: Development Management Policies (2020). The proposal, therefore, would not undermine the provision of external amenity space, in accordance with Policy DMHB 18 and Policy DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2: Development Management Policies (2020). Highways and Parking 7.45 The overriding regional parking standard demands a maximum parking requirement in the order of up to 1 on-plot space for 3-bedroom + dwellings hence the existing provision already exceeds this parameter which formally negates the need for the imposition of any further on-plot parking provision. 7.46 The existing access arrangements would be retained, and the proposal would not prejudice highway safety or the free flow of traffic. As sufficient off -street parking would continue to be available within the site, the development would not be expected to result in unacceptable additional pressure for on-street parking 7.47 In terms of refuse, refuse collection would continue to be undertaken from the immediate roadway. Although no specific bin storage provision is shown, it would be anticipated that refuse would be positioned on the property frontage on collection days thereby conforming to waste collection distance parameters. Flooding and Drainage 7.48 Concerns have been raised by neighbours regarding drainage infrastructure in light of the increase in the size of the dwelling. The application site is not located within a Flood Zone and is not within a Cr itical Drainage Area. There is therefore no site-specific flood risk designation indicating that the proposal would, by virtue of its location, give rise to an unacceptable flood risk. 7.49 It is acknowledged that additional built form and hardstanding can affect surface- water runoff. However, the existence of extensions does not in itself establish that the existing drainage infrastructure would be incapable of accommodating the development or that neighbouring properties would experience flooding. Detailed matters relating to the design, capacity and connection of foul and surface-water drainage systems are subjec t to Building Regulations and other Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press relevant statutory requirements. T hese controls provide an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that the development incorporates suitable drainage arrangements. 7.50 There is insufficient evidence to demons trate that the amended proposal would result in an unacceptable increase in flood risk or prejudice the functioning of existing drainage infrastructure. The concerns regarding drainage are therefore acknowledged but do not justify refusal of the application. Noise/Construction Management 7.51 Policy D14 of the London Plan requires that proposals minimise noise pollution and Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 promotes the maximum possible reduction in noise levels and seeks to ensure that noise impacts can be adequately controlled and mitigated 7.52 The application seeks a domestic exte nsion to an existing dwelling which would remain an exclusively residential capacity. Any noise from the building is not expected to be over and above the nois e levels expected from a dwelling house. Therefore, in terms of the operational phase of the proposed development (occupation of the dwelling), no significant issues are raised by the proposal in respect to noise. The level of activity associated with the property would therefore remain consistent with that ordinarily expected from a single family dwelling within a residential area. The extensions and terrace are not considered likely to generate such an increase in activity, no ise or disturbance that the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers would be materially harmed. 7.53 Given the modest scale of the development, a Construction Management Plan would not be necessary. Petition and Representations and Overview 7.54 The wider effect of the proposal on neighbourhood amenity has also been considered. While individual elements of the development are relatively modest, it is appropriate to consider the proposal as a whole and whether the cumulative increase in built form would result in an unacceptable change to the established residential environment. The amended scheme has reduced the extent of potentially intrusive development by removing the dormer and limiting the rear element to a single -storey extension. The first-floor addition is confined to the side of the dwelling, while the front and rear additions remain single-storey. 7.55 The wider effect of the proposal on neighbourhood amenity has also been considered. While individual elements of the development are relatively modest, it is appropriate to consider the proposal as a whole and whether the cumulative increase in built form would result in an unacceptable change to the established residential environment. The amended scheme has reduced the extent of potentially intrusive development by removing the dormer and limiting the rear element to a single -storey extension. The first-floor addition is confined to the side of the dwelling, while the front and rear additions remain single-storey. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.56 The Council has received representations from local residents, including a petition concerning the proposal. These represent ations have been carefully considered against the amended plans, the site circumstances, the officer site inspection and the relevant planning policies. 7.57 The representations are acknowledged and have been given appropriate consideration. However, the planning as sessment must determine whether the concerns raised correspond to demonstrable material harm arising from the development. Having regard to the amended scheme, the relevant separation distances, the existing character of the area and the design of the proposal, no unacceptable harm to neighbourhood residential amenity has been identified. 7.58 The resulting development would therefore not represent an excessive intensification of the built form within t he plot. The dwelling would remain clearly residential in character, with adequate garden space retained and no additional residential unit or materially different use introduced.The proposal would not materially change the established relationship between the application property and the surrounding neighbourhood. The cumulative impact is consequently considered acceptable. 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. CIL Liability 8.2 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 Equality 8.3 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. Matters outside of Planning Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 8.4 Private boundary disputes, ownership matters, construction agreements and other private rights may be governed by separate legislation or civil law. Such matters cannot determine the planning application unless they give rise to a relevant planning consequence. Where matters raised through representations have a planning implication, they have been cons idered under the relevant sections of this report. 9 Conclusion / Planning Balance 9.1 The proposal has been considered against the Development Plan as a whole and regarding all other material planning considerations, including the representations and petition received. The scheme comprises a single -storey front porch, single- storey rear ext ension, first-floor side extension, enlarged rear terrace and patio area, together with alterations to the fenestration. The proposal would retain the existing single-family residential use of the property. 9.2 Overall, the development would constitute a proportionate and appropriately designed enlargement of the existing dwelli ng. The combination of the modest single-storey front and rear elements with the first-floor side extension would retain the visual identity of the original dw elling and respond appropriately to the established residential character of Woodgate Crescent. 9.3 The proposal is therefore considered to accord with the relevant policies of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part One – Strategic Policies (2012), the Hillingdon Local Plan Part Two – Development Management Policies (2020), the London Plan (2021) and the relevant provisions of the NPPF. No material considerations have been identified that would justify a dec ision contrary to the Development Plan. Accordingly, the application is reco mmended 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 – Conservation Officer dated 27-02-26 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press AAPPENDICES Planning Application 26564/APP/2026/370 Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 7 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. HO1 T Time Limit The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. HO2 A Accordance with approved The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on Drawing Ref: 101 Rev PL02 - PROPOSED LOCATION PLAN /PROPOSED BLOCK PLAN, 102 Rev PL02 - PROPOSED SITE PLAN /PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 110 Rev PL02 - PROPOSED LOWER GROUND & GROUND FLOOR PLANS, 111 Rev PL03 - PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR & LOFT FLOOR PLANS, 120 Rev PL03 - PROPOSED FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONS, 121 Rev PL03 - PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATIONS & SECTION REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) and the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020), and the London Plan (March 2021). 3. HO4 M Materials The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building and shall thereafter be retained as such. REASON To safeguard the character and appearance of the Gatehill Farm Estate, Northwood, Area of Special Local Character and to ensure that the proposed development does not have an adverse effect upon the appearance of the existing building in accordance with Policies BE1 and HE1 of Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012), Policies DMHB 1, DMHB 5, DMHB 6 and DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020), Policy HC1 of the London Plan (March 2021) and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 7 44. HO7 N No roof gardens Access to the roof over the extension hereby approved shall be for maintenance or emergency purposes only and the flat roof shall not be used as a roof garden, terrace, balcony, patio or similar amenity area. REASON To prevent overlooking to adjoining properties in accordance with policy policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 5. HO5 N No additional windows or doors Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no additional windows, doors or other openings shall be constructed in the walls of the development hereby approved. REASON To prevent overlooking to adjoining properties in accordance with policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Informatives 1. I59 C Councils Local Plan : Part 1 - Strategic Policies On this decision notice policies from the Councils Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies appear first, then relevant Local Plan Part 2 (2020), then London Plan Policies (2016). Hillingdon's Full Council adopted the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies on 8 November 2012 and the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 on 16 January 2020. 2. I15 C Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work Nuisance from demolition and construction works is subject to control under The Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Clean Air Acts and other related legislation. In particular, you should ensure that the following are complied with:- A. Demolition and construction works which are audible at the site boundary shall only be carried out between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 hours Monday to Friday and between the hours of 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturday. No works shall be carried out on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. B. All noise generated during such works shall be controlled in compliance with British Standard Code of Practice BS 5228:2009. C. Dust emissions shall be controlled in compliance with the Mayor of London's Best Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 7 Practice Guidance' The Control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition. D. No bonfires that create dark smoke or nuisance to local residents. You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Protection Unit (www.hillingdon.gov.uk/noise Tel. 01895 250155) or to seek prior approval under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act if you anticipate any difficulty in carrying out construction other than within the normal working hours set out in (A) above, and by means that would minimise disturbance to adjoining premises. 3 3. I47 D Damage to Verge - For Council Roads: The Council will recover from the applicant the cost of highway and footway repairs, including damage to grass verges. Care should be taken during the building works hereby approved to ensure no damage occurs to the verge or footpaths during construction. Vehicles delivering materials to this development shall not override or cause damage to the public footway. Any damage will require to be made good to the satisfaction of the Council and at the applicant's expense. For further information and advice contact - Highways Maintenance Operations, Central Depot - Block K, Harlington Road Depot, 128 Harlington Road, Hillingdon, Middlesex, UB3 3EU (Tel: 01895 277524). For Private Roads: Care should be taken during the building works hereby approved to ensure no damage occurs to the verge of footpaths on private roads during construction. Vehicles delivering materials to this development shall not override or cause damage to a private road and where possible alternative routes should be taken to avoid private roads. The applicant may be required to make good any damage caused. 4. I52 C Compulsory Informative (1) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act (1998) (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). I53 C Compulsory Informative (2) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020) set out below, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and to all relevant material considerations, including The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London consolidated with Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 7 alterations since 2011 and national guidance. DM3 Determining development proposals DMHB 1 Heritage Assets DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 18 Private Outdoor Amenity Space DMHB 5 Areas of Special Local Character DMHB 6 Gatehill Farm Estate and Copse Wood Estate Areas of Special Local Character DMHD 1 Alterations and Extensions to Residential Dwellings DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP D4 (2021) Delivering good design LPP D6 (2021) Housing quality and standards LPP HC1 (2021) Heritage conservation and growth D Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 7 AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History 26564/79/0534 6 Woodgate Crescent Northwood Extension to form games room and kitchen addition. Decision: 04-05-1979 Approved Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 7 AAppendix 3: List of Relevant Planning Policies The following Local Plan Policies are considered relevant to the application:- Part 1 Policies: PT1.BE1 (2012) Built Environment PT1.HE1 (2012) Heritage Part 2 Policies: DMHB 1 Heritage Assets DMHB 5 Areas of Special Local Character DMHB 6 Gatehill Farm Estate and Copse Wood Estate Areas of Special Local Character DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 18 Private Outdoor Amenity Space DMHD 1 Alterations and Extensions to Residential Dwellings DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP D6 (2021) Housing quality and standards LPP D4 (2021) Delivering good design LPP HC1 (2021) Heritage conservation and growth DM3 Determining development proposals Delegated - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7 of 7

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Haydon Richardson 52803/APP/2025/1680 Date Application Valid: 17/06/2025 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 15/07/26 Application Type: Full Ward: Hayes Applicant: Mr Richard Conroy Site Address: Hayes Tuition Centre - 52 Coldharbour Lane Proposal: Demolition of existing detached building and erection of 4 storey mixed use building comprising 9 residential units and Restaurant (Class E) with associated works and landscaping. 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 – 6th October 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. Residential Parking Permits restriction (excluding Blue Badge holders) B) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in preparing the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed. C) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreement and conditions of approval. D) That, if the Legal Agreement has no t 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 Highway Safety and Employment). The scheme therefore conflicts with Policies DMT 1, DMT 2, DMT 4, DMT 5, and DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020); the adopted Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2014); and Policies T2, T3, T4, E11 and 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. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Planning permission is sought for demolition of existing detached building and erection of 4 storey mixed use building comprising 9 residential units and restaurant (Class E) with associated works and landscaping. 1.2 Planning permission has previously been approved for the redevelopment of the site (52803/APP/2023/1188) to provide 5 new residential units through the conversion of the first floor and various extensions to the existing building. This consent carries significant weigh in the determination of this planning application given that it sets position on design, land use and highway impacts. 1.3 The proposal results in a minor departure from local planning policy through the loss of the former tuition centre us e. However, officers consider that this policy conflict attracts limited weight in the overall planning balance. The building has remained vacant since the Covid-19 pandemic and there is no realistic prospect of its reoccupation as a tuition centre. Significant changes in learning and working patterns, including the increased prevalence of online learning and remote working, have reduced dema nd for such accommodation. Furthermore, the physical condition of the existing building presents additional challenges to its re -use. Collectively, these factors are material considerations which ar e afforded reasonable weight in the assessment. 1.4 Importantly, the proposal would not result in the loss of town centre floorspace. The ground floor would remain in an active commercial use through the provision of flexible Class E accommodation, thereby maintaining and enhancing the site's contribution t o the function and vitality of Hayes Town Centre. Officers consider that the propos ed active frontage, together with areas of seating and improved public realm treatment, would provide a more positive relationship with the surrounding street scene than the existing vacant building and would deliver benefits which would be unlikely to arise should the site remain in its previous educational use. 1.5 The design of the scheme has evolved positively during the course of the application. Officers are satisfied that the revised proposals represent a marked improvement over the original submission and would provide an acceptable form of development. Any rem aining detailed design matters, including final materials and architectural detailing, can be appropriately secured through planning conditions. 1.6 The application has been supported by technical assessments demonstrating that the development would not give rise to unacceptable impacts in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy, daylight, sunlight or overshadowing. Future occupiers would benefit from a high standard of residential accommodation and suitable living conditions. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 1.7 The Council's Highway Authority has reviewed the proposal and raises no objection. The site's highly sustainable town centre location and the car -lite nature of the development are considered acceptable. Appropriate mitigation, including the restriction of future occupiers from obtaining parking permits within local Controlled Parking Zones, would be secured through a Section 106 Agreement. 1.8 Substantial weight is afforded to the delivery of new housing, particularly in circumstances where the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five - year housing land supply. Officers also attach signific ant weight to the retention and enhancement of an active commercial use at ground floor level, which would support the continued vitality and viability of Hayes Town Centre and enable the residential development to come forward. 1.9 Having regard to the development plan, the National Planning Policy Framework 2026, and all other material consideratio ns, officers conclude that the benefits of the proposal, including the delivery of new homes, the provision of flexible Class E floorspace, the enhancement of the town centre environment and the productive re-use of a long-vacant site, clearly outweigh the limited harm arising from the loss of the former tuition centre use. In the absence of any evidence of demonstrable harm that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh these benefits, the application is recommended for approval, sub ject to the conditions set out in this report and the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site is known as 52 Coldhar bour Lane. It is located at the corner of Coldharbour Lane and Fairdale Gardens and is occupied by a part two storey, part single storey building with a flat roof. The ground floor is in use as a tuition centre and the first floor as A2 Use Class. 2.2 The adjacent parade of shops to the north forms a terrace over three storeys with pitched roof with residential units at the upper levels. The frontage of the application building is set forward of the adjacent building frontage of the properties on Coldharbour Lane. The Fairdale Gardens frontage is slightly forward of the building line of the dwellings on Fairdale Gardens. 2.3 The site is located within the designated Hayes Town Shopping Centre and within the designated secondary shopping area. The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 4. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: View from Coldharbour Lane Figure 3: View from Fairdale Gardens Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4: View from junction of Fairdale Gardens and Coldharbour Lane Figure 5: View between the site and nearest neighbour 1 Fairdale Gardens Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 6: View from Alleyway between the site 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for demoli tion of existing detached building and erection of 4 storey mixed use building comprising 9 residential units and Restaurant (Class E) with associated works and landscaping Figure 7: Existing Block Plan (please note – larger version of plan(s) can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 8: Existing South and West Elevations Figure 9: Existing North and East Elevations Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 10: Existing Ground Floor Plan Figure 11: Existing First Floor Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 12: Proposed Block Plan Figure 13: Proposed Ground Floor Plan Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 14: Proposed Front and Rear Elevations Figure 15: Proposed Side Elevations Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 It should be noted that the site has also been subject to complex enforcement investigations. It is understood that any unlawful use of the building has ceased. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to t he 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 unresolve d 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 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. 5.4 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 site notice was placed at the site, neighbouring properties were consulted on the application by letter. Following the submission of revised plans a re- Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press consultation was undertaken on 17-04- 26 and expired on 09-05-26. During the course of the application a petition aga inst the proposal was received containing 72 signatures. In addition 15 individual objections were received from members of the public and 1 representation from a local ward councillor who also raised concerns with the proposal. 6.2 Direct internal and external consultati ons were also issued. Representations received in response to those consultations are summarised in Table s 1 and 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of External Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response Valid petition containing 72 signatures The reduction in the total number of car parking spaces caused by the Council’s decision to close and sell the civic hall car park. Discussed at paragraph 7.51 & 7.52 of this report. The effects on residents of Fairdale Gardens because of evening parking by restaurant users, visitors to the tuition centre, any flat occupants with cars bearing in mind that the parking zone operates only until 5pm. Discussed at paragraph 7.52 of this report. Increase in unauthorised car parking at the entrance to Fairdale Gardens and the blocking of the rear access to the shops and the funeral directors. This would be a matter for parking enforcement . 15 public representations of objection have been received. Unsafe and unauthorised parking which will increase. The development is proposed to be car free and unsafe parking is a matter for parking enforcement. Road safety concerns Noted Sewage and drainage issues Discussed at paragraph 7.59 of this report. Noise increase from the development and also during construction. A construction management plan condition is recommended. Anti social and criminal behaviour hotspot. Noted but this is a matter for ASB and the police. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Overlooking of neighbouring properties. Discussed at paragraph 7.38 of this report. Property has been used as an unauthorised HMO. Although this does form part of the enforcement history, the existing property is vacant. The design of the development would compromise the character of the local area . The design has been revised, and this is addressed in paragraphs 7.18 - 7.27 of this report. Provision of a new gambling shop is harmful to the local area. The proposal does not include a new gambling shop. A local Ward Councillor made raised the following concerns in objection (summarised) Residents have already experienced significant disruption from non-residents parking in the road while visiting nearby shops. They also raise concerns about ongoing anti -social and criminal behaviour in the area. The representation requests that the committee consider the residential nature of the road and the need to protect residents' quality of life, arguing that the proposal could lead to further disturbance from construction activity and increased occupancy. These matters are noted and responded to in Section 7 of the committee report. Table 2: Summary of Internal Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Highways The Highway Authority accepts the reduced pedestrian visibility splay, as the shortfall is minor and, given the low traffic volumes and vehicle speeds on Fairdale Gardens, would not result in a severe highway safety impact. However, an objection is maintained as insufficient information has been provided in relation to cycle parking, including layout, dimensions, allocation of spaces, compliance with London Cycle Design Standards, Discussed at paragraph 7.51 to 7.55 of this report. Conditions are recommended that the Applicant has agreed to restricting occupants future access to the local PMS via a legal agreement. A Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press and provision for accessible and non-standard cycles. The proposed vertical hanging system is also not considered suitable for residential use, with Sheffield stands preferred. In addition, the applicant has not confirmed that future occupiers would be exc luded from obtaining permits within the HY1 Resident Parking Management Scheme. Further details are therefore required. condition is also recommended to secure details of cycle parking. Access No objection subject to conditions pertaining to compliance with M4 standards . Discussed at paragraph 7.64 of this report and conditions recommended. Policy No objection subject to the submission of a revised CIL form. A revised CIL form has been submitted. Urban Design Overall, the proposal represents a well -considered redevelopment of an underutilised site, delivering a high -quality mixed-use scheme that makes efficient use of the land while responding positively to the surrounding townscape and High Street context. The development is broadly supported, with the remaining matters relating primarily to detailed design and operational considerations rather than any fundamental concerns with the scheme itself. A number of minor amendments and conditions are recommended to further enhance the development, including refinements to parking and bin collection arrangements, materials, accessibility, signage, ventilation, cycle parking, boundary treatments, balcony privacy, and servicing arrangements, all of which would improve the functionality, appearance and long -term usability of the proposal without significantly altering its overall design or acceptability. Discussed at paragraph 7.18 to 7.27 of this report and conditions recommended where required. Contamination No objection subject to a condition pertaining to the submission of further detailed contamination, remediation and verification details. Discussed at paragraph 7.60 of this report and conditions recommended. Economic Development A contribution towards employment and construction skills training should be secured. In accordance with the Councils SPD the development is not of a scale to require this Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press contribution to be secured. Waste Strategy Bin stores should be large enough to house 1x 1100L refuse, 1x 1100L recycling and 1x 140L food waste bin each. Path between bin stores and collection point should avoid parked cars, be at least 2 m wide and contain a dropped kerb at the collection point. Noted, a waste management plan condition is recommended. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development Land Use 7.1 The application seeks the demolition of an existing mixed-use building comprising a ground floor Class F1 use and a first-floor Class E use, and its replacement with a mixed-use development comprising Class E floorspace at ground floor level and residential accommodation (Use Class C3) above. 7.2 The site is located within a designat ed District Centre where development proposals are expected to maintain and enh ance the vitality and viability of the centre through the provision of town centre uses and a mix of complementary activities. Local Plan Part 2 Policy DMTC 1 supports town centre development where proposals contribute positively to the function, vitality and viability of centres, whilst Policy DMTC 4 seeks to retain appropriate town centre and community uses that serve local residents. 7.3 The existing Class F1 use constitutes a main town centre use and also performs a community function. Furthermore, the safeguarding of community facilities is supported through the Community Infrastructure section of the Local Plan Part 2, which recognises the importance of such fa cilities in meeting the needs of local communities. At the strategic level, Policy S1 of the (2021) seeks to protect social infrastructure and states that the loss of social infrastructure should only normally be permitted where there is replacement provision or where the loss forms part of a wider transformation of service delivery. The policy also recognises that social infrastructure should be located in accessible locations including town centres. 7.4 Application reference 52803/APP/2023/ 1188 approved 8 February 2024 stated within its accompanying report that “The ground floor is in use as a tuition centre and the first floor as A2 Use Class.” Use Class A2 was abolished on 1 September 2020 as part of the Government's reforms to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order in England and incorporated within Use Class E. As such it is accepted that both Use Class E and F1 exist on site at present. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.5 Notwithstanding the above policy position, the acceptability of the loss of the existing Class F1 floorspace must be assessed in the context of the specific circumstances of the site and proposal . In this regard, the existing F1 accommodation comprises a relatively limited proportion of the building and would be replaced by an active ground floor Class E unit, of which the site does not presently provide, the use itself falls within the definition of a main town centre use and would continue to contribute towards the vitality, viability and economic function of the District Centre. The pr oposal would therefore retain an active commercial frontage and would not result in the introduction of a wholly residential development that would undermine the role and function of the centre. Furthermore, the nature of the design of community use facilities such as tuition centres are predominantly non active in town centre locations in order to increase the privacy of classrooms and prevent di straction created by pedestrian footfall, servicing and general town centre activity. 7.6 The use of the building ceased in 2020 because of the Covid-19 pandemic which resulted in tuition lessons being moved to an online platform. Tuition lessons have not re -commenced on site and despite marketing there has been no interest in taking on the building to provide se rvices within the current use classes and operations. It is accepted that this would partly be down to the change in the delivery of tuition and the increase in home learning and working from home but also the existing condition of the building which has fallen into a dilapidated state with a significant failing in the roof structure being recorded last year. 7.7 There is no evidence that there is a deficie ncy of F1 space within the local area, or evidence that the existing ground fl oor use of the building is viable to be retained. In essence a new owner wou ld need to weigh up the taking on the purchasing cost of acquiring the building, the significant costs of repair work and the future operating costs associated with occupying the building, against the potential yield whilst working within the limitations of Class F1. The lack of interest in the building is broadly set out within the Planning Statement. 7.8 Having regard to the scale of the existing F1 use being limited to ground floor, the continued provision of active ground floor Class E floorspace, the site's location within a District Centre, and the significant public benefit arising from the delivery of additional housing in a highly accessible location, it is considered that, on balance, the proposal would not materially prejudice the overall vitality and viability of the centre or result in an unacceptable reduction in local service provision. The loss of the Class F1 floorspace is therefore considered acceptable in this instance and the proposal is judged to accord with the objectives of Policies DMTC 1 and DMTC 4 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020), Policy S1 of the London Plan (2021) and the NPPF (2026) Provision of new housing 7.9 There is a clear policy presumption in favour of redeveloping under-utilised land and buildings on brownfield sites to support new housing and retail developments, especially within existing built-up areas that have better supporting infrastructure Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press and higher levels of public transport (i n this instance a PTAL of 4). Recognising that the site is under -utilised and sustainably located within a designated Local Parade, it is considered that the principle of residential-led redevelopment (which re-provides a Class E ground floor frontage ) is acceptable in principle, in accordance with the general policy position in the NPPF, the London Plan and Hillingdon Local Plan, which require local planning authorities to promote residential developments in suitable locations and make the most efficient use of previously developed land 7.10 It is acknowledged that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with the most recent position statement published on 01/04/26 confirming a 2.5 -year supply. In these circumstances, substantial weight is afforded to the need to boost housing delivery and increase the supply of homes, having regard to the relevant housing supply provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026). Policy S3 of the NPPF 2026 sets out the requirement for the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the replacement of the tilted balance which formed part of the now superseded NPPF 2024. 7.11 The application site is located within the established urban area of Hayes and therefore constitutes development within a settlement for the purposes of Policy S4 of the NPPF 2026. Policy S4 states that development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by adverse impacts identified within other parts of the development plan. 7.12 In assessing the proposal against the exceptions identified within Policy S4(2), it is noted that the development would not result in the loss of safeguarded or allocated land identified within the development plan, nor would it affect recreational land, Local Green Space, areas of particular importance for biodiversity or geodiversity, Protected Landscapes, or development within a residential curtilage. Furthermore, the pr oposal would not give rise to the loss of cemetery land, burial grounds, or la nd used for water storage or flood risk management. 7.13 The development must also be considered against those national decision- making policies which indicate that permission should be refused in specific circumstances. In this regard, the proposal has been assessed against all relevant material considerations, including design, residential amenity, transport impacts, environmental effects, and other site -specific constraints. Subject to compliance with these considerations, there is no conflict with any national policy which directs refusal. 7.14 The proposal would bring benefits associated with the continued and improved town centre use (Use Class E) and a ground level active frontage contributing to the vitality and functionality of the local area. Moreover, the addition of new housing at a time where the Council is unable to demonstrate a supply to meet minimum demand the provision of new hous ing to meet this need is afforded substantial weight. Having regard to Policy S4, officers consider that the identified Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press benefits are not substantially outweighed by any adverse effects arising from the proposal. The principle of development is therefore considered acceptable and consistent with the presumption in favour of development within settlements set out in the NPPF 2026. 7.15 In terms of Affordable Housing, the development comprises of 9 residential units therefore does not meet the threshold for which affordable housing should be secured Accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission is granted, subject to the proposed conditions. Housing Mix 7.16 Policy H10 of the London Plan (Housing size mix) states that schemes should generally consist of a range of unit sizes, having regard to the requirement to deliver mixed and inclusive neighbourhoods , the need to provide a range of unit types at different price points, the mix of uses, the range of tenures, the nature and location of the site, PTAL, the need for additional family housing and the role of one and two -bed units in freeing up existing housing by providing an alternative to conversions and subdivisions, to optimise a site's potential. Policy DMH2 of the Local Plan seeks a mix of units that reflects the latest information on need. The 20 25 Strategic Housing Market Assessment identifies an overwhelming need for family-sized homes. 7.17 The proposed development would comprise of 5 x 1 bed and 4 x 2 bed units on the upper floors of the new building. Whil e there is an underlying need for family sized units evidenced within the Councils Strategic Housing Marketing Assessment (SHMA) and Policy DMH 2 of the Local Plan Part Two and London Plan advocate for higher density residential developments within town centre and sustainable locations. Owing the sites PTAL rating of 4 and the sites designation within the secondary shopping area this site is in a sustainable location and therefore a higher density development is acceptable. Higher density schemes on small sites would mainly consist of smaller units. The unit mix proposed consists of 1 & 2 bed units which in this location is considered acceptable. Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.18 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020) re-emphasises the importance of good design in new development by requiring all new buildings to be designed to the highest standards, which incorporate principles of good design. 7.19 Policy DMHB 12 re-emphasises the ne ed for new development to be well integrated with the surrounding area and provides design criteria as to how this would be achieved. The proposal is an over development of the site that would result in a cramped form of development. 7.20 When considering design options, regard should be had to Policy GG2 and SD1 of the London Plan, which requires propos als to make the most effective use of land to help boroughs achieve their annual housing targets, which often requires more intensive development in sustainable locations. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.21 The existing building is two stories in height and forms the termination of the existing terraced block which extends 3 stories in height fronting Coldharbour Lane. The building is characterised by a flat roof with a brick and render external finish. The building extends forward to meet the pavement at the front but set away from the public highway to the side which creates a location for off street parking. As can be seen in figure s 4,5 and 6 the existing building pr ovides little, if any positive architectural value to the character of the area. Whilst not shown in the site photos, the roof has at least partia lly collapsed requiring significant repair along with other parts of the building making it unsafe for use. 7.22 The adjoining buildings extend up to three stories; the corner building opposite also extends to three stories , however towards the rear of the site is Fairdale Gardens which comprises of two storey residential properties. 7.23 In reviewing the initial set of drawings officers set out several design concerns to the Applicant. Subsequently a set of revised drawings which are shown above, have been submitted and reviewed by officers. Whilst they do not address all the concerns raised during the initial review by the Urban Design Officer, the revised submission is considered to present an improved design and to a degree where a recommendation for approval can be made to committee. The remaining design points relate to minor alterations and the fundamental points regarding bulk, mass, roof form and façade design have been positively responded to. 7.24 Based on the limited contribution the existing building makes to the character and appearance of the area and its current state of disrepair, there is no objection to the demolition of the existing building. 7.25 The replacement building would extend up to 4 stories in height and would occupy almost the entire area of the site. The height would step down towards the rear of the site creating the impression of a transition in height between the two storey properties on Fairdale Gardens and the four storey tallest point of the proposed building. The proposed building would be set in from the pavement around the entire extent of the site with a deeper set in applied to the section of the building which adjoins the boundary with 1 Fairdale Gardens. 7.26 The transition and step in heights breaks up the bulk and massing of the building along with the provision of balconies, various openings across the facades and the transition of materials between t he ground floor middle two floors and the upper floor. Furthermore, according to the elevations, the proposed building would not extend beyond the ridgeline of the neighbouring terrace building. As such the proposed building in terms of scale, bulk, massing and design is acceptable and would result in an enhancement to the character of the area particularly when compared to the existing building. 7.27 Overall, the proposed development is considered to cause no harm to character and appearance of the area subject to conditions. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Residential Amenity Daylight and Sunlight 7.28 The application site is bounded by a three-storey block comprising of commercial floorspace and frontage at ground floor level and residential within the upper floor levels. To the rear is No.1 Fairdale Gardens which is a two -storey residential property and opposite the site both to the south and east are three storey mixed use buildings. The Applicant has submitted a daylight and sunlight report, The report follows BRE 209 (2022) guidance and considers the effects on neighbouring properties in terms of daylight, sunlight, and overshadowing, as well as the quality of daylight and sunlight within the proposed flats. No.84 Coldharbour Lane 7.29 Fourteen windows facing the development were assessed. The findings indicate that the overall impact on this property is negligible, although one first -floor side window (Window 05) is predicted to experience a noticeable reduction in daylight. Its Vertical Sky Component (VSC) would decrease from 25.8% to 15.1%, representing the most significant change among all assessed properties. However, the report notes that this window already fell below the BRE's ideal 27% daylight benchmark before development and may not serve a habitable room. Apart from this single window, all othe r windows experience only minor changes in daylight levels. 7.30 In relation to sunlight, almost all windows continue to meet BRE recommendations for both annual and winter sunlight hours. The same side window (Window 05) falls slightly short of the recommended sunlight targets, receiving approximately 315 annual sunlight hours and 71 winter sunlight hours, compared with BRE benchmarks of 371.5 and 74.3 hours respectively. Nevertheless, the remaining windows pass the assessment comfortably. 7.31 The rear garden was also assessed for overshadowing. The study found that more than 50% of the garden would continue to receive at least two hours of sunlight on 21 March, with approximately 2.6 hours of sunlight available, satisfying BRE guidance. No.86 Coldharbour Lane 7.32 Thirteen windows were assessed at this neighbouring property. The report finds that the proposed development would have a minor to negligible impact on daylight levels. Small reductions are noted in a few ground-floor rear windows, but the changes are limited, generally less than one percentage point of VSC. Most windows retain VSC values above the BRE guideline, and upper -floor windows show virtually no change between existing and proposed conditions. 7.33 Sunlight performance remains strong, with all assessed windows achieving the BRE-recommended annual and winter sunlight targets after development. The report therefore concludes that the occupants of No. 86 Coldharbour Lane will Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press continue to enjoy adequate levels of natural light, and no significant adverse effects are anticipated. No.1 Fairdale Gardens 7.34 The height of the building has been staggered so that it steps down towards the two-storey height of No.1 Fairdale. The site boundary extends up to the midway point of the flank wall facing the rear of the application site therefore the proposal would not extend beyond the 45-degree line of sight drawn from the centreline of any rear facing habitable room windows. There is 1 upper floor level side facing window; however, the planning history in dicates that this window serves a bathroom. window serves a bathroom. In accordance with the Local Plan guidance bathrooms are not included within the definition of habitable rooms therefore the outlook daylight and sunlight to this window does not need to be safeguarded. 7.35 Ten windows were assessed at No. 1 Fairdale Gardens. The assessment concludes that the proposal will have a negligible effect on daylight levels. Most windows experience either no measurable change or only very slight reductions. The greatest impact is observed at one side -facing window where the VSC falls from 17.2% to 16.2%, a change that is considered minor and not significant in planning terms. All other windows remain largely unaffected. 7.36 The sunlight assessment shows that every assessed window exceeds the recommended annual and winter sunlight standards following completion of the development. The report therefore concludes that the development would not materially affect sunlight availability to the property. 7.37 The neighbouring garden was assessed for overshadowing and performs particularly well, receiving approximately 6.7 hours of sunlight on 21 March. This substantially exceeds the BRE requirement of two hours and demonstrates that the garden would continue to receive generous levels of sunlight after the development is completed. 7.38 The public consultation has drawn an objection which references the potential overlooking concerns. It is presumed that these concerns relate to the potential overlooking of the units facing No.1 Fairdale Gardens and in particular the views from the balconies which face onto this property. The property is set back within its plot and is tilted slightly to the east which means that the majority of the views from the windows and balconies would fa ce onto the flank elevation of the dwelling. The depth of the balconies is restricted to 1.5 metre and have a privacy screen which restricts views north and northeast significantly. No.1 does feature windows within the upper floor of the side elevation however these do not serve habitable rooms therefore in accordance with DMHB 11 are not required to be safeguarded. The proposed development would therefore not result in any overlooking or privacy concerns. A condition to secure the details of the privacy screens is to be imposed. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press No.50 Coldharbour Lane 7.39 Eleven windows facing the proposed development were assessed. The report identifies a negligible impact on daylight levels across the building. VSC reductions are generally between 0% and 0.2%, meaning there is virtually no perceptible difference in the amount of daylight reaching the property after development. Several windows already sit just below the BRE's preferred 27% threshold, but the proposal has little influence on these baseline conditions. 7.40 The annual and winter sunlight assessment s show that all windows continue to meet BRE recommendations. As a result, the report concludes that the proposed additional storeys at No. 52 Coldharbour Lane will not adversely affect daylight or sunlight conditions for occupants of No. 50 Coldharbour Lane. Nos. 45,47,49 and 51 Coldharbour Lane 7.41 Twenty-four windows across these neighbouring properties were assessed. The findings show a negligible impact on daylight levels, with VSC reductions generally limited to between 0% and 0.4%. All assessed windows continue to achieve VSC values above the BRE guideline, indicating very limited loss of daylight as a result of the proposed development. 7.42 The sunlight assessment demonstrates that every assessed window comfortably meets the recommended annual and winter sunlight standards. No significant loss of sunlight is predicted at any floor leve l, and the report concludes that residents of these properties would experience no material deterioration in light conditions following completion of the scheme. Noise 7.43 The Applicant has submitted Noise Impact Assessment which concludes that, although the site at 52 Coldharbour Lane is exposed to noise from surrounding road traffic and commercial activities, the proposed mixed-use redevelopment can provide an acceptable living environment for future residents. A 24 -hour noise survey identified the front elevation as being more exposed to noise than the rear; however, detailed acoustic calculations demonstrate that the development can achieve the internal noise standards set out in BS8233:2014, ProPG Planning and Noise Guidance and WHO recommendations through the use of appropriate mitigation measures. These measures include acoustically rated glazing, acoustic background ventilation systems and enhanced sound insulation within the building fabric. The report also assesses potential noise transfer from the proposed ground -floor commercial units and recommends an enhanced airborne sound insulation standard of DnT,w + Ctr 55dB between the commercial and residential elements. Subject to the implementation of these measures, the assessment concludes that future occupants will experience acceptable internal noise levels. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Living Conditions Internal 7.44 The proposed development would provide 9 new residential units comprising of 5 x 1 bed and 4 x 2 bed units. In accordance with the London Plan 1 bed units should measure 50 sqm and 2 bed units should measure 70 sqm. The proposed plans illustrate conformity with these standards. 7.45 In terms of outlook, daylight and sunli ght, 5 out of the 9 units are single aspect. Although the submission alludes to 7 out of 9 being dual aspect two of the units feature a window on the side elevation which serves a bathroom and this would be obscurely glazed and serve a non-habitable room. As such o fficers consider there to be 5 dual aspect and 4 single aspect units. Whilst this is a high proportion of the overall number of units (almost 50%) it should be noted that the application has been assessed having regard to the Mayor of London's recent emergency housebuilding measures and the associated Support for Housebuilding London Plan Guidance (LPG), which were introduced in response to the significant decline in housing delivery across the capital. The measures are intended to improve development viability, increase housing output and support the delivery of affordable homes through a temporary relaxation of certain design requirements that have been identified as constraining density and scheme viability. 7.46 Of relevance to this proposal are the amendments to housing design guidance relating to dual -aspect dwellings, dwellings served by a single core, and other standards that have historically limited development capacity. The revised guidance moves away from the rigid application of a presumption in favour of dual- aspect units and recognises that, in appropriate circumstances, a greater proportion of single -aspect homes may be acceptable where this assists in optimising site capacity and improving scheme viability. 7.47 In this case, whilst the development includes single-aspect dwellings, officers are satisfied that these units achieve appropri ate residential quality having regard to their orientation, outlook, access to daylight, and ventilation arrangements. The scheme has therefore been assessed against the objectives of the London Plan and the Mayor's Support for Housebuilding LPG, which recognises that a balanced approach to design standards may be necessary to support housing delivery whilst maintaining acceptable living conditions for future occupiers. 7.48 The submitted Daylight and Sunlight report also assessed the quality of daylight and sunlight within the nine proposed flats. A total of 23 habitable rooms were examined, including living rooms, kitchens and bedrooms. Every room achieved the minimum Target Daylight Factor required by BS EN 17037 and BRE guidance, resulting in a 100% pass rate. 7.49 All living rooms also satisfy the recommended sunlight criteria, achieving at least 27% annual probable sunlight hours an d between 6% and 8% winter sunlight hours. The assessment concludes that future residents will benefit from good standards of natural light throughout the development. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press External 7.50 In accordance with the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 Policy DMHB 18, 1 bed units should be provided with a minimum of 20sqm and 2 bed units should be provided with 25sqm of private amenity space. Th e proposed plans illustrate that each of the units would be provided with private amenity space in the form of balconies or te rraces. 64.83 sqm would be provided across the entire development resulting in a shortfall of 135.17 sqm. It should be noted that the London Plan requires a minimum of 53sqm. While the development does not conform with the Local Plan requirements it would conform with the London Plan. In addition, it is not uncommon for residential developments wi thin town centre or highly urban locations to feature more modest levels of amenity space. There are parks within close proximity to the site such as Lake Farm Country Park and Botwell Leisure Centre which provide outdoor public space for the use of local residents. Given the context of the site, the compliance with the London Plan and local public open spaces the proposal is considered to provide adequate amenity space for future occupants. Highways and Parking 7.51 Encouraging higher densities in appropriate locations means more people are within walking distance of local amenities and transport connections, which in turn reduces the need for private car ownership and supports the transition to a more sustainable cit y. Indeed, other than the provision of 1 no disabled car parking spaces to the rear of the site, the development would be ‘car -free’ which is supported by the site’s PTAL 4 rating and location within a Local Parade and proximity to nearby parks and recreational facilities. 7.52 There are parking restrictions within the immediat e vicinity, the parade itself is subject to pay and display bays and Fairdale Gardens features double yellow lines around the opening of road where it meets the junction with Coldharbour Lane and also a residents parking permit restriction. To ensure that the development is car free except the 1 accessible space proposed, the Applicant has agreed to enter into a legal agreement to restrict future occ upiers from joining the local parking management schemes. It is noted within the objections received during the public consultation that there is a concern raised regarding the potential for parking overspill onto the local highway network as the residential parking permit restrictions on surrounding roads are only enforceable between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday. This is accepted by officers, however the proposed unit mix comprises of smaller units (1 and 2 bed units) in a highly sustainable area where according to the London Plan a car free development should be encouraged. As such a reason for refusal based on the under provision of car parking is unreasonable and could not be defended in the event of an appeal. 7.53 The servicing and delivery associated with the restaurant floor space at ground floor level would occur on street as it does for all other commercial units across the entirety of the parade. It is noted that some concerns regarding the management of serving associated with the ground floor restaurant has been Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press raised in response to the public consultation. However, there is adequate and designated loading bays across the town centre and in the immediate vicinity. If commercial vehicles are choosing not to use these areas or they are obstructed by other non -servicing related vehicles then th is would be a matter for parking enforcement. 7.54 Cycle storage is illustrated within the ground floor area adjacent to the bin store. The proposal has been reviewed by the Local Highway Authority who have raised some concerns with the cycle parking des ign. As part of the Mayor of London’s special measures to boost house building there has also been a relaxation of design and cycle parking standards. This means that where residential developments can be brought forward, in particular those on brownfield sites, it is accepted that a flexible approach should be taken to cycle parking quantum and / or design. In this case Officers are confident that a scheme can be delivered along with cycle parking which would be required to absorb the car lite nature of the development. The final design details sh all be secured by way of condition, and this is appropriate as the development would be able to facilitate adequate levels of cycle parking within the buil ding. Officers do not consider a reason for refusal relating to the lack of acceptable cycle pa rking details at this stage as robust particularly in light of the Mayor’s special measures. 7.55 Due to the nature of the development, its location within a busy urban and commercial area and the sites constraints a full detailed construction management plan shall be secured by way of condition, and this shall be discharged prior to the commencement of the development. Landscaping 7.56 The landscaping proposed includes green roofs, green walls and planting at roof level. Indicative planting details are provided within the submitted Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan which are broadly considered to be acceptable. A full hard and soft landscaping scheme including a schedule of implementation and maintenance is recommended to be secured by condition in the event of an approval. Biodiversity Net Gain 7.57 In England, biodiversity net gain is required under a statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by the Environment Act 2021). This statutory framework is referred to as 'biodiversity net gain' in Planning Practice Guidance to distinguish it from other or more general biodiversity gains. Under the statutory framework for biodiversity net gain, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the co ndition that the biodiversity gain objective is met ("the biodiversity gain condition"). This objective is for development to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre- development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.58 The development would be occurring on previously developed land and no trees or hedgerows would be affected. Therefor e, the development would not exceed the de minimis threshold and is considered BNG exempt and a biodiversity gain plan is not required. Flood Risk and Drainage 7.59 The application site is located within Flood Zone 1 and is entirely covered by buildings and hardstanding. There is no history of fluvial or pluvial flooding within this area therefore the dev elopment would not give rise to an increase in flood risk. The proposal does incorporate a green roof which would form part of a SUDs strategy to improvement sustainable urban drainage and move water generated by the development, including surface wat er runoff, away from the main sewer and rainwater drains. Although the pro posal does present an improvement, full SUDS details are to be secured by condition to ensure that a suite of mitigation and enhancement measures have been co nsidered and more specific details relating to the green roof are provided. Contamination 7.60 The site is identified as being at ri sk of possible land contamination and a consultation has been undertaken with the Council’s contamination specialist. In the absence of contamination report, in the event of approval it is recommended that a condition be imposed to secure a full contamination report which sets out the potential risk and appropriate mitigati on measures to address any identified contaminants. Subject to this condition the development is acceptable. Air Quality 7.61 The application site is located within the Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). However, the proposal relates to a minor scale residential development comprising nine residential units and includes only a single accessible car parking space. Given the limited scale of development, the low level of vehicle movements likely to be generated, and the absence of any significant traffic or emission- generating uses, the proposal is not considered likely to give rise to any material impacts on local air quality. 7.62 In accordance with the Council's pla nning guidance and the scale of the development proposed, the scheme is not considered to constitute a development for which a detailed Air Quality Assessment would be required. The development is not expected to result in a significant increase in trip generation, congestion, or associated pollutant emissions that woul d adversely affect local air quality conditions within the AQMA. 7.63 Accordingly, it is considered that t he proposed development would not have a significant effect on air quality and that sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate the acceptability of the proposal in air quality terms. As such, the submission of a standalone Air Quality Assessment is not considered necessary in this instance. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Accessibility 7.64 The proposed drawings provide an illustration of the design and character and the elevations. However, no details demonstrating level access have been provided at this stage. Furthermore, there is a requirement to provide additional information to demonstrate compliance with the relevant M4(2) accessibility standards. The submission has been reviewed by officers and subject to the conditions, is acceptable. Waste Management 7.65 The ground floor plan illustrates bin st ores to serve the residential dwellings and the ground floor commercial use. The proposed collection arrangement is for the bins to be moved by the building management team through the internal communal route and presented at the front boundary on Fairdale Gardens on collection days. They would then be returned to the internal store following collection. The containers shown on the revised ground- floor plan are wheeled communal waste containers. The precise number, capacities and allocation between residual waste, recycling and food waste can be agreed with the Council’s Waste Services team and secured through an appropriately worded refuse and recycling management condition. It is noted that this arrangement is the same as the ground floor plan approved under planning reference 52803/APP/2023/1188. Energy & Sustainability 7.66 At this stage the Application is not su pported by an Energy Strategy, however given the scale of the development does not breach the major threshold the higher levels of carbon savings do not need to be demonstrated at this stage. There is a building regulation required for the development to accord with the minimum 35% reduction in carbon emissions on site. Compliance with this standard will need to be evidenced during the building regulations phase of the construction is likely to be formed with sustainable construction methods and materials. 8 Other Matters Human Rights 8.1 The development has been assessed against the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and in particular Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the Act itself. This Act gives further effect to the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to the applicant's reasonable development rights and expectations which have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Equality 8.2 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the assessment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.3 The proposed development is CIL Liable. 8.4 The Council adopted its own Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on 1st August 2014. The proposal is CIL Liable and a CIL liability notice shall be issued upon commencement of the development. 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 i ssued 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 involves the optimisation of a brownfield site to deliver new housing. The scheme has been revised to ensure that the design of the building would contribute towards the character and ap pearance of the area. Officers do not consider the loss of the F1 space at ground floor level or the A2 space at first floor level as a matter for which an in -principal objection should be raised. The loss of the tuition space is regrettable however the provision of new Class E spaces within the Town Centre and secondary shopping area would contribute towards the vibrancy of these designated areas. Furthermore, the proposed development would provide a contribution towards local housing stock at a time where the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 -year supply of housing. As such the tilted balance is activated. While the objections and concerns raised within the petition are noted, in the absence of demonstrable harm, the application is recommended for approval. 9.2 Taking into consideration the above, the proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan, and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents taken into account in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Wai Hing Tse 1104/APP/2026/1 Date Application Valid: 19-01-26 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 30-10-26 Application Type: S73 Ward: BELMORE 2022 Applicant: Mrs Aqsa Malik Site Address: 14 YEADING LANE HAYES Proposal: Variation of Conditions 2 (approved plans), 3 (hours of use), 5 (Site Management Supervision Plan), 6 (Travel Plan) and 8 (parking arrangements) of planning permission ref. APP/R5510/A/12/2177686, dated 18 December 2012, for 'Change of use from Guest House B&B to Class D1 Non -residential Institution for a Women's Education and Recreation Institute, involving formation of a staff car parking area to the rear (Retrospective application)', to permit additional evening and Saturday hours, substitute the approved plans and update the site management, travel and parking arrangements, together with the imposition of an additional condition limiting the maximum occupancy to 30 persons at any one time. 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 – 6th October 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 under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary Conditions 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the appeal permission for the established Women’s Education and Recreation Institute. The proposal would extend the authorised weekday hours to 10:00 -19:00 and introduce Saturday opening between 11:00- 14:00, with no use on Sundays or Bank Holidays. An additional Condition 12 would be imposed to restrict the maximum occupancy of the use. Updated plans, site management, travel and parking management arrangements have been submitted. 1.2 The principle of the use is established, an d no external alterations are proposed. The main considerations are the effects of the extended hours on neighbouring residential amenity, noise, traffic, parking and highway safety. 1.3 A petition containing 27 valid signatures and 6 individual objections have been received, principally raising concerns regarding existing parking stress, congestion, highway and pedestrian safety, noise, disturbance and the effect on residential amenity. A total of 106 representations of support has also been received, citing the educational and community benefits of the institute and the improved accessibility that evening and Saturday classes would provide for working people, those with caring responsibilities, women, children and young people. 1.4 The Council’s Noise Officer considers it unlikel y that a significant adverse noise impact would arise. Following the submission of revised parking and cycle- storage details, a strengthened Parking Management Strategy and the agreed maximum occupancy condition, the Highway Authority has raised no objection and considers that the proposal would not result in material transport, parking or highway -safety impacts. Subject to conditions securing the proposed hours, maximum occupancy, approved parking and cycle -storage arrangements, and continued compliance with the updated management documents, the proposal is considered acceptable and planning permission is recommended for approval. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site is located on the eastern side of Yeading Lane comprising a 2-storey detached property with single storey elements to the front, sides and rear. The subject property is currently used as a women’s education and recreation institute named Al- Falah Institute. The frontage has been laid to hardstanding and provides off street parking Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press for two vehicles and there is a vehicular acce ss point and further car parking to the rear for six vehicles accessed via Dorchester Waye. 2.2 The immediate surroundings of the application site are residential in nature and characterised by 2-storey detached and semi-detached dwellinghouses whilst the nearby Uxbridge Road to the south of the application site is commercial in character and appearance. 2.3 The site is in the Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area. The site has a Public Transport Accessibility (PTAL) of 3. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Street View Image of the Application Property Figure 3: Existing Vehicular Access on Dorchester Waye to the Rear Parking Area Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for variation of Conditions 2 (Approved Plans), 3 (Hours of Use), 5 (Site Management Supervision Plan), 6 (Travel Plan) and 8 (P arking Arrangements) of planning permission ref. APP/R5510/A/12/2177686, dated 18-12-2012 for 'Change of use from Guest House B & B to Class D1 Non -residential Institutions for Women's Education and Recreation Institute (involving formation of staff car parking area to rear) (Retrospective application)' to include additional evening and Saturday hours. An additional condition would limit the maximum occupancy of the premises to 30 persons, including staff, pupils and other visitors, at any one time. 3.2 Condition 2 of the original planning permission states: - The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1353-01/FP, 1353-02/FP, 1353-03/FP, 1353-04/FP. 3.3 Condition 3 of the original planning permission states: - The use shall not take place other than between the hours of 1000-1630 Mondays - Fridays, and not at all on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays. 3.4 Condition 5 of the original planning permission states: - The use hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with the details of the Site Management Supervision Plan (o r those parts of the Plan capable of being implemented subject to other conditions herewith attached) dated 10 May 2011. Those parts of the Plan capable of implementation shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of the pr emises is occupied for the use hereby permitted. 3.5 Condition 6 of the original planning permission states: - The use hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with the details of the Travel Plan (or those parts of the Travel Plan capable of being implemented subject to other conditions herewith attached) dated July 2012. Those parts of the Travel Plan capable of implementation shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of the premises is occupied for the use hereby permitted. 3.6 Condition 8 of the original planning permission states: - Notwithstanding the details shown on approved drawing No. 1353-02/FP, within 2 calendar months of the date of this decision, full details of the parking arrangements, including surfacing of the rear parking area, incorporating sustainable urban drainage, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Within one calendar month of the date of approval of the details, they shall be implemented in their entirety and the parking areas shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3.7 The proposed extended hours of use would be Monday to Friday between 16:30 and 19:00 and on Saturdays between 11:00 and 14:00 only. To reflect the proposed extended hours of use, the amended Condition 3 would read as: - The use hereby permitted shall not take place other than between the hours of 1000 and 1900 on Mondays to Fridays and between 1100 and 1400 on Saturdays, and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays. 3.8 Revised Site Management Supervision Plan and Travel Plan have been submitted under this application to reflect the updated details associated with the extended hours of use. During the course of the application, a Complaints Handling Policy & Procedure, a Responses to Officer’s Comments, a Parking Management Strategy, and a revised Block Plan showing car parking location and tracking details have been submitted to provide further details regarding the site and parking management arrangements. Conditions 2, 5, 6 and 8 would be amended as follows: - The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers: PL- 01; PL- 02 Rev. P2 and shall thereafter be retained/maintained for as long as the development remains in existence. - The use hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with the details of the Site Management Supervision Plan (Reference: 14AFILH-2073) (or those parts of the Plan capable of being implemented subject to other conditions herewith attached) dated 30.12.2025, Complaints Handling Policy & Procedure (Policy No: CHP/01) dated 15.10.2025, and Responses to Officer’s Comments submitted on 05.06.2026. Those parts of the Plan capable of implementation shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of the premises is occupied for the use hereby permitted. - The use hereby permitted shall be carried out and thereafter operated in accordance with the Travel Plan prepared by John Russell Transport Planning Ltd dated 29 December 2025 and the Parking Management Strategy prepared by John Russell Transport Planning Ltd dated 1 September 2026. The measures contained within the approved documents shall be implemented and maintained for as long as the premises remain in the use hereby permitted. - The vehicle parking, access and manoeuvring arrangements shown on Drawing No. PL-02 Rev. P2 shall be retained and kept permanently available for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles associated with the use hereby permitted. The parking arrangements shal l be operated in accordance with the Parking Management Strategy prepared by John Russell Transport Planning Ltd dated 1 September 2026. The parking and manoeuvring areas shall not be used for any other purpose. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4: Existing Floor Plans (remain unchanged) (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Figure 5: Block 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 site has a long history of planning applications, the most relevant of which is planning application 1104/APP/2010/1568 which was allowed on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. This application granted planni ng permission for the change of use of the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press building from a Guest House B&B to Class D1 Non-residential Institutions for Women’s Education and Recreation Institute (involving formation of staff car parking area to the rear). 4.3 The scheme was initially refused by the Planning Committee on 13th December 2011 for the following reason: - "The application fails to demonstrate th at it would provide adequate vehicular access arrangements and an appropriate level of car parking provision for the proposed Women's Education and Recreation Institute. As such the application fails to ensure that the proposal would not result in conditions prejudicial to the free flow of traffic and safety of the highway network. It is therefore contrary to Policies R9, R10, AM7 and AM14 of the London Borough of Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007)." 4.4 On appeal the Inspector considered the issues of highway safety along Yeading Lane. The conclusions of the Inspector were that as the premises was to be used during off peak hours on weekdays only, and the limited level of car usage associated with the use (demonstrated through the submitted Travel Plan), that the proposal would be unlikely to result in any significant harm to highway safety in the vicinity. 4.5 It is important to note that the previous scheme did initially propose the use of the site at weekends, however the scheme was amended to exclude these days from the application given the concerns over parking and general amenity impacts. At weekends, as there were limited on street parking controls and local residents more likely to be at home, on street parking was considered to be at saturation point. 4.6 Another relevant previous applicat ion is the S73 planning application 1104/APP/2014/645 for variation of Condition 3 (Opening Hours) of Secretary of State's Appeal Decision ref: APP/R5510/A/12/2177686 dated 18/12/2012 (LBH Ref: 1104/APP/2010/1568 dated 14/12/2011) to allow the institution to be open on Saturday, and on Sundays during Ramadan (Change of use from Guest House B & B to Class D1 Non -residential Institution for Women's Educat ion and Recreation Institute (involving formation of staff car parking area to rear)). It sought to extend to opening hours to include 10am - 4.30pm on Saturday, and on Sundays during Ramadan. 4.7 The S73 application was refused on 17th June 2014 for the following reason: - “Insufficient information/evidence has been provided within the application to demonstrate that the proposed use on Saturdays and Sundays during Ramadan, and Saturdays throughout the year, would not give rise to unacceptable levels of on street parking and congestion within the surrounding area. In the absence of such evidence/information, the scheme is considered to have a prejudicial impact on the free flow of traffic within the surrounding area, cause undue congestion and be detrimental to general highway and pedestrian safety. The scheme would thereby be contrary to Policies R9, R10, AM7 and AM14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Saved UDP Policies (November 2012).” Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4.8 The refused S73 application was not accompanied with any information, such as Transport Assessment, Travel Plan or appropriate Management Plan, to demonstrate the highways and parking impact of the extended opening hours. 4.9 An important consideration with this curren t application is therefore whether sufficient information has been demonstrated to overcome the previous concerns with regards to the weekend use of the building and its impact on the surrounding highway during these times. 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 Policy 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 unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and (c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). 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, the 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 6.1 214 neighbouring properties were consulted on 19th January 2026. 6.2 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response A petition of 27 valid signatures has been received against the application. 1. Existing on-street parking is already heavily constrained, particularly during evenings and weekends. The existing parking conditions are acknowledged. The application is supported by an updated Travel Plan and Parking Management Strategy. The Highway Authority has reviewed the submitted evidence and raised no objection, concluding that the proposal would not result in unacceptable overspill parking or material parking impacts. Further assessment on parking impact is provided between paragraphs 7. 22 to 7.33 below. 2. The extended hours would increase vehicle movements, overspill parking and congestion and could obstruct residents’ parking and access. Attendance would be pre- booked and controlled, on-site parking would be pre-arranged and managed, and sustainable travel and car-sharing would be promoted by the submitted Travel Plan. The Highway Authority considers that the modest extension of hours would not materially intensify activity or adversely affect the highway network. Further assessment on parking impact is provided between paragraphs 7.22 to 7.33 below. 3. Existing parking, pavement parking, nearby commercial uses, HMOs and vehicles associated with a local motor-repair business already place pressure on Yeading Lane. Existing parking demand generated by other properties and businesses is noted. The application must be assessed on its own likely impacts. The submitted evidence and Highway Authority response indicate that the proposed variation would not cause unacceptable additional parking or congestion. Further assessment on parking impact Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press is provided between paragraphs 7.22 to 7.33 below. 4. The road layout, bend, vehicle speeds and restricted visibility raise highway and pedestrian- safety concerns, particularly for children, older people and disabled people. The Highway Authority has considered the existing access, local highway conditions and has raised no objection. No alteration to the access is proposed, and the variation is not expected to result in a material highway or pedestrian- safety impact. Further assessment on highway safety impact is provided between paragraphs 7.22 to 7.33 below. 5. Additional evening and weekend activity would cause noise, disturbance and harm to residential amenity. The proposed weekday use would cease by 19:00 and Saturday use by 14:00. Activities would be primarily educational, passive and contained within the building. The Noise Officer considers it unlikely that a significant adverse noise impact would arise. Comp liance with the submitted management measures would be secured by Condition 5. Further assessment on amenity impact is provided between paragraphs 7.10 to 7.21 below. 6. The previous refusal of weekend opening should be maintained, and concerns are raised regarding alleged unauthorised weekend use. The previous Section 73 application was refused because insufficient transport and parking evidence had been submitted. The current application is supported by updated technical and management information and has received no objection from the Highway Auth ority. Any alleged breach of the existing permission is a separate enforcement matter and does not prevent determination of this application on its planning merits. Further consideration to the previous S73 application is Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press provided between paragraphs 7.24 to 7.25. 6 public representations of objection have been received. 1. The proposal would worsen existing parking pressure and reduce parking availability for residents and their visitors. The concern is acknowledged. The submitted Travel Plan records that 22% of journeys were made by a car driver. Parking would be limited, pre- arranged and managed, and the Highway Authority has raised no objection on parking grounds. Further assessment on parking impact is provided between paragraphs 7.22 to 7.33 below. 2. Additional evening and Saturday arrivals and departures would increase traffic, congestion and risks to highway and pedestrian safety. Arrivals and departures would be controlled through pre- booking, limited class sizes and on-site supervision. The Highway Authority considers that the proposal would not materially intensify activity or result in adverse transport or highway -safety impacts. Further assessment on highway safety impact is provided between paragraphs 7.22 to 7.33 below. 3. The extended hours could increase noise and disturbance and adversely affect residential amenity and family life. The additional hours are limited and do not extend into the late evening. The activities would occur internally and would be educational and generally passive. The Noise Officer considers it unlikely that a significant adverse noise impact would arise. Further assessment on amenity impact is provided between paragraphs 7.10 to 7.21 below. 4. Concern that the proposed management measures may not be effective or enforceable and that the use could intensify over time. Compliance with the updated Site Management Supervision Plan, Complaints Handling Procedure, Travel Plan and Parking Management Strategy would be secured by Conditions 5 and 6. These controls include Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press pre-booked attendance, class- size limits, supervision and parking management. Further assessment on amenity impact is provided between paragraphs 7.10 to 7.21 below. 5. The previous refusal of weekend opening and the established weekday-only restriction should be given weight. The planning history is a material consideration and has been taken into account. However, the current proposal is supported by sufficient evidence and management measures that were absent previously. It must be determined on the basis of the current proposal and evidence. Further consideration to the previous S73 application is provided between paragraphs 7.24 to 7.25. 6. Requests that residents be permitted to form driveways, that the institute relocate to larger premises, and allegations of existing weekend use. Separate dropped-kerb or driveway permissions and the availability of alternative premises are outside the scope of this application. 106 public representations of support have been received. 1. The institute provides valued educational and community services, supporting learning, wellbeing and community cohesion. The social, educational and community benefits of the established facility are acknowledged and carry positive weight in the planning balance. 2. Evening and Saturday classes would improve access for people unable to attend during weekday daytime hours because of work, education, childcare or other caring responsibilities. The improved accessibility of the service is a material social benefit. The application must nevertheless remain acceptable in respect of neighbouring amenity, parking and highway safety, as assessed in Section 7 of this report. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Access Officer I have considered the detail of this planning application and consider this proposal to have no impact on accessibility. Noted. Highways Officer The applicant reports that there would be 30no. persons at the premises of which 22% would travel by car which equals 7no. vehicles. The development would offer 8no. car parking spaces, the 6no. at the rear have already been accepted by a planning inspector as being suitable for use. Access to all 8no. car parking spaces would be available on a pre- booked basis only. The site has a PTAL of 3 indicating that access to public transport is reasonable compared to London as a whole. As set out above the proposal would offer 8no. car parking spaces to cater for the parking demands of 7no. vehicles, in any scenario the Highway Authority does not anticipate the development would result in such an amount of parking displacement that road safety and congestion problem would arise. The Highway Authority has no objection to this proposal. Noted. Waste Services No comments/ objections Noted. Noise Officer I consider it unlikely that a significant adverse noise impact would be caused by the application to vary the operating hours. However, if allegations are made of noise nuisance then the Council would investigate these so far as is reasonably practicable and take enforcement action if necessary under EPA 1990. Noted. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 Policy S1 of the London Plan (2021) seeks to ensure that the social infrastructure needs of London’s diverse communities are met. It supports development proposals that provide high -quality and inclusive social infrastructure, address an identified local or strategic need and make effective use of land and buildings. The supporting text to Policy S1 identifies education, community and recreation facilities as forms of social infrastructure that contribute towards quality of life and the creation of strong and inclusive communities. 7.2 Policy S3 of the London Plan supports the pr ovision and retention of education facilities in accessible locations. The policy also encourages the extended and multiple use of educational facilities for community and recreational purposes, together with the sharing of facilities between education providers and community organisations. 7.3 At the local level, Policy CI1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1, Strategic Policies (November 2012) provides the strategic fram ework for the provision and retention of community infrastructure. Policy CI2 is also relevant to the recreational component of the authorised use. These policies are supplemented by Policies DMCI 1 and DMCI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2, Development Management Policies (January 2020). Policy DMCI 1 reflects a general presumption in favour of retaining existing community facilities, while Policy DMCI 2 supports the reuse of existing premises for community facilities and seeks to ensure that such facilities are inclusive, accessible and appropriately located to serve their intended community or catchment. 7.4 The principle of using the building as a women’s education and recreation institute was previously considered under planning application reference 1104/APP/2010/1568 and was subsequently accepted on appeal th rough planning permission reference APP/R5510/A/12/2177686, dated 18 December 2012. The approved use has operated from the site for a number of years and the current application does not seek to change the nature of that authorised use. 7.5 The application is made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and principally seeks to vary Condition 3 to permit additional evening and Saturday operating hours. Consequential variations are also proposed to Conditions 5 and 6 to secu re compliance with the updated site management, t ravel and parking management arrangements. Accordingly, the principle of the women’s education and recreation institute at this location is already established and remains acceptable. The key consideration in the determination of this appl ication is therefore whether the additional operating hours would result in unacceptable impacts, particularly in relation to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, noise and disturbance, parking demand, traffic generation and highway safety. These matters are considered in the relevant sections of this report. 7.6 Subject to the proposed extended hours being acceptable in respect of those detailed impacts, no objection is raised to the proposal in principle. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Design / Character and Impact on the Area 7.7 Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1, Strategic Policies (2012), and Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2, Development Management Policies (2020) are relevant to the consideration of design, local character and the public realm. These policies are set out in full within the Committee Report Part 3, Policy Appendix. In summary, they seek to secure high- quality development that responds appropriately to its context, respects the character and appearance of the surrounding area and contributes positively to the public realm. These objectives are also supported by Policy DP3 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026). 7.8 The application does not propose any extension or material alteration to the host building. The revised plans rationalise the frontage parking to two spaces, retain six spaces to the rear, provide marked parking bays and identify cycle storage. These minor operational details would not materially alter the appearance of the building, the application site or the surrounding streetscene. 7.9 Accordingly, the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. It is therefore considered to accord with the objectives of Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020), and Policy DP3 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026). Neighbouring Amenity 7.10 Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021) seeks to reduce, manage and mitigate noise and its adverse effects. Policy EM8 of the Hilling don Local Plan: Part 1, Strategic Policies (2012) seeks to ensure that noise -generating development is permitted only where its impacts can be adequately controlled and mitigated. Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2, Development Management Policies (2020) re quires development proposals to avoid adversely affecting the amenity of adjoining occupiers. Policy P3 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2 026) requires development proposals to provide healthy living conditions and to avoid giving rise to unacceptable levels of noise or other forms of pollution. 7.11 The closest residential properties to the application site are No. 12 Yeading Lane to the south and No. 16 Yeading Lane to the north. 7.12 The application would not involve any extern al alterations or extensions to the host building. Accordingly, the propos al would have no additional effect on neighbouring occupiers in terms of loss of daylight or sunlight, outlook, privacy, or an increased sense of enclosure. The principal amenity consider ation is therefore whether the proposed extended operating hours would result in unacceptable noise and disturbance, including from activities within the premises and associated comings and goings. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.13 The application proposes that the use oper ate between 10:00 and 19:00 from Mondays to Fridays and between 11:00 and 14:00 on Saturdays, with no use on Sundays or Bank Holidays. The proposed weekday closing time of 19:00 would not extend into the late evening or night-time period, while the proposed Saturday use would be limited to three hours during the daytime. 7.14 The applicant has submitted an indicative ti metable showing how the additional hours may be used. Between Mondays and Fridays, three additional 30 -minute classes are proposed, with 30-minute intervals between the classes. On Saturdays, two classes are identified between 11:00 and 13:30 and between 11:30 and 14:00. These Saturday sessions would overlap between 11:30 and 13:30 . The activities identified within the indicative timetable, including educational classes, after -school clubs and community learning sessions, would be predominantly educational and generally passive in nature. They would therefore be unlikely, by reason of their nature, to generate excessive noise or nuisance. This is consistent with the su bmitted existing floor plans and internal site photographs, which indicate that the activities would be accommodated within the existing rooms and lecture halls/ classrooms inside the building. Figure 6: Internal Photo of the Existing Lecture Hall/ Classroom on G/F 7.15 The applicant’s response to the officer’s comments, submitted on 5 June 2026, confirms that each class would have a maximum capacity of 13 pupils and that attendance would be strictly controlled through a pre -booking system. The overlapping Saturday classes would therefore accommodate a maximum anticipated total of 26 pupils, which would Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press remain below the maximum of 40 visitors identified in connection with the original permission. The applicant has also confirmed that there would be no walk -in visitors, large public events or social events. 7.16 The supporting information confirms that th e activities would be contained within the existing building and would not involve am plified sound or external activities. During operating hours activities, attendance, parking, and arrival and departure arrangements would be supervised . Attendees would generally be expected to arrive before the commencement of their class, with last admission ap proximately 15 minutes before the scheduled start time, thereby reducing the potential for irregular or late arrivals. 7.17 A complaints handling procedure has also been submitted. This identifies a designated person to whom concerns may be reported and provides for complaints to be investigated, recorded and monitored. Where necessary, operational arrangements would be reviewed to address any substantiate d issues and prevent their recurrence. Compliance with the relevant submitted operational and management information would be secured by condition. 7.18 The Council’s Noise Officer has reviewed the pr oposal and considers it unlikely that a significant adverse noise impact would arise from the proposed variation to the operating hours. The Noise Officer has further advised th at, should allegations of noise nuisance be received, the Council would investigate these so far as is reasonably practicable and, where necessary, take enforcement action under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 7.19 The proposal would result in some addit ional activity and comings and goings during periods when the premises are not currently authorised to operate. However, the use would cease by 19:00 on weekdays and by 14:00 on Saturdays. These are not considered to be inherently unsociable hours. Furthermore, the maximum occupancy would be restricted by condition to 30 persons at any one time. 7.20 Having regard to the nature and scale of the activities, the proposed hours of operation, the condition limiting maximum occupancy to 30 persons and the submitted management arrangements, the proposal is not considered likely to result in unacceptable noise, disturbance or other harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. 7.21 The proposal therefore complies with Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021), Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020), and the relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. Highways and Parking 7.22 Policies T4 and T6 of the London Plan (2021) require development proposals to appropriately assess and mitigate transport impacts, promote sustainable travel and ensure that parking provision does not adversely affect highway safety. Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2, Development Management Policies (2020) require development to prov ide safe and efficient access, appropriately manage parking demand and avoid unacceptable impacts on the highway network, local amenity and the safety of highway users. Policies TR3, TR4 and TR6 of the National Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Planning Policy Framework (2026) require development proposals to promote sustainable modes of travel, integrate safe and suitable access and parking arrangements into the design, and mitigate si gnificant adverse impacts on the transport network and highway safety to an acceptable degree. 7.23 The proposal does not alter the existing points of vehicular access. During the course of the application, the frontage parking layout was revised to remove two substandard spaces. The revised scheme provides eight off -street parking spaces, comprising two spaces at the front and six spaces within the rear parking area accessed via Dorchester Waye. It is important to note that in determining application reference 1104/APP/2010/1568 concerns were raised relating to the adequacy of the access road which leads from Dorchester Waye up to the parking area to the rear of the site. Despite these concerns the inspector found the arrangement to be acceptable. The proposal also includes marked parking bays and five Sheffield stands providing cycle parking for up to 10 bicycles. 7.24 As set out in the Planning History section of this report, highway and parking concerns were central to the original application and the refusal of the previous Section 73 application. In particular, planning application reference 1104/APP/2014/645 was refused because insufficient information had been provided to demonstrate that weekend operation would not result in unacceptable on -street parking, congestion or harm to highway and pedestrian safety. The key conside ration is therefore whether the current application is supported by sufficient evidence and management measures to address those concerns. 7.25 Unlike the previous Section 73 application, the current application is supported by an updated Travel Plan, a Parking Management Strategy, vehicle swept -path analysis, an indicative timetable and detailed information concerning attendance, parking and the management of arrivals and departures. 7.26 The application site has a PTAL rating of 3. Bus stops serving several frequent routes are located close to the site (Table 3 below refers). Table 3: Existing Bus Routes Serving the Application Site Bus Route Stop Name Destination Service Frequency Walking Distance (m) 140 The Grapes Harrow Weald 7.50 116.99 SL9 The Grapes Harrow 5.00 116.99 E6 The Grapes Greenford 4.67 116.99 427 The Grapes Uxbridge 7.50 347.18 SL8 The Grapes Uxbridge 6.00 347.18 90 Hesa Road Feltham 5.33 462.52 U7 Lombardy Retail Park Uxbridge 2.00 372.51 7.27 The submitted Travel Plan indicated that a five-day travel survey of existing users was undertaken in November 2025. The survey recorded that 22% of journeys were made by Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press a car driver with 16.5% as car passenger and 15.4% as car pick-up/ drop-off, while 29.7% were made by public transport and 16.5% on foot. The results demonstrate that less than one-quarter of existing users travelled to the site as a car driver and that 46 .2% of journeys were undertaken by sustainable modes (i.e. walking and public transport). 7.28 The submitted Travel Plan indicates that the premises currently accommodate up to approximately 30 people, including staff. The indicative Saturday timetable identifies two overlapping classes, each with a maximum of 13 pupils, which could result in up to 26 pupils being present concurrently, in addition to staff. To provide certainty and prevent intensification beyond the level assessed, the applicant has agreed to a condition limiting the maximum occupancy of the premises to 30 persons, including staff, pupils and other visitors, at any one time. Attendance would also be controlled through a pre- booking system, with no walk-in visitors, large public events or social events proposed. 7.29 The submitted Parking Management Strategy confirms that parking would be limited, controlled and only available to the registered visitors with prior approval from the institute . On-site parking would be pre-arranged and managed by a responsible person, with priority afforded to users who need to travel by car due to specific circumstances, including disability or mobility needs. Other attendees would be encouraged to travel by public transport, walking, cycling, car -sharing or drop-off and collection. The strategy also provides for the ongoing monitoring of travel patterns and parking demand, with additional management measures to be introduced if required. 7.30 The application would provide a total of 8 off-street parking space, i.e. 2 in the front garden area and 6 in the rear parking area accessible via Dorchester Waye. Drawing PL- 02 Rev. P2 shows the parking spaces and manoeuvring arrangements. The applicant has also provided evidence to demonstrate the right of way for the access on Dorchester Waye to the rear parking area. The exis ting access arrangements would remain unchanged and secure cycle parking would continue to be available. 7.31 The Highway Authority has reviewed the submitted Travel Plan and supporting information. It notes that travel by sust ainable modes remains high, car use would be limited and controlled through pre -arranged parking, cycle parking is already provided, and no increase in attendance or parking demand is proposed. The Highway Authority considers that the additional evening and Saturday hours represent a modest extension that would not materially intensify activity at the site or result in adverse highway or parking impacts. It has identified no evid ence that the variation would result in unacceptable overspill parking or harm to highway safety and has raised no objection. 7.32 The concerns under the previous applications regarding weekend parking conditions are acknowledged. However, the current proposal is limited to three hours on Saturdays, does not include Sundays or Bank Holidays, and is supported by materially more detailed transport and management information than the previous Section 73 application. The evidence demonstrates that attendance and parking demand would be controlled, a significant proportion of use rs travel by sustainable modes, and the anticipated attendance would remain broadly consistent with the existing operation and below the visitor level considered by the Inspector when determining the original appeal. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.33 Subject to the amended Conditions 5, 6 and 8 securing compliance with the updated Travel Plan, Parking Management Strategy and associated management measures as well as the proposed Condition 12 to restrict the maximum occupancy as 30, the proposal is not considered likely to result in unacceptable overspill parking or congestion, prejudice the free flow of traffic, or cause harm to highway or pedestrian safety. The previous highway and parking concerns are therefore considered to have been satisfactorily addressed. The proposal complies with Policies T4 and T6 of the London Plan (2021), Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hi llingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020), and the relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. 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 whic h have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expres sed through third party interests / the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance. Equality 8.2 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the assessment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.3 Due to the nature of the application, the proposals currently under consideration would not be CIL liable. 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 Liabilit y 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 principle of the women’s education and recreation institute is established by the appeal permission, and the current application relates only to additional weekday evening and Saturday hours, together with updated site management and travel arrangements. No external alterations are proposed and the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area would remain unchanged. 9.2 The objections and petition have been carefully considered, including concerns regarding existing parking pressure, congestion, highway and pedestrian safety, noise, disturbance and residential amenity. The current proposal is, however, Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press materially supported by an updated Travel Plan, Parking Management Strategy, swept- path analysis, controlled class sizes, pre -booked attendance and supervised parking, arrival and departure arrangements. The maximum occupancy would be restricted to 30 persons by Condition 12. The Highway Authority has raised no objection and considers that the variation would not result in material transport, parking or highway- safety impacts. 9.3 The additional weekday use would cease by 19:00 and Saturday use would be limited to 11:00-14:00, with no use on Sundays or Bank Holidays. The proposed activities would be primarily educational and passive, would take place within the building and would be subject to updated management controls. The Noise Officer considers it unlikely that a significant adverse noise impact would arise. The proposal is therefore not considered to cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring residential amenity. 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 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: x Noise Officer x Highways Authority x Waste Officer x Access Officer AAPPENDICES Planning Application 1104/APP/2026/1 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 9 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. 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: PL-01; PL-02 Rev. P2 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). 2. COM22 O Operating Hours The use hereby permitted shall not take place other than between the hours of 1000 and 1900 on Mondays to Fridays and between 1100 and 1400 on Saturdays, and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays. REASON To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers from unacceptable noise, activity and disturbance, in accordance with Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021), Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1, Strategic Policies (2012), and Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2, Development Management Policies (2020). 3. NONSC N Non Standard Condition The premises shall be used as a Women's Education and Recreation Institute and for no other purpose, including any other purpose within Class F1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification. REASON To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers from unacceptable noise, activity and disturbance, in accordance with Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021), Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1, Strategic Policies (2012), and Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2, Development Management Policies (2020). 4. NONSC N Non Standard Condition Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 9 The use hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with the details of the Site Management Supervision Plan (Reference: 14AFILH-2073) (or those parts of the Plan capable of being implemented subject to other conditions herewith attached) dated 30.12.2025, Complaints Handling Policy & Procedure (Policy No: CHP/01) dated 15.10.2025, and Responses to Officer's Comments submitted on 05.06.2026. Those parts of the Plan capable of implementation shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of the premises is occupied for the use hereby permitted. REASON To ensure that the premises operate in a controlled and properly supervised manner and to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, parking conditions, the free flow of traffic and highway and pedestrian safety, in accordance with Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021), Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), and Policies DMHB 11, DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 5 5. NONSC N Non Standard Condition The use hereby permitted shall be carried out and thereafter operated in accordance with the Travel Plan prepared by John Russell Transport Planning Ltd dated 29 December 2025 and the Parking Management Strategy prepared by John Russell Transport Planning Ltd dated 1 September 2026. Those parts of the Travel Plan capable of implementation shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of the premises is occupied for the use hereby permitted. REASON To promote sustainable travel, manage parking demand and vehicle movements, minimise overspill parking and safeguard the free flow of traffic and highway and pedestrian safety, in accordance with Policies T4, T5 and T6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DMT 1, DMT 2, DMT 5 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 6. NONSC N Non Standard Condition The records of implementation and monitoring of the Travel Plan, including the results of the travel surveys, shall be made available to the Local Planning Authority on a regular basis, that basis being not less frequent than annually. REASON To enable the Local Planning Authority to monitor the effectiveness of the approved travel and parking management measures and ensure that the use does not result in unacceptable parking, congestion or highway-safety impacts, in accordance with 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). 7. NONSC N Non Standard Condition The vehicle parking, access and manoeuvring arrangements shown on Drawing No. PL-02 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 9 Rev. P2 shall be retained and kept permanently available for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles associated with the use hereby permitted. The parking arrangements shall be operated in accordance with the Parking Management Strategy prepared by John Russell Transport Planning Ltd dated 1 September 2026. The parking and manoeuvring areas shall not be used for any other purpose. REASON To ensure that adequate parking and manoeuvring arrangements are retained, to minimise the potential for overspill parking and congestion, and to safeguard the free flow of traffic and highway and pedestrian safety, in accordance with 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, Development Management Policies (2020). 8 8. NONSC N Non Standard Condition Within three months of the date of this permission, details of the existing or proposed secure and covered cycle-storage facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the location, design, capacity and means of access to the facilities. Any additional or replacement facilities required by the approved details shall be provided within two months of the written approval of the details. The approved cycle-storage facilities shall thereafter be retained, maintained and kept available for users of the premises and shall not be used for any other purpose. REASON To encourage active and sustainable travel and reduce reliance on private motor vehicles, in accordance with Policy T5 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMT 5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 9. NONSC N Non Standard Condition Within three months of the date of this permission, details of the refuse and recycling storage arrangements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the location, capacity, design, screening and arrangements for collection of refuse and recyclable materials. The approved facilities shall be provided within two months of the written approval of the details and shall thereafter be retained, maintained and used for the storage of refuse and recyclable materials associated with the use hereby permitted. REASON To ensure that refuse and recyclable materials are stored and collected in a satisfactory manner and to safeguard the character and appearance of the site and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, in accordance with Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 9 110. NONSC N Non Standard Condition Within three months of the date of this permission, details of the existing and proposed hard and soft landscaping at the front of the premises shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include: - means of enclosure; - pedestrian access and circulation areas; - hard-surfacing materials; - existing planting to be retained; - schedules of any proposed planting, including species, sizes, numbers and densities; and - a timetable for implementation. The approved landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved timetable. All hard landscaping shall thereafter be retained. Any tree, shrub or other planting that, within a period of five years from planting, dies, is removed, becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next available planting season with planting of a similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To safeguard and enhance the character and appearance of the premises and the surrounding streetscene, in accordance with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), and Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 11. NONSC N Non Standard Condition No more than 30 persons, including staff, pupils and other visitors, shall be present within the application premises at any one time. Reason: To control the intensity of the use and safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, parking conditions, the free flow of traffic and highway and pedestrian safety, in accordance with Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021), Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), and Policies DMHB 11, DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Informatives 1. I52 C Compulsory Informative (1) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act (1998) (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 9 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 22. I70 L LBH worked applicant in a positive & proactive (Granting) In dealing with the application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available detailed advice in the form of our statutory policies from Local Plan Part 1, Local Plan Part 2, Supplementary Planning Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application advice service, in order to ensure that the applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an application which is likely to be considered favourably. 3. The Equality Act 2010 seeks to protect people accessing goods, facilities and services from discrimination on the basis of a 'protected characteristic', which includes those with a disability. As part of the Act, service providers are obliged to improve access to and within the structure of their building, particularly in situations where reasonable adjustment can be incorporated with relative ease. The Act states that service providers should think ahead to take steps to address barriers that impede disabled people. I53 C Compulsory Informative (2) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020) set out below, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and to all relevant material considerations, including The London Plan (2021) and national guidance. DMCI 1 Retention of Existing Community Sport and Education Facilities DMCI 2 New Community Infrastructure DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 5 Pedestrians and

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Nicola Taplin 820/APP/2025/2939 Date Application Valid: 24.11.25 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 13.10.26 Application Type: Householder Ward: West Drayton Applicant: Mr Worthington Site Address: 23A Frays Avenue, West Drayton, UB7 7AF Proposal: Erection of a second storey extension and amendments to fenestrations 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 – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Householder planning permission is sought for the erection of a second storey extension as well as amendments to the fenestration of the dwelling and the recladding of the ground floor of the building with brick. 1.2 During the process of the application, a petition in objection to the development was received requiring the dete rmination at planning committee. The main issues which shall be addressed within this committee report relate to the impact on the character and appearance of the su rrounding area which lies within an ASLC, Impact upon residential amenity, accuracy of plans and impact on trees and biodiversity. 1.3 The committee report seeks to provide a comprehensive assessment of the householder application and supporting documentation. All material planning considerations have been considered. 1.4 It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions (see Appendix 1) as it is considered that the development would not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, the character and appearance of the area or on the highway network. 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site is located at the end of a cul-de-sac on Frays Avenue. To the north of the site lies the access road to the property alongside residential dwellings. To the south, west and east of th e site is the Frays River. Beyond the river lies residential propert ies and their gardens. The application property comprises a detached cedar clad bungalow. Properties within the area are single and two storey in terms of height. The designs vary, but housing is predominantly low rise and finished with mixtures of brick, render and tiling. The properties have pitched roofs. Dormer windows are a relatively common design feature. 2.2 The development site is located within t he Colne Valley Archaeological Priority Area, The West Drayton Garden City - Area of Special Local Character, is covered by TPO 803, and within Flood Zone 3 and a riverbank protection area. It also has a PTAL rating of 1B. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figure 2: Photograph of the driveway leading to the property from Frays Avenue. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: View of the application property 3 Proposal 3.1 The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a second storey extension as well as amendments to th e fenestration of the dwelling and the recladding of the ground floor of the building with brick. Figure 3: Proposed Plans (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. Officers note that prior approval reference 820/APP/2023/2782 was allowed at appeal under appeal reference APP/R5510/D/24/3337503 and relates to the erection of an additional storey to the existing dwelling. This approval is of material relevance to the planning application under consideration. For context the approved plans are shown below: Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 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 5.1 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 – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 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 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. 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Nine neighbouring properties were consulted on 11th December 2025. Consultation expired on 4th January 2026. 6.2 Representations received in response to public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response A petition of objection with 41 valid signatories has been submitted , 1. Inaccurate red edged site location plan An amended red edged plan with accompanying certificate of ownership, confirming that notice has been served on the occupants of 23 Frays Avenue. The objection refers to the use of the access and raises concerns in terms of Covenants on the land. These Civil issues raised are outside the control of the planning legislation. 2. The extensions would result in windows resulting in a loss of privacy to occupants of neighbouring properties A full and detailed assessment of the amenity impact on neighbouring properties is set out in paragraphs 7.9-7.13 of this report. 3. The scale, design and materials would be out of keeping with ASLC. A full and detailed assessment of the visual impact and design approach is set out in paragraphs 7.2-7.8 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 4. The extended property lends itself to an HMO The use of the property as an HMO has not been proposed and use of the building for this purpose would require planning permission. 5. The plans omit the single storey extension of which the foundations have been built The single storey extension has not been built and a condition removing permitted development rights is recommended to be imposed. 6. There are trees within the site which should be shown and considered. An Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been prepared and submitted in support of the planning application. The impact of the development on trees is addressed in paragraphs 7.15 and 7.16 of this report. 7. The proposal would result in a substandard private amenity space. A full and detailed assessment of the visual impact is set out in paragraph 7.14 of this report. 10 letters of objection have been received from local residents. I. Inaccurate red edged site location plan An amended red edged plan with accompanying certificate of ownership, confirming that notice has been served on the occupants of 23 Frays Avenue. The objection refers to the use of the access and raises concerns in terms of Covenants on the land. These Civil issues raised are outside the control of the planning legislation. II. The scale, design and materials would be out of keeping with ASLC. A full and detailed assessment of the appropriateness of the proposed materials is set out in paragraphs 7.9-7.13 of this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press III. Concerns about trees and biodiversity A full and detailed assessment of the impact on trees and biodiversity is set out in paragraphs 7.15- 7.20 of this report. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Environment Agency No Objection Noted that no objection has been raised. West Drayton Conservation Advisory Panel Disappointed that the appeal was allowed. Agree that the combination of brick cladding with rendered elevations over are found in other parts of the Garden City ASLC and could be acceptable but the atypical strips of timber cladding are not appropriate on a building of this form and scale, especially as they are being used solely to divide up the upper part of the elevations rather than to suggest interior timber framing. We approve of the proposal to drop the height of the eaves as this and the introduction of a hipped roof change the proportions of the side elevations, making them appear less monolithic. We advise applying a condition to any permission that may be granted, removing permitted development rights so any future extension would require full planning permission. The comments are noted. Internal Consultees Urban Design No objection - This application is a visual improvement on the previous scheme. Noted that no objection has been raised. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The site is located in the developed area of the Borough, where the extension and alteration of an existing residential prop erty is acceptable in principle subject to compliance with other relevant policies as set out in this report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Design / Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.2 Policies D3 of the London Plan (2021), BE 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 – Strategic Policies (2012), DMHB5, DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 – Development Management Policies (2020) are all directly relevant to the proposal. These policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix, and in summary, seek to secure a high quality of design that enhances and contributes to the area. 7.3 The proposal involves the erection of a second storey and amendments to fenestration. The ridge height would measure 8.3m in height and the roof would be hipped . Windows are proposed to be inserted at first floor level in all four elevations and the walls would be clad in brick to the ground floor with render and timber detailing to the first floor. 7.4 The existing dwelling is approximately 7.4m in width, 16m in depth and 4.8m in height. The building has been finished in timber cladding, upvc windows and tiles. Due to its design, external finish and inconspicuous size, the building appears as a discrete, riverside cabin, visually fitting of its green and tranquil riverside location. 7.5 Officers note that an appeal was allowed for the erection of an additional storey to the existing dwelling under appeal reference APP/R5510/D/24/3337503 and this permission remains extant for the erection of an additional storey to the existing dwelling. In allowing the appeal the Inspector advised that: -“The resulting building would continue to have a ‘cabin’ type appearance albeit of two storeys. The style would be in harmony with its semi-rural riverside surroundings, and the timber exterior would fit in with the existing garden trees and riverside setting. It would not be uncharacteristic, unduly prominent or incongruous and would continue to respect the established sense of place. In relation to its proposed height, this would not be excessive given the many nearby two storey dwellings and given that it would be well-screened from many views and not unduly prominent in the immediate area. The simple lines of the proposed building would result in an acceptable design which would be pleasantly symmetrical. I consider it would be a self-effacing and unpretentious building. It would preserve the setting of the nearby Conservation Area and not detract from the Area of Special Local Character in which it stands, or the Frays Avenue streetscene.” 7.6 An extension of the bulk and massing proposed has therefore been previously consented. The current application proposes multiple revisions to the de sign of the extended dwelling in comparison to those previously allowed at appeal. The previously permitted gabled roof is proposed would be replaced by a hipped roof, the cedar clad walls are substituted for brick, render and timber detailing and first floor side facing windows are proposed in both side elevations. 7.7 Officers note that the appeal Inspector, in consideration of the previous appeal considered that t he style would be in harmony with its semi- rural riverside surroundings and the timber exterior would fit in with the existing garden trees and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press riverside setting. The use of brick and render with timber detailing would significantly alter the appear ance of the extended dwelling compared with the previously consented plans. The Garden City, West Drayton Area of Special Local Character (ASLC) is however made up of a mixture of bungalows, chalet bungalows and two storey properties, predominantly detached in nature. The scale, building lines, designs, landscaping and materials used is varied. The use of brick and render as facing materials is prevalent across the Garden City Area of Special Local Character. The arc hitectural appearance of the extended dwelling, including the use of brick and render material, as well as timber detailing which is a common design feature in t he ASLC would sit ap propriately in the context of the surrounding development and ASLC more generally. The extended dwelling would be well-screened in most public views and would not appear unduly prominent in the immediate area or Frays Avenue street scene. Officers consider, on balance, given the fall -back position of the allowed appeal, that the design of the extended dwelling would sit appropriately accounting for the context and character of the surrounding area and would not appear out of place. Given the substantial scale of the extensions carried out, it is considered appropriate that permitted development rights are removed for further development on the site under all classes set out in the General Permitted Development Order. 7.8 Taking into consideration the above, it is considered that the proposal would respect the character and appearance of the surrounding area in compliance with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies and Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies (2020), as well as relevant design guidance contained within the London Plan (2021) and NPPF (2026). Residential Amenity 7.9 Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021) states that developments should deliver appropriate outlook, privacy, and amenity. Policy D6 states the site layout, orientation, and design of dwellings should provide privacy and adequate daylight for residents. 7.10 Policy DMHD 1 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that planning applications relating to dwelling alterations and extensions will be required to ensure that a satisfactory relationship with adjacent dwellings is achieved and there is no unacceptable loss of outlook to neighbouring occupiers. Policy DMHB 11 seeks to ensure that development proposals do not adversely impact the amenity, daylight, and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. 7.11 No.'s 23 (at a separation distance of 32.3m) and 21A (34.6m) Frays Avenue, 58 Old Farm Road (31m), 65 Old Farm Road (31m) (nearest neighbours) are each sited more than 30m from the property that would be extended. Whilst the first- floor extension would add substantially to the bulk and mass of the dwelling and includes side facing windows at first floor level, d ue to the separation distance of the dwelling relative to the surrounding pr operties including the gardens of these Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press properties, the extension would not appe ar overbearing in scale, nor would it cause any harmful loss of light, outlook, or privacy to those neighbours. This assessment is supported in appeal decision reference APP/R5510/D/24/3337503 where the inspector commented that : “the generous separation distances would also prevent the new storey from b locking any daylight or sunlight from surrounding dwellings or their gardens and they would ensure that the resulting building would not cause an undue sense of enclosure for any neighbour. I have concluded that there would be no reduction in neighbours’ amenities”. 7.12 In a number of representations concerns are expressed that the property has the potential to be occupied as an HMO. The application is submitted as a Householder planning application. Office rs have visited the site throughout the course of the application and did not observe any indication of use as an HMO. Furthermore, the Council adopted the Borough Wide Article 4 Direction on 12 December 2025 removing permitted development rights under Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 3, Class L. Any future use of the property as an HMO would require planning permission for a change of use. 7.13 Accounting for the above assessment the proposals would accord with the objectives of Policies D3 and D6 of The London Plan (2021) and Policies DMHD 1 and DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) in this respect. Outdoor Amenity Space 7.14 A number of residents have raised concerns about the inadequate garden space to support a dwelling of the proposed scale. The proposal would not result in the loss of any garden area. Following the redevelopment, the garden would retain approximately 700 sq. m. of private amenity space. The proposal would result in the creation of a 3 bedroom dwelling which would be required to retain 60m2 of outdoor amenity space. The proposed development would comply with Policy D6 of The London Plan (2021) and Policies DMHD 1, DMHB 18, and Table 5.3 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). Trees 7.15 The application site is covered by TPO 803 and contains a number of mature trees. There are also a number of trees in close proximity to the application site. Policy DMHB14 of the Local Plan Part 2 requires that planning applications for proposals that would affect existing trees will be required to provide an accurate tree survey showing the location, height, spread and species of trees. Where the tree survey identifies trees of merit, tree root pr otection areas and an arboricultural method statement will be required to show how the trees will be protected. 7.16 A Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) was submitted throughout the course of the applicat ion which confirms that subject to the implementation of appropriate tree protection measures, during the course of the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press construction works that the development would not undermine the integrity of any trees, otherwise shown to be retained within the AIA. The key identified risk is to T1 (Ash), which is the closest significant tree to the area of construction activity. This risk is manageable through the adoption of appropriate foundation design, root sensitive working methods within the RPA, and arboricultural supervision during critical phases of the works as set out within the Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) includ ed in the applicants AIA. Compliance with the identified tree protection measures set out in the AIA and AMS would be secured by way of condition should the application be approved. Biodiversity 7.17 Given the riverside siting of the site, the construction of the existing dwelling and proximity to the trees, a preliminary ecological survey was requested and submitted throughout the course of the application which identified suitablility for bat habitats. A subsequent Bat Emergence study was undertaken and submitted which confirmed that no bat emergences were observed during any visit and that there will be no direct impacts on foraging or commuting bats as a result of the proposed development . Consequently officers are satisfied that the development would not impact negatively on protected species or their habitats. As such the proposal complies with Policy G6 of the London plan (2021), Policy DMEI 7 Of the Hillingdon Local Plan : Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) and the NPPF (2026). 7.18 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). It became mandatory for major developments on 12 February 2024 and small sites on 2 April 2024. Developers must deliver a BNG of at least 10%. This means a development will result in more or better -quality natural habitat than there was before development. The land owner is legally responsible for creating or enhancing the habitat and managing that habitat for at least 30 years to achieve the target condition. 7.19 Policy N2 of the NPPF (2026) sets out th at to contribute positively to the natural environment, and support nature's recove ry, development proposals should: a. Consider the environmental qualities of land proposed for development, including habitats, landscape character and the natural beauty of th e count ryside, and identify opportunities for those qualities to be conserved or enhanced (including through requirements for biodiversity net gain where these apply). 7.20 The development is considered to fall under the de-minimis exemption as it would not impact more than 25sqm of habitat nor would it impact any priority habitat. As a result no further information is required. Flood Risk 7.21 The application site lies partly within Flood Zones 2 and 3. Policy SI 12 of the London Plan (2021) states that developm ent proposals should ensure that flood Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press risk is minimised and mitigated and that residual risk is addressed. Policy EM6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (2012) states that Applicants must demonstrate that Flood Risk can be suitably mitigated. Policy DMEI 9 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that proposals that fail to make appropriate provision for flood risk mitigation or which would increase the risk or consequences of flooding will be refused. 7.22 A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted in support of this application which concludes that only a small section in the southwest corner of the building is shown as at potential risk of flooding. This is an existing building and therefore there will be no obstruction the free flow of flood waters for a flood event when compared to the existing situation. Furthermore, the movement of sleeping accommodation to the first floor will provide a safe haven in the event of flood and the proposals will also allow flood mitigation measures to be incorporated in the refurbishment of the ground floor to limited potential damage to the building from flood waters. The proposals will not impact on the current flood regime or increase the risk of flooding in the area and that it will also prov ide a safer dwelling against flooding for its residents in accordance with the requirements of Policy SI12 of the London Plan (2021); Policy EM6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (2012) and Policy DMEI 9 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposal. Highways and Parking 7.23 Policy DMT 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) seeks to ensure that development would not adversely affect highway safety, whilst Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021) requires developments to provide appropriate l evels of vehicle and cycle parking. The highway and parking provision would remain unaffected by the proposal given that the proposal would not result in the provision of addition al bedrooms at the property over that which currently exists. 8 Other Matters Human Rights 8.1 The development has been assessed against the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and in particular Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the Act itself. This Act gives further effect to the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to the applicant's reasonable development rights and expectations which have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / the Devel opment Plan and Central Government Guidance. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Equality 8.2 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the assessment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.3 The Council adopted its own Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on August 1st 2014 and the Hillingdon CIL charge for residential developments is £95 per square metre of additional floorspace. This is in addition to the Mayoral CIL charge of £60 per sq metre. The proposal would result in an increased floor area of 91.6m2 and would not therefore trigger the requirement for CIL. 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 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. 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 Internal consultee comments: x Conservation and Urban Design Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press External consultee comments: x Environment Agency x West Drayton Conservation Advisory Panel AAPPENDICES Planning Application 820/APP/2025/2939 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 7 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. HO1 T Time Limit The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. HO2 A Accordance with approved The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers: Y2231-2025-A01 R3 dated 28.1.26 Y2231-2025-A20 Y2231-2025-A21 Y2231-2025-A22 Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment Y2231-2025-A100 REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020), and the London Plan (2021). 3. RES7 M Materials (Submission) No development shall take place until details of all materials and external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and be retained as such. Details should include information relating to make, product/type, colour and photographs/images. REASON To ensure that the development presents a satisfactory appearance in accordance with Policy DMHB5 and DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 4. RES8 T Tree Protection No site clearance or construction work shall take place until the tree protection works specified in has been Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment Y2231-2025-A100 have been implemented. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 7 requirements of the Arboricultual Impact Assessment reference Y2231-2025-A100. REASON To ensure that trees and other vegetation can and will be retained on site and not damaged during construction work and to ensure that the development conforms with policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 5 5. NONSC P Permitted Development Rights Removal Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification); no outbuilding(s), nor extension(s) or roof alteration(s) shall be erected without the grant of further specific permission from the Local Planning Authority. REASON To protect the character and appearance of the area and amenity of residential occupiers in accordance with policies DMHB 11 and DMHD 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). Informatives 1. I15 C Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work Nuisance from demolition and construction works is subject to control under The Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Clean Air Acts and other related legislation. In particular, you should ensure that the following are complied with:- A. Demolition and construction works which are audible at the site boundary shall only be carried out between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 hours Monday to Friday and between the hours of 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturday. No works shall be carried out on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. B. All noise generated during such works shall be controlled in compliance with British Standard Code of Practice BS 5228:2009. C. Dust emissions shall be controlled in compliance with the Mayor of London's Best Practice Guidance' The Control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition. D. No bonfires that create dark smoke or nuisance to local residents. You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Protection Unit (www.hillingdon.gov.uk/noise Tel. 01895 250155) or to seek prior approval under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act if you anticipate any difficulty in carrying out construction other than within the normal working hours set out in (A) above, and by means that would minimise disturbance to adjoining premises. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 7 22. I2 E Encroachment You are advised that if any part of the development hereby permitted encroaches by either its roof, walls, eaves, gutters, or foundations, then a new planning application may have to be submitted. The validity of this planning permission may be challengeable by third parties if the development results in any form of encroachment onto land outside the applicant's control for which the appropriate Notice under Article 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 has not been served. 3. IT05 W Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: Note that it is an offence under this act to disturb roosting bats, nesting birds or any other protected species. Therefore, if applicable, it is advisable to consult your tree surgeon / consultant to agree an acceptable time for carrying out the approved works. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 7 AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History 820/APP/2021/3272 23a Frays Avenue West Drayton The extension of an existing single storey house by the addition of a first floor; the demolition of an existing single storey garage structure, and the construction of new single storey gaarage structure and a single storey home office structure. Decision: 06-04-2023 No Further Action(P) 820/APP/2021/4418 23a Frays Avenue West Drayton Demolition of an existing single storey house and the erection of new two-storey house with gambrel roof; demolition of an existing single storey garage structure, and the erection of new single storey garage structure and a single storey home office structure. Decision: 18-05-2022 Withdrawn 820/APP/2023/1898 23a Frays Avenue West Drayton Erection of single storey extension to rear (Application for a Certificate of Lawful Development for a Proposed Development) Decision: 21-08-2023 Approved 820/APP/2023/230 23a Frays Avenue West Drayton Erection of an additional first floor level to existing bungalow with alterations to fenestration and installation of a ground floor bay window Decision: 21-04-2023 Refused 820/APP/2023/2779 23a Frays Avenue West Drayton Erection of a detached single garage structure in the garden. Decision: 12-12-2023 Approved 820/APP/2023/2782 23a Frays Avenue West Drayton Erection of an additional storey to the existing dwelling. Decision: 02-11-2023 Refused A Appeal: 23-07-2024 Allowed 820/APP/2023/82 23a Frays Avenue West Drayton Erection of an outbuilding. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 7 DDecision: 06-03-2023 Approved 820/APP/2024/3145 23a Frays Avenue West Drayton Erection of an additional storey to the existing dwelling. Decision: 08-01-2025 Withdrawn Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 7 AAppendix 3: List of Relevant Planning Policies The following Local Plan Policies are considered relevant to the application:- Part 1 Policies: PT1.BE1 (2012) Built Environment Part 2 Policies: DMEI 7 Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement DMEI 8 Waterside Development DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 16 Housing Standards DMHB 18 Private Outdoor Amenity Space DMHB 5 Areas of Special Local Character DMHD 1 Alterations and Extensions to Residential Dwellings LPP D4 (2021) Delivering good design LPP D6 (2021) Housing quality and standards LPP D8 (2021) Public realm LPP G6 (2021) Biodiversity and access to nature LPP G7 (2021) Trees and woodlands LPP T6 (2021) Car parking Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7 of 7

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Ed Maddern 7402/APP/2026/1610 Date Application Valid: 29-06-26 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 16-10-26 Application Type: Full Ward: Northwood Applicant: St Helen's School Site Address: St Helen's School, Eastbury Road, Northwood Proposal: The installation of 2no. padel courts under a canopy with floodlighting, on an existing Multi- Use Games Area including a small strip of adjoining land. 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 – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 The application seeks full planning perm ission for the installation of 2no. padel courts, measuring 20m by 10m, under an 8.43m canopy with floodlighting, on the existing Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) of St Helen’s school, including a small strip of adjoining land. The proposal would continue the approach of the school offering the sporting facilities to the public on a pay -and-play basis, when not in use by students. 1.2 The site is situated within the northern part of the St Helen’s school campus, adjacent to the existing hockey pitch, accessed via the main car park from Green Lane. It currently comprises a hard surfaced MUGA, previously used for both tennis and netball, enclosed by a chain -link fence and an area of adjoining grassland. 1.3 The proposal would be acceptable in design and heritage terms and would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the wider area and Northwood/Frithwood Conservation Area . It is also considered that the proposal would not result in an adverse impact on any adjoining occupiers in terms of increased noise and disturbance , increased light spill or loss of outlook, privacy and light. 1.4 The proposal would be acceptable in terms of its impact on the public highway and is not expected to generate significan t additional traffic movements beyond the existing operation of the sports facilities within the St Helen’s school campus. 1.5 The proposed development would not impact any trees in the locality and would be acceptable in landscaping terms. It wou ld also result in a 29.41% biodiversity gain and would therefore meet and exceed the minimum uplift of 10% as required by the Environment Act 2021. 1.6 Subject to the planning conditions recommended, the proposed development is considered acceptable with respect to design, heritage, amenity, environmental issues, and transport. 1.7 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 indic ate otherwise. For the reasons outlined above and within the main body of the report, the application is considered to comply with the Development Plan. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to securing the planning conditions set out in Appendix 1. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site forms part of St Helens School which sits within an overall site of approximately 8.5 hectares. St Helens School is a large educational complex for girls, comprising several school buildings, and several facilities such as sports pitches, hockey facilities, tennis courts, playing fields and playgrounds. The school's buildings are located around the edge of the site, with the main school building located in the northwest corner, and recreational facilities positioned centrally and to the east. The school’s principal entrance is located on Eastbury Road to the west. A separate access point from Green Lane along the southern boundary provides entry to the main car par k, which is situated adjacent to the sports centre. A further independent acce ss is available from Carew Road to the north. 2.2 As shown in Figures 1 and 2 below, the a pplication site is situated within the northern part of the campus, adjacent to the existing hockey pitch and long jump track, accessed via the main car park from Green Lane. It currently comprises a hard surfaced Multi -Use Games Area (MUGA), previously used for both tennis and netball, enclosed by a chain-link fence and an area of adjoining grassland. Around the perimeter of the application site, the land comprises predominantly grassland. To the west of the site is a long jump track adjacent to an estate road, beyond which lies a hockey pitch. A three-storey building, known as Gwyer House , is located close to the northern boundary and provides office and staff accommodation for the school. 2.3 The site is located within the Northwood / Frithwood Conservation Area and has a Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) of 3, on a scale of 0 to 6b where 6b is the highest. It is noted that all sporting facilities of the school are currently open to the public on a pay-and-play basis, when not in use by students. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 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 insta llation of 2no. padel courts under a canopy with floodlighting, on the existing Multi-Use Games Area including a small strip of adjoining land. The proposal would continue the approach of the school offering the sporting facilities to the public on a pay-and-play basis . Therefore, during school time the padel courts would be in frequent use by students. Outside of school hours, the proposed operating hours for community use would be: Term-Time - Community Use Mon - Fri: 17:30 – 21.00 Sat: 08:00 – 18:00 Sun: 09:00 – 18:00 School Holidays - Community Use Mon - Fri: 08:00 – 21:00 Sat: 08:00 – 18:00 Sun: 09:00 – 18:00 3.2 As shown in Figures 3, 4 and 5 below, the padel courts would each measure approximately 20m by 10m and would be covered by a fixed canopy of a maximum height of 8.43m. 8no. floodlighting would be mounted on 6.2m columns. Part of the existing MUGA to the north would be replaced by soft landscaping. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3.3 The proposal does not involve any increase in car or cycle parking space provision. The existing parking arrangements associated with the sports centre and wider campus, accessed off Green Lane would serve the development. During the course of the application, a revised redline was submitted to include this Green Lane access and car parking area within the application site. Figure 3: Proposed Plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Figure 4: Proposed Elevations Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 5: Proposed Roof Plan 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to t he 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 em erging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); b. The extent to which there are unresol ved 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 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 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 100 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 31st July 2026. A petition in objection was received with 31 valid signatures, mainly from the residents of Carew Road to the north of the site. 10 separate objections were also received from nearby residents. The Carew Lodge Residents' Association and t he Northwood Residents’ Association also submitted letters of objection. 6.2 Following receipt of amended redline of the application site, re-consultations were issued to all neighbouring properties previously notified, along with those who also responded. The revised neighbour consultation process will expire on 2nd October 2026. At the moment, 5 objections have been received. Any additional representations will be reported at the Planning Committee meeting. 6.3 Representations received in response to the public consultation are summarised in Table 1 (below). Consultee responses received are summarised in Table 2 (below). Full copies of the responses have also separately been made available to Members. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response First Consultation (July 2026) 10 objections received. Petition in objection received with 31 valid signatures. The Carew Lodge Residents' Association and the Northwood Residents ’ Association also submitted letters of objection . Second consultation (October 2026) 5 objections received. Noise pollution and disturbance, impacting the neighbouring amenity and request for validity of the noise baseline. Proposed Opening times should be reduced. This matter is addressed in Paragraphs 7.16 to 7.20 of the report. Floodlighting and light pollution This matter is addressed in Paragraphs 7.21 to 7.22 of the report. Visual intrusion and harm to the setting of the Conservation Area, including scale, massing and height violations of the canopy and floodlight columns This matter is addressed in Paragraphs 7.5 to 7.11 of the report. Traffic, parking and highway safety This matter is addressed in Paragraphs 7.25 to 7.28 of the report. Loss of historic open space This matter is addressed in Paragraphs 7.1 to 7.11 of the report. Technical failures in flood risk and drainage assessment This matter is addressed in Paragraphs 7.39 to 7.41 of the report. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Risk to protected bat species This matter is addressed in Paragraph 7.37 of the report. Commercialisation of school grounds & perception of urbanisation as a result of light spill This matter is addressed in Paragraphs 7.21 to 7.22 of the report. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Internal Consultation Conservation Officer The footprint of the proposed Padel courts is broadly on the same footprint as an existing court. It is recommended that the finishes are dark matt colours to reduce the visual impact on the Conservation Area. The Conservation Officer’s comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Please refer to Condition 6 as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. Noise Officer B ased on the information provided, it is considered unlikely that an adverse noise impact would be caused by the proposed development, and no condition would be required. The Noise Officer’s comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 London Plan Policy G4 (Open Space) and Policy DMCI 3 (Public Open Space Provision) of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) require developments not to result in the loss of protected open space and any reconfiguration of public open space not to result in net loss of open space. In addition, London Plan Policy S5 (Sports and Recreation ) and Policies DMCI 1 (Retention of Existing Community Facilities) and DMCI 2 (New Community Infrastructu re) of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) support the enhancement of community and educational Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press facilities, provided they are located within the community they serve, are inclusive and accessible, and are designed to maximise shared community use. 7.2 The proposed two padel courts would be positioned side by side and would extend over a small area of adjoining grassland. However, the courts would not utilise the whole area of the existing MUGA to the north, and this part further to the north would be landscaped. As a result, the proposal would not result in net loss of open landscaped space as the open space would be reconfigured and would also result in a net additional gain of 45sqm of green open space in accordance with the relevant policies. 7.3 The submitted planning statement states that the school already operates community-access sports facilities on a pay-and- play basis, including the leisure centre and outdoor sports areas. As a result, the proposed padel courts would continue this established approach to community use when not in use by the students. This is considered acceptable as the proposal would enhance the educational and sporting facilities and would also form part of the local community’s recreational provision in accordance with the relevant Policies. A condition 11 is recommended to secure that the use would only be for Padel Tennis Club falling within Class F.2 (c) and no other 'F' use class is permitted without seeking full planning permission. 7.4 Overall, given the above, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle and would be in accordance with the relevant open space, sports and community use policies. Design & Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area and Heritage Assets 7.5 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 public realm and respect local character. Policy HC 1 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMHB 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) state that development proposals are expected to avoid harm to the historic environment. These aims are also supported by the NPPF (2026) at chapters 14 and 20. 7.6 The proposed development is located within the Northwood/Frithwood Conservation Area and on an existing surfaced sports ground and would not introduce development into open undeveloped land, apart from a small part to the east which would be compensated for . The proposal is accompanied by a Heritage Statement. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.7 The padel courts would be constructed to industry standard dimensions of approximately 20m long x 10m wide and would consist of a steel frame, with 12mm toughened glass panels forming the rear walls and parts of the sidewalls. The remainder of the structure would use welded powder- coated wire mesh panels. The maximum height of each padel court would be 4m. The padel courts would be covered by a fixed canopy struct ure with a maximum height of 8.43m, formed from a steel/aluminium frame with polycarbonate roof modules. The canopy is intended to allow for year-round use of the courts and is designed to be opaque and low -reflective in order to minimi se visual impact and glare. 8 no. (4 per court) integrated LED floodlighting mounted on 6.2m columns would also be installed. 7.8 The submitted Heritage Statement concludes that, compared to the existing MUGA area, whilst a roof structure is proposed, the materiality would ensure that the perception of openness to the area is maintained . Therefore, with reference to the to the levels of harm within the NPPF (2026), the proposals are considered to result in 'no harm' to the significance of the Northwood/Frithwood Conservation Area as a whole. 7.9 The Council’s Conservation Officer also re aches to the same conclusion as the footprint of the proposed Padel courts ar e broadly on the same footprint as the existing MUGA and additional open landscaped space would be created . They recommended that the finishes are dark matt colours to reduce the visual impact on the Conservation Officer. This is secured by the recommended condition 6. 7.10 In addition, the courts are centrally located within the wider sports campus. Whilst it is acknowledged that the maximum canopy height would be taller than the surrounding sports infrastructure, the new padel courts would be viewed in the context of existing sports infrastructure, including the adjoining floodlit (of 8m) hockey facilities. There are also existing mature trees and hedgerows surrounding the site. As a result, the proposal is not considered to cause a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and the Conservation Area. 7.11 Subject to the recommended materials condition 6, as detailed in the Appendix 1 of this report, the proposal would be acceptable in design and heritage terms and would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the wider area and Northwood/Frithwood Conservation Area , in accordance with the relevant Policies. Fire Safety 7.12 Policy D12 (A) of the London Plan (2021) states that all development proposals must achieve the highest standards of fire safety as outlined in this Policy. 7.13 As a result, condition 5 (fire safety) is recommended accordingly to ensure that the proposal would achieve the highest stan dards of fire safety. Subject to this condition, the proposed development would accord with the requirements of Policy D12 (A) of the London Plan (2021). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Accessibility 7.14 Policy D5 of the London Plan (2021) states that development proposals should achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design. 7.15 The submitted Planning Statement states that the courts would be accessed via existing surfaced routes within the campus and would provide inclusive recreational opportunities for both pupils and the wider community. Condition 7 is therefore recommended to secure this accordingly. Subject to this condition, the development is therefore considered accord with the requirements of Policy D5 of the London Plan (2021). Residential amenity 7.16 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) requires that all development is designed to the highest standards, incorporating principles of good design while safeguarding the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Development should not adversely affect outlook, privacy, or levels of daylight and sunlight, and should avoid generating unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance. Increased Noise and Disturbance 7.17 The nearest residential properties to the site are located approximately 72 metres to the north of the site, on Carew Road. To the east, Sentis Court is approximately 100 metres away from the proposed padel courts. Padel is a combination of tennis and squash. As the proposal would be for 2 courts, there would also be continuous noise from both courts operating simultaneously. Like doubles tennis, there are four players; two either side of a centre net. Both courts would be enclosed. 7.18 The applicant submitted a Noise Impact Assessment Report in support of the application. This report specifically states that the two above noise sensitive receptors were taken into account (Carew Road and Sentis Court). The acoustic consultants have previously measured sound levels from a variety of existing Padel courts, and these measurements hav e therefore been used accordingly. The report concluded that the proposed development is predicted to be below the existing ambient sound levels at the ne arest residential receptors with no additional measures required. 7.19 Given this report and that the residential reports are sufficiently distant from the proposed development, the Council’s Noise Officer considered that no adverse impact would occur on the neighbouring properties, without the need of attaching any condition . It is recommended that the applicant’s proposed hours of operation for community use are secured by condition 8. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.20 Overall, the proposal would not result in an adverse impact on any adjoining occupiers in terms of increased noise a nd disturbance in accordance with the Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Lighting 7.21 A Lighting Impact Assessment has been submitted which assessed residential receptors along Carew Road and trees no rth of the site. This assessment considered the worst-case scenario of 24 hours operation of the light fittings. The conclusion of the report is that lighti ng from the site will not exceed the recommended Institute of Lighting Professional (ILP) pre- and post-curfew criteria. 7.22 Given this, the proposal is not considered to have a significant adverse impact on neighbouring amenities in terms of light spilling. Condition 12 is recommended accordingly to ensure that the floodlights would be switched off when the padel courts are not in use. Loss of Light, Outlook and Privacy 7.23 Given the separation distance to the nearest neighbouring residential occupiers, it is considered that the proposal would not adversely impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of overbearing impact, ou tlook, overlooking or loss of light and privacy. 7.24 Overall, subject to the recommended conditions, it is considered that the proposal would not result in an adverse impact on any adjoining occupiers in terms of increased noise and disturbance , increased lighting spilling or loss of outlook, privacy and light, in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Transport 7.25 Policies T4 and T6 of the London Plan (2021), DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) are all direct ly relevant to the proposed development. These policies can be read in fu ll in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix, and in summary, seek to deliver development which is sustainable in transport terms and safeguards highway and pedestrian safety. These aims are also supported by the NPPF (202 6) at chapter 15, including Policy TR 6 of the NPPF (2026) which states that developments should only be refused if they would have a severe adverse impact on the transport networ k, or an unacceptable impact on highway safety. 7.26 There are no parking standards for padel courts. The site has a Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) of 3, on a scale of 0 to 6b where 6b is the highest. The proposal would utilise the school’s existing parking and access arrangements via Green Lane. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.27 The submitted Planning Statement states that there are approximately 89 car parking spaces accessed from the main entrance off Green Lane along with cycle parking facilities, and that the existing MUGA which was previously used for tennis and netball, could accommodate up to 14 players. The padel courts would accommodate a maximum of 8no. players at any given time. It is therefore considered that the proposed development is modest in nature and is not expected to generate significant additional traffic movements beyond the existing operat ion of the sports facilities within the St Helen’s school campus. 7.28 Overall, it is considered that the pro posal would be acceptable in terms of its impact on the public highway, in accordance with Policies DMT 1, DMT 2, DMT 5 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) and Policies T4 and T7 of the London Plan (2021). Environmental Issues Trees and Landscaping 7.29 Policies G1 and G5 of the London Plan (2021), DMEI 1, DMHB 11 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) are all directly relevant to the proposed development. These policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix, and in summary, seek to safeguard existing trees and deliver high -quality landscaping to enhance amenity, biodiversity and green infrastructure. These aims are also supported by the NPPF (2026) at chapter 19. 7.30 Existing mature trees and hedgerows surrounding the site make an important contribution to the character of the campus and the Conservation Area. The application is supported by an Arboricultural report which confirms that there are no tree works required as a result of this proposal and there is no proposed construction within the Root Protection Areas of retained trees. All retained trees would be protected in accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement. This Method Statement is recommended to be secured via Condition 13. 7.31 The northern part of the existing MUGA would be replaced by soft landscaping. Condition 4 is recommended to secure details of soft landscaping. 7.32 Overall, subject to recommended conditions 4 and 13, the proposal would be acceptable in landscaping terms and would accord with Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Biodiversity & Ecology 7.33 The Environment Act 2021 has established that all planning permissions granted in England have to deliver at least 10% Biodiversity Net Gain from January 2024. Policy N2 of the NPPF (2026) also stat es that development proposals should consider the environmental qualities of land proposed for development, including habitats, landscape characte r and the natural beauty of the coun tryside, and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press identify opportunities for those qualities to be conserved or enhanced, including through requirements for b iodiversity net gain where these apply. This is supported by Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 7.34 The area of the existing MUGA is 575 sqm. The replacement padel courts would have an area of 525 sqm and would also extend over a small area of adjoining grassland which measures 125 sqm. To compensate for this loss of open space, the surplus area of MUGA (175 sqm) is proposed to be landscaped to meet BNG requirements. As a result, an additional net 45 sqm of green open space would be created. 7.35 The Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Assessment submitted states that the current ecological baseline value of habitats on si te is 0.05 units, comprising developed land; sealed surface and modified grassland. The proposals for the site would result in a 29.41% biodiversity net gain in habitat units and would therefore meet and exceed the minimum uplift of 10% as required by the Environment Act 2021. 7.36 The BNG assessment also states that, as the habitat created is of low distinctiveness and covers a small area, it is not considered a significant enhancement and therefore would not require a separate Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan and S106 agreement, and would instead be managed in the same manner the existing grassland has. To achieve at least a moderate condition , a flowering lawn seed mix should be used which contains a diverse mix of low growing native wildflowers, resistant to more frequent management. This is accepted and is recommended to be secured by Condition 4. 7.37 The submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal concludes that the site itself has negligible value for roosting, foraging, or commuting bats due to the absence of suitable features or habitats. Nevertheless, nearby off -site features, including the tree lines to the east and north, are recognised as potentially important resources for bat species known to occur within the local area. It is therefore recommended that bat -sensitive lighting measures are implemented as part of the development proposals to ensure no significant light spill on these features , which would be secured by Condition 10. 7.38 Subject to Conditions 4 and 10, the proposal is considered to accord with the NPPF (2026), Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Drainage 7.39 Policy SI 13 of the London Plan (2021) also requires that development proposals utilise sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) unless there are practical reasons for not doing so and should aim to achieve greenfield run -off rates and ensure that surface water run-off is managed as close to its source as possible. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press This is supported by Policy EM6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) and Policy DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 7.40 A Flood Risk Assessment, incorporating Surface Water Drainage Strategy, has been submitted in support of the application. Integrated canopy drainage systems would collect roof water and discharge to the existing drainage network via proposed filter drains located along the low points of the canopy cover that would provide surface water treatment for the site. These measures are secured by Condition 9. 7.41 Subject to condition 9, the proposed de velopment is considered to comply with Policy DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020), Policy EM6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), Policy SI 13 of the London Plan (2021). 8 Other Matters Human Rights 8.1 The development has been assessed against the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and in particular Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the Act itself. This Act gives further effect to the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to the applicant's reasonable development rights and expectations which have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance. Equality 8.2 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the assessment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. Local Finance Considerations and CIL 8.3 As from 1 April 2012, all planning appr ovals for schemes with a net additional internal floor area of 100m2 or more wi ll be liable for the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (Mayoral CIL), as legislated by the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2 010 and t he Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2011. The London Borough of Hillingdon is a collecting authority for the Mayor of London and this liability shall be paid to LBH in the first instance. 8.4 In addition, the development represen ts Chargeable Development under the Hillingdon Community Infrastructure Levy, which came into effect on 1st August 2014. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 8.5 Please note, this commentary has been pr ovided 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 Not ice 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 application seeks full planning permi ssion for the installation of 2no. padel courts, measuring 20m by 10m, under an 8.43m canopy with floodlighting, on the existing Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) of St Helen’s school , including a small strip of adjoining land. The proposal would continue the approach of the school offering the sporting facilities to the public on a pay -and-play basis, when not in use by students. 9.2 The site is situated within the northern part of the St Helen’s school campus, adjacent to the existing hockey pitch, accessed via the main car park from Green Lane. It currently comprises a hard surfaced MUGA, previously used for both tennis and netball, enclosed by a chain -link fence and an area of adjoining grassland. 9.3 The proposal would be acceptable in design and heritage terms and would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the wider area and Northwood /Frithwood Conservation Area. It is also considered that the proposal would not result in an adverse impact on any adjoining occupiers in terms of increased noise and disturbance , increased lighting spilling or loss of outlook, privacy and light. 9.4 The proposal would be acceptable in term s of its impact on the public highway and is not expected to generate significant additional traffic movements beyond the existing operation of the sports facilities within the St Helen’s school campus. 9.5 The proposed development would not impact any trees in the locality and would be acceptable in landscaping terms. It wou ld also result in a 29.41% biodiversity gain and would therefore meet and exceed the minimum uplift of 10% as required by the Environment Act 2021. 9.6 Subject to the planning conditions recommended, the proposed development is considered, on balance, acceptable with respect to design, heritage, amenity, environmental issues, and transport. 9.7 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 indica te otherwise. For the reasons outlined above and within the main body of the report, the application is considered to comply with the Development Plan. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to securing the planning conditions set out in Appendix 1. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents taken into account in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential information) are available on the, 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 the background papers listed below, which have been relied upon to a material extent in its preparation and are available for public inspection, subjec t to any necessary redaction for exempt or confidential information. 10.3 Internal consultee comments: x Conservation Officer x Noise Officer AAPPENDICES Planning Application 7402/APP/2026/1610 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 14 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. RES3 T Time Limit The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. RES4 A Accordance with Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers: - 001 RevB Location Plan - 002 RevA Existing Site Plan - 003 RevB Proposed Site Plan - 004 RevA Proposed Elevations - 005 RevA 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 Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012), Part 2 (2020) and the London Plan (2021). 3. RES5 G General compliance with supporting documentation The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the following has been completed in accordance with the specified supporting plans and/or documents: - Planning Statement prepared by Padel Tech Ltd and dated June 2026 - Heritage Statement prepared by SKR Lighting Design and dated September 2022 - Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment prepared by Ecology Partnership and dated April 2026 - Preliminary Ecological Appraisal prepared by Ecology Partnership and dated April 2026 - Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Peninsular Acoustics and dated May 2026 - Lighting Impact Assessment prepared by MEC Consulting Group Ltd and dated June 2026 - Flood Risk Assessment prepared by MEC Consulting Group Ltd and dated May 2026 - Arboricultural Planning Report prepared by Arb Consultancy Ltd and dated May 2026 Thereafter the development shall be retained/maintained in accordance with these details for as long as the development remains in existence. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 14 REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012), Part 2 (2020) and the London Plan (2021). 4 4. NONSC L Landscape Scheme Notwithstanding the approved plans, prior to commencement of works above ground level of the development hereby permitted, a landscape scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which shall include 29% Biodiversity Net Gain. The scheme shall include: - 1. Details of Soft Landscaping 1a Detailed planting plans (at not less than a scale of 1:100) 1.b Written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken, 1.c Schedule of plants giving species, plant sizes, and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate, by taking into account the recommendations of the approved Biodiversity Net Gain assessment for a flowering lawn seed mix to be used which contains a diverse mix of low growing native wildflowers, resistant to more frequent management. 2. Details of Hard Landscaping 2.a Refuse Storage, including capacity 2.b Full details of the means of enclosure and boundary treatments, including product details with materials and finish. 2.c Hard Surfacing Materials (including the external areas and amenity areas which would be accessible to older and disabled people, including wheelchair users) 3. Details of Landscape Maintenance 3.a Landscape Maintenance Schedule for a minimum period of 5 years. 3.b Proposals for the replacement of any tree, shrub, or area of turfing/seeding within the landscaping scheme which dies or in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority becomes seriously damaged or diseased. 4. Schedule for Implementation 5. Other 5.a Existing and proposed functional services above and below ground 5.b Proposed finishing levels or contours All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out and maintained in full accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 14 REASON To ensure that the proposed development will preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and provide adequate facilities in compliance with Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 12, DMHB 14, and DMEI 1, of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and Policy G5 of the London Plan (2021). 5 5. NONSC F Fire Safety No above ground development shall take place unless and until a compliance statement in response to highest standards of fire safety of London Plan Policy D12 (A) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved statement and thereafter shall be maintained as such. REASON To ensure that the development meets Fire Safety Standards in accordance with Policy D12 (A) of the London Plan (2021). 6. NONSC M Materials No above ground development shall take place unless and until details of the type and treatment of the materials, which shall include finishes of dark matt colours, to be used on the exterior of the structure have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved materials shall be used in the construction of the development hereby approved, completed prior to its occupation/use and retained thereafter. REASON To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of visual amenity and impact on the Conservation Area in accordance with Policies DMHB 1 and DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 7. NONSC A Accessibility No above ground development shall take place unless and until details of inclusive access to the development to meet the needs of people with disabilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved facilities should be provided prior to the occupation of the development and shall be permanently retained thereafter. REASON To ensure that people with disabilities have adequate access to the development in accordance with Policies D5 and D12 of the London Plan (2021). 8. NONSC H Hours of operation The Padel courts hereby approved shall only operate Monday to Fridays between the hours Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 14 of 08.00 and 21.00, Saturdays between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00, and Sundays between the hours of 09:00 and 18:00, and at no other times. REASON To safeguard the amenity of the neighbours in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 9 9. NONSC D Drainage The development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment prepared by MEC Consulting Group Ltd and dated May 2026. Prior to first occupation/use of the development, written confirmation that the approved SuDS measures have been implemented as part of the development as built must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All of the approved measures must thereafter be retained for as long as the development is in existence. REASON To ensure that surface water run-off is controlled and to ensure the development does not increase flood risk, in compliance with Policy EM6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), Policies DMEI 9 and DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020), Policies SI 12 and SI 13 of the London Plan (2021), the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), and Planning Practice Guidance. 10. NONSC E External Lighting Strategy Prior to the first use of the development hereby approved, a comprehensive external lighting strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall strike an appropriate balance between human-centric needs and ecological protection as follows: - Demonstrating that the lighting scheme provides safe and secure routes for pedestrians in and around the proposed development. - Assessing light spill and glare to demonstrate that the design incorporates mitigation measures, including Lux levels and colour temperature, with external lighting to be angled downwards, and light directed into the site, and it should not provide flood lighting to the adjacent trees to show consideration for any nocturnal species, as recommended by the approved Preliminary Ecological Appraisal prepared by Ecology Partnership and dated April 2026. The approved lighting strategy shall be fully implemented prior to first use and retained in operation thereafter. REASON To ensure that the development presents a satisfactory appearance in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and to manage any impacts on biodiversity in accordance with Policy DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan of the Hillingdon Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 14 Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) and Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021). 111. NONSC U Use restriction The development hereby permitted, shall only be occupied by Padel courts falling within Class F.2 (c) (Areas or place for outdoor sport or recreation) as defined by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), notwithstanding the changes to the Use Classes Order in relation to Use Class F. No other 'F' use class is permitted without seeking full planning permission. REASON To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess all the implications of the development on highway safety, parking and neighbouring amenities in accordance with Policies DMHB 11, DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 12. NONSC H Hours of lighting All lighting associated with the padel courts shall be switched off no later than 30 minutes after the end of the permitted operating hours on each day, as specified in Condition 8 of this permission. REASON To safeguard the amenity of the neighbours in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 13. NONSC T Tree protection The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Arboricultural Planning Report prepared by Arb Consultancy Ltd and dated May 2026. REASON To ensure that retained trees and other vegetation will not be damaged during construction work and to ensure that the development conforms with Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 14. NONSC T Trees to be retained Trees, hedges and shrubs shown to be retained on the approved plans shall not be damaged, uprooted, felled, lopped or topped without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. If any retained tree, hedge or shrub is removed or severely damaged during construction, or is found to be seriously diseased or dying another tree, hedge or shrub shall be planted at the same place or, if planting in the same place would leave the new tree, hedge or shrub susceptible to disease, then the planting should be in a position to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and shall be of a size and species to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be planted in the first planting season following the completion of the development or the occupation of the Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 14 buildings, whichever is the earlier. Where damage is less severe, a schedule of remedial works necessary to ameliorate the effect of damage by tree surgery, feeding or groundwork shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. New planting should comply with BS 3936 (1992) 'Nursery Stock, Part 1, Specification for Trees and Shrubs' Remedial work should be carried out to BS BS 3998:2010 'Tree work - Recommendations' and BS 4428 (1989) 'Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations (Excluding Hard Surfaces)'. The agreed work shall be completed in the first planting season following the completion of the development or the occupation of the buildings, whichever is the earlier. REASON To ensure that the trees and other vegetation continue to make a valuable contribution to the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) and to comply with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I Informatives Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7 of 14 AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History 7402/APP/2008/2272 St Helens School Eastbury Road Northwood Middlesex Erection of a three storey rear extension with new steps and vertical access lift to Claremont House Junior School. Decision: 17-11-2008 Approved 7402/APP/2009/1476 St Helens School Eastbury Road Northwood Middlesex Refurbishment and alterations to existing buildings and landscaping. Decision: 07-09-2009 Approved 7402/APP/2010/2425 St Helens School Eastbury Road Northwood Installation of 3 solar panels to front. Decision: 04-01-2011 Approved 7402/APP/2013/3447 Little St Helens 83 Green Lane Northwood Installation of hoop-top railings 1.8m in height and 3 x pedestrian gates, involving removal of existing 1.8m-high chain link fencing and concrete posts along southern site boundary with Green Lane Decision: 20-02-2014 Approved 7402/APP/2014/2761 St Helens School Eastbury Road Northwood Development of a new part two-storey and part single-storey Junior School building with associated external works. Decision: 07-10-2014 Approved 7402/APP/2015/1283 St Helens School Eastbury Road Northwood Construction of temporary accommodation to house seven sixth form tutorial/teaching rooms and a temporary walkway within the School House courtyard for a period of 52 weeks Decision: 04-06-2015 Approved 7402/APP/2015/1802 St Helens School Eastbury Road Northwood Alterations and extension of the School House building to form a new entrance; rearrangement of internal spaces to rationalise circulation and improve management, teaching and staff facilities; and modifications to the external spaces to reinforce the Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 8 of 14 pedestrian approach from Eastbury Road to improve the visitor parking layout and to upgrade the central courtyard. DDecision: 07-08-2015 Approved 7402/APP/2015/2114 St Helens School Eastbury Road Northwood Details in compliance with conditions 4 (levels), 5 (materials), 6 (tree protection), 7 (landscaping), 10 (energy assessment), 12 (construction traffic management plan), 14 (evacuation plan/fire strategy), 15 (SuDS) and 17 (Japanese Knotweed removal) of planning permission ref: 7402/APP/2014/2761 dated 03/11/14 (Development of a new part two-storey and part single-storey Junior School building with associated external works). Decision: 24-02-2016 Approved 7402/APP/2015/2572 St Helens School Eastbury Road Northwood Details in compliance with condition 4 (tree protection) of planning permission ref: 7402/APP/2015/1283 dated 04/06/15; Construction of temporary accommodation to house seven sixth form tutorial/teaching rooms and a temporary walkway within the School House courtyard for a period of 52 weeks. Decision: 31-07-2015 Approved 7402/APP/2015/3423 St Helens School Eastbury Road Northwood Details pursuant to conditions 4 (levels), 5 (materials), 6 (tree protection) and 7 (landscaping scheme) of planning permission ref: 7402/APP/2015/1802 dated 07/08/15 (Alterations and extension of the School House building to form a new entrance; rearrangement of internal spaces to rationalise circulation and improve management, teaching and staff facilities; and modifications to the external spaces to reinforce the pedestrian approach from Eastbury Road to improve the visitor parking layout and to upgrade the central courtyard). Decision: 18-12-2015 Approved 7402/APP/2015/4162 St Helens School Green Lane Northwood Details in compliance with condition 9 (ecological enhancements) of planning permission ref: 7402/APP/2014/2761 dated 03/11/14 (Development of a new part two-storey and part single-storey Junior School building with associated external works). Decision: 21-12-2015 Approved 7402/APP/2016/1636 St Helens School Eastbury Road Northwood Non-material amendment to planning permission ref: 7402/APP/2015/1802 dated 07/08/15 (Alterations and extension of the School House building to form a new entrance; rearrangement of internal spaces to rationalise circulation and improve management, teaching and staff facilities; and modifications to the external spaces to reinforce the Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 9 of 14 pedestrian approach from Eastbury Road to improve the visitor parking layout and to upgrade the central courtyard) to make various minor alterations to the west (front) elevation and the east (rear/courtyard) elevation D Decision: 24-05-2016 Approved 7402/APP/2016/1800 St Helens School Eastbury Road Northwood Non material amendment to planning permission ref: 7402/APP/2014/2761 dated 03/11/14 (development of a new part two-storey and part single-storey Junior School building with associated external works) to make various minor external alterations. Decision: 25-05-2016 Approved 7402/APP/2016/2269 St Helens School Eastbury Road Northwood Refurbishment of an existing Junior School building (Mackenzie Building) to convert it into a Sixth Form Centre. Decision: 05-08-2016 Approved 7402/APP/2016/2939 St Helens School Eastbury Road Northwood Demolition of the Claremont building and construction of a new Music Building on the same site. Decision: 26-10-2016 Approved 7402/APP/2017/1525 St Helens School Eastbury Road Northwood Details pursuant to conditions 4 (levels), 5 (tree protection), 6 (landscaping), 8 (SUDS), 9 (noise), 10 (noise), 11 (wildlife enhancements), 13 (materials) and 14 (recording of the building) of planning permission ref: 7402/APP/2016/2939 dated 31/10/2016 (Demolition of the Claremont building and construction of a new Music Building on the same site). Decision: 13-04-2018 Approved 7402/APP/2017/2113 St Helens School Eastbury Road Northwood Details pursuant to condition 4 (colour of floodlighting columns) of planning permission ref: 7402/APP/2017/55 dated 02/03/2017 (Floodlighting to proposed artificial grass pitch). Decision: 04-08-2017 Approved 7402/APP/2017/2166 St Helens School Eastbury Road Northwood Details pursuant to Conditions 3 (Tree Protection), 4 (Landscaping), 6 (SUDS) and 8 (Community Use Agreement) of planning permission Ref: 7402/APP/2017/56 dated 02/03/17 (Proposed new artificial grass pitch). Decision: 29-10-2020 Approved Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 10 of 14 7402/APP/2017/3411 St Helen'S School Gwyer House Eastbury Road Northwood Middlesex Details pursuant to condition 15 (evidence of contract) of planning permission ref: 7402/APP/2016/2939 dated 26/10/16 (Demolition of the Claremont building and construction of a new Music Building on the same site) D Decision: 01-11-2017 Approved 7402/APP/2017/55 St Helens School Eastbury Road Northwood Floodlighting to proposed artificial grass pitch. Decision: 02-03-2017 Approved 7402/APP/2017/56 St Helens School Eastbury Road Northwood Proposed new artificial grass pitch Decision: 02-03-2017 Approved 7402/APP/2018/3445 St Helens School Eastbury Road Northwood Demolition of the Fitzwalter building and construction of a new STEM building on same site. Decision: 12-03-2019 Approved 7402/APP/2019/1459 St Helen'S School Eastbury Road Northwood Details pursuant to Condition 4 (Landscaping), 6 (Demolition and Construction Management Plan), 7 (Construction Training Scheme), 8 (Energy), 9 (Ecological Enhancement), 11 (Design and Materials), 12 (Recording) & 13 (Contamination) of planning permission ref: 7402/APP/2018/3445 dated 18/03/2019 (Demolition of the Fitzwalter building and construction of a new STEM building on same site.) Decision: 26-07-2019 Approved 7402/APP/2019/2080 St Helen'S School Eastbury Road Northwood Details pursuant to Condition 15 (Contracts) of planning permission ref: 7402/APP/2018/3445 dated 18/03/2019 (Demolition of the Fitzwalter building and construction of a new STEM building on same site.) Decision: 14-08-2019 Approved 7402/APP/2019/3505 St Helen'S School Eastbury Road Northwood Erection of a single storey detached outbuilding to be used as estates office and storage Decision: 21-04-2020 Approved Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 11 of 14 7402/APP/2022/2148 St Helen'S School Eastbury Road Northwood Construction of two storey extension to existing sports centre to provide changing accommodation and an office for PE teaching staff. DDecision: 28-02-2023 Approved 7402/APP/2023/1626 St Helen'S School Eastbury Road Northwood Details pursuant to the discharge of Conditions 7 (Ecological Enhancement Plan) and 10 (Tree Replacement) of planning permission ref.7402/APP/2022/2148 dated 28-02-23 (Construction of two storey extension to existing sports centre to provide changing accommodation and an office for PE teaching staff.) Decision: 27-06-2023 Approved 7402/APP/2023/2873 St Helen'S School Eastbury Road Northwood Variation of Conditions 2 (Accordance with Approved Plans), 8 (Tree protection) and 10 (Details of Replacement Trees) of planning permission ref. 7402/APP/2022/2148, dated 28- 02-2023 (Construction of two storey extension to existing sports centre to provide changing accommodation and an office for PE teaching staff). Amendments seek to increase area of paving and remove two additional trees to enable fire tender access, and omission of an external staircase. Decision: 05-04-2024 Approved Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 12 of 14 AAppendix 3: List of Relevant Planning Policies The following Local Plan Policies are considered relevant to the application:- Part 1 Policies: PT1.BE1 (2012) Built Environment PT1.CI1 (2012) Community Infrastructure Provision PT1.CI2 (2012) Leisure and Recreation PT1.EM4 (2012) Open Space and Informal Recreation PT1.EM5 (2012) Sport and Leisure PT1.EM6 (2012) Flood Risk Management PT1.EM7 (2012) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PT1.EM8 (2012) Land, Water, Air and Noise PT1.HE1 (2012) Heritage Part 2 Policies: DMCI 1 Retention of Existing Community Sport and Education Facilities DMCI 2 New Community Infrastructure DMCI 3 Public Open Space Provision DMCI 4 Open Spaces in New Development DMCI 6 Indoor Sports and Leisure Facilities DMCI 7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy DMEI 10 Water Management, Efficiency and Quality DMEI 7 Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement DMHB 1 Heritage Assets DMHB 11 Design of New Development Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 13 of 14

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Sally Robbins 51321/APP/2025/2991 Date Application Valid: 15-01-2026 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 13-10-2026 Application Type: Full Ward: Eastcote Applicant: Sterling Rose Homes Ltd Site Address: Haydon House, 296 Joel Street, Northwood HA5 2PY Proposal: First floor front extension, roof alterations including rooflights and rear dormers, conversion of loft space to habitable accommodation, and internal reconfiguration to enlarge Flat 5 from a one -bedroom flat to a three- bedroom flat. 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 – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 1 Executive Summary 1.1 The application seeks planning permission for a first-floor front extension, roof alterations including rooflights and rear dormer windows, conversion of the loft space to habitable accommodation, and internal alterations to enlarge Flat 5 from a one-bedroom to a three-bedroom dwelling. The proposal would not increase the overall number of residential units at th e site, which would remain at eight, as approved under prior approval ref. 51321/APP/2025/1649. 1.2 The proposal has been amended since a previously refused scheme (ref. 51321/APP/2026/1474). The revised scheme has overcome the previous concerns relating to design, impact on the setting of the Eastcote Village Conservation Area, living conditions of fu ture occupiers, landscaping, flood risk and ecology. Subject to conditions secu ring the approved privacy mitigation measures, including obscure glazing to the rear dormers, boundary fencing and privacy screen to the external staircase, the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. 1.3 Whilst the enlarged dwelling would not benefit from private outdoor amenity space, this is balanced against the fact that the proposal relates to the enlargement of an existing approved residential unit rather than the creation of an additional dwelling. The enlarged dwelling would continue to have access to a communal amenity space to the rear of the building. Taking into account the constraints of the existing building, the improvements to the communal amenity space, the proximity of high- quality public open spaces, and the benefit of providing a family -sized dwelling within the approved development, it is not considered that this shortfall would justify refusal. 1.4 Taking all relevant matters into account an d giving due regard to local resident’s objections, 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 is located on the west side of Joel Street, near its intersection with Deerlings Drive. The main site acce ss and the building's principal elevation face Joel Street, with vehicle parking locat ed towards the rear (west) of the site. The site comprises a two-storey detached building that was formerly in use as an office building and is currently being redeveloped following a recent office to Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press residential prior approval application. The application site adjoins Eastcote Village Conservation Area. 2.2 There are mature trees adjacent to the site, notably one street tree on the grass verge adjacent to the highway and on e within the front garden of 31 Deerings Drive. Both trees have amenity value, and whilst the street tree is not protected (it is not within the Conservation Area boundary nor within a Tree Preservation Area), the tree within 31 Deerings Drive is protected by Tree Preservation Area no. 363. The site is in a Critical Drainage Area. 2.3 The front of the site is within a 20-metre Bank Top Protection Area and Flood Zone 3. The remainder (rear) of the site is in Flood Zone 2. Residential development adjoins the site to the north, south, and west and comprises predominantly two- storey dwellinghouses. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Figure 2: Aerial view of the site (edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Aerial view to northeast Figure 4: Front elevation of the site Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3 Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for a first-floor front extension, roof alterations including rooflights and rear dormer wi ndows, conversion of the loft space to habitable accommodation, and internal reconfiguration to enlarge approved Flat 5 from a one-bedroom flat to a three-bedroom flat. 3.2 The proposal would not increase the overall number of residential units at the site, with the development continuing to provide eight self-contained flats as previously approved. The works comprise alterations to the approved residential conversion scheme, including external alterations to facilitate the enlarged accommodation, together with associated internal layout changes. The proposal also includes associated landscaping improvements within the communal amenity space. 3.3 The application follows a recent prior approval application under Class MA of the General Permitted Development Order ( GPDO), which gained approval for the conversion of the existing buil ding to provide eight flats (see Relevant Planning History below). The current application s eeks to enlarge Flat 5 only. The total number of flats as a result of the cu rrent planning application and the prior approval scheme would remain as eight. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 5: Existing site plan (please note – larger version of plan can be found in the Committee Plan Pack) Figure 6: Proposed site plan Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 7: Existing elevations Figure 8: Proposed front and rear elevations Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 9: Existing side elevations Figure 10: Proposed side elevations Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 11: Existing first floor plan Figure 12: Proposed first floor plan Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 13: Proposed loft floor plan Figure 14: Existing roof plan Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 15: Proposed roof 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 site has an extensive recent planning history. Most recently, planning permission was refused under application ref. 51321/APP/2025/2472 for a two- storey front extension and conversion of the loft space to create an additional self- contained flat. The application was refused due to the poor standard of accommodation for future occupiers, harm to the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the Eastcote Village Conservation Area, insufficient landscaping, failure to satisfy the Sequentia l Test in relation to flood risk, and insufficient ecological information relating to protected species. 4.3 Prior to this, prior approval was granted on 9 October 2025 (ref. 51321/APP/2025/1649) for the change of use from offices (Class E) to residential (Class C3) to provide eight self -contained flats under Class MA of the GPDO. This followed the grant of full planning permission on 29 August 2025 (ref. 51321/APP/2025/1642) for external altera tions, including new doors, a front window and an external staircase. 4.4 An earlier planning application for the demolition of the existing building and erection of a four-storey residential blo ck comprising 13 flats was refused on 23 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press June 2023 (ref. 51321/APP/2023/24). The reasons for refusal included its location within an area of high flood risk and failure to satisfy the Sequential Test, harm to the character and appearance of the area and the nearby Conservation Area, unacceptable impacts on neighbouring and future occupiers, insufficient family- sized housing, inadequate parking provision, failure to demonstrate appropriate flood mitigation and d rainage measures, non-compliance with accessible design standards, inadequate affordable housing provision and the absence of necessary infrastructure contributions. 4.5 Prior approval had previously been granted on 2 November 2022 (ref. 51321/APP/2022/1861) for the change of use of the existing office building to six self-contained flats under Class MA of the GPDO. 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 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 unresol ved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved ob jections, 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, t he 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. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Neighbour notification letters were sent to 12 neighbouring properties and Eastcote Residents Association on 16 January 2026. During the initial consultation, objections were received from 17 individual local residents, together with an objection from Eastcote Residents Association. 6.2 Following the receipt of amended plans, a re-consultation was undertaken on 16 April 2026. Objections were received from 12 individual local residents, comprising eight individuals who had previously objec ted during the initial consultation and four new objectors. Accordingly, across both consultation periods, objections have been received from a total of 21 indivi dual local residents. The application therefore meets the threshold for referral to the Planning Committee on the basis of the number of objections received. 6.3 During the re-consultation, further objections were also received from Eastcote Residents Association and a local Ward Councillor. The key concerns raised through both consultation periods are summarised in Table 1 below. Table 1: Summary of Representations Received Representations Summary of Issues Raised Planning Officer Response 21 individual objections were received. 1. Overdevelopment and over-intensification of the site The proposal would retain eight flats and enlarge Flat 5 only. The scale and intensity of development are considered acceptable. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.1 -7.10. 2. Quality of accommodation (substandard living space) The enlarged flat would provide acceptable internal accommodation. The shortfall in private amenity space is not considered sufficient to justify refusal. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.25 -7.30. 3. Harm to the character and appearance of the area arising from the scale, bulk and design of the proposed extensions appearance The amended scale, massing and design are considered acceptable and would not cause unacceptable harm to the street scene. This is Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press discussed in paragraphs 7.4-7.10. 4. Harm to the setting of the Eastcote Village Conservation Area The amended proposal is not considered to harm the significance or setting of the Conservation Area. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.11 -7.16. 5. Loss of privacy and overlooking from the proposed windows, dormers and rooflights Overlooking has been considered and appropriate privacy mitigation would be secured by condition. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.17 -7.24. 6. Loss of outlook, light and an overbearing impact on neighbouring occupiers The proposal would not result in unacceptable loss of outlook, daylight or sunlight, or an unduly overbearing impact. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.17 -7.24. 7. Increased noise and disturbance arising from additional residential occupation and use of the external staircase The proposal would retain eight flats and is not considered to result in unacceptable additional noise or disturbance. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.17 -7.24. 8. Increased parking demand, traffic generation and highway safety concerns The Highway Authority raises no objection. No additional parking is required and no unacceptable highway impacts would arise. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.33 -7.37. 9. Loss of landscaping and insufficient amenity space Landscaping improvements are proposed. The shortfall in private amenity space has been assessed and is not considered sufficient to Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press justify refusal. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.27 -7.30 and 7.38-7.42. 10. Flood risk and drainage concerns The submitted FRA and Sequential Test are considered acceptable, and the proposal would not materially increase flood risk or surface water run- off. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.48 -7.54. 11. Ecology and biodiversity concerns The proposal is not considered to result in unacceptable harm to biodiversity or protected species. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.43 -7.47. 12. Concerns that the proposal represents incremental development following previous applications and refusals. The site's planning history has been taken into account. The current application has been assessed on its merits in the context of the extant approvals and previous refusal. This is discussed in paragraphs 4.2 -4.5 and 7.1-7.3. 13. Concerns relating to the refuse storage room, that it would be overcrowded and would attract vermin. The existing refuse storage arrangements would remain unchanged. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.56 –7.58. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Urban Design Officer The Urban Design Officer initially broadly supported the proposals, although concerns were raised regarding the loft accommodation, roof form and landscaping. Following further amendments and clarification, the Urban Design Officer considered the Comments noted. The plans were amended following the initial advice. Design and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press projection and massing broadly acceptable, noting that the chamfered corners and roof treatment would soften the appearance of the front gable. Some concern remains regarding the lack of private amenity space for the enlarged family -sized unit; however, overall the scheme is considered broadly acceptable. residential amenity matters are assessed in the relevant sections of this report and, on balance, are considered acceptable. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.4-7.10, 7.25-7.30 and 7.38- 7.42 of this report. Highway Authority No objection. The enlargement of Flat 5 to a three- bedroom unit would not require additional parking provision. The proposed cycle parking is welcomed. Comments noted. The proposal is considered acceptable in respect of parking, traffic generation and highway safety. This is discussed in paragraphs 7.33 -7.37 of this report. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 Policy GG4 of the London Plan seeks to optimise housing delivery across London, whilst Policy H1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 supports the delivery of new homes to meet identified housing needs. Policy T1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 seeks to direct development to appropriate and sustainable locations. Furthermore, Policy S4 of the NPPF establishes a strong presumption in favour of development within settlements, stating that development proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects. Policies L2 and L3 also support the effective and efficient use of land within settlements, and make clear that existing character should be taken into account but should not preclude development which makes the most of an area's potential. 7.2 The application site is located within an established residential area and benefits from prior approval under application ref. 51321/APP/2025/1649 for the change of use of the building from offices (Use Cla ss E) to residential (Use Class C3) to provide eig ht self-contained flats. The current proposal would not increase the number of approved residential units, but instead seeks to enlarge approved Flat 5 from a one -bedroom to a three-bedroom dwelling through a first floor extension, roof alterations and loft conversion. The proposal would therefore represent additional development within an existing residential site within a settlement, Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press making more effective use of the existing building and approved residential development. This approach is consistent with the objectives of Policies S4 and L3 of the NPPF. 7.3 The proposal would make more effici ent use of the approved residential accommodation by providing a family -sized dwelling, whilst retaining the overall number of residential units. The provision of a larger family- sized dwelling and more efficient use of an existing residential site are benefits of the proposal which attract weight in the planning balance. In accordance with Policy S4, these benefits must be considered against any adverse effects identified through the assessment against the NPPF's decision -making policies. As set out in the assessment below, no adverse effects have been identified which would substantially outweigh these benefits. Accordingly, subject to compli ance with all other material planning considerations, including design, residential amenity, flood risk and heritage impacts, the proposal is considered acceptable in principle. Impact on Character and Appearance 7.4 Policy DP3 of the NPPF, Policy D4 of th e 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, this 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. 7.5 The site is located within a suburban area of Eastcote, characterised predominantly by two -storey semi- detached and detached dwellings with traditional pitched roofs, consistent build ing lines and modest plot widths. Whilst the site lies outside the Eastcote Village Conservation Area, it forms part of its setting. The impact on the Conservation Area is considered separately below. 7.6 The proposal has been amended from the previously refused scheme. Rather than a front extension with an inset balcony and additional residential unit, the current proposal comprises a front extension, roof alterations and the conversion of the loft space to enlarge Flat 5. The proposal also includes enhancements to the site's landscaping, including additional soft pl anting within the frontage and communal amenity space. 7.7 The Council's Urban Design Officer has reviewed the amended scheme and considers the amended design to be acceptable. Whilst the proposed front gable is larger than would typically be expected on a domestic building and projects forward of the prevai ling building line , it is considered that the revised design is significantly more restrained than the previously refused scheme. The chamfered corners soften the appearance of the gable and assists in reducing the visual prominence of the forward projection. Although the gable remains a prominent feature, it reflects the geometry of the existing building and is considered an Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press appropriate design response given the constraints of adapting the approved development. Furthermore, the chamfered form has similarities with the adjoining building at No. 292 Joel Street, whilst the forward projection is contextualised by No. 31 Deerings Drive, which also projects forward of the general building line. 7.8 The revised proposal also omits the previously proposed inset balcony, which was considered to be a visually incongruous feature. As amended, the proposal presents a simpler and more coherent front elevation that is better integrated with the existing building and the surrounding street scene. The introduction of additional soft landscaping within the frontage and communal areas, whilst limited in scale, further improves the visual appearance of the site and reflects the character of the area. 7.9 Whilst the proposal results in some design compromises, principally in relation to the scale of the front gable, it is not considered that these would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. On balance, having regard to the constraints of adapting an existing building, the proposal is considered to respond appropriately to its context and would integrate satisfactorily within the streetscene. 7.10 Accordingly, the proposal is considered to comply with Policies BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1, Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2, Policy D4 of the London Plan, and Policy DP3 of the NPPF. Impact on Heritage Assets 7.11 The application site lies outside, but immediately adjacent to, the Eastcote Village Conservation Area. Policy DMHB 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 requires development affecting the setting of a Conservation Area to preserve or enhance its character and appearance. Policy HC1 of the London Plan seeks to ensure that development affecting heritage assets and their settings conserves their significance and remains sympathetic to their character and surroundings. Similarly, Policy HE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 seeks the conservation and enhancement of the Borough's historic environment, whilst Policy DMHB 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 requires development affecting heritage assets to be appropriate in terms of its siting, scale, form and design. 7.12 At national level, Policy HE4 of the NPPF requires heritage assets to be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance and requires development to avoid, or where this is not possible minimise, ha rm to their significance, including any contribution made by their setting. Policy HE5 requires the effects of development on the significance of heritage assets to be assessed, including effects arising from development within their setting. Policy HE6 requires substantial weight to be given to the conservation of designate d heritage assets when considering the effects of development upon their signific ance. Policy HE9 specifically requires proposals affecting the significance of Conservation Areas to have regard to their special architectural or historic interest and to conserve those elements which make a positive contribution to the area. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.13 The Eastcote Village Conservation Area li es on the opposite side of Joel Street, with its boundary comprising the ground s of Haydon Hall. The application site therefore forms part of the setting within which the Conservation Area is experienced. 7.14 The proposal has been amended from the previously refused scheme. The previously proposed inset balcony and additional dwelling have been omitted, resulting in a reduced form of development . The current proposal is limited to a first-floor front extension, roof alterations and the enlargement of an approved residential unit. 7.15 The Council's Design & Conservation Team have reviewed the amended scheme and consider that, whilst the proposal results in some design compromises arising from the constraints of adapting the existing building, these are mitigated by the revised design. The front gable remains larger than would typically be expected on a domestic building; however, the chamfered corners would visually soften its appearance, whilst the tiled roof would assist in providing an appropriate transition between the main gable pitch and the lower -pitched chamfered sides. The projection and massing are therefore considered broadly acceptable having regard to the form of the existing building and surrounding development. 7.16 Having regard to the nature and scale of the amended proposal and its relationship with the Conservation Area, it is considered that the proposal would have no harmful effect on the significance of th e Eastcote Village Conservation Area, including the contribution made by its setting. Accordingly, no heritage harm arises that would require a balancing exercise under Policy HE6 of the NPPF. The proposal is considered to conserve the significance of the designated heritage asset and complies with the above policies in terms of its heritage impact. Residential Amenity 7.17 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. 7.18 The principal concern arising from the prop osal relates to the introduction of two rear dormer windows, the increase in the number of rooflights, the use of the loft space as habitable accommodation, and the potential for overlooking of neighbouring properties to the side and rear. It is noted that the prior approval scheme already permits a number of side - and rear-facing openings at ground and first floor level, which provide outlook towards neighbouring properties. 7.19 Accordingly, the proposed dormers would not introduce a new relationship in terms of overlooking, but rather have the potential to alter the extent of overlooking from the approved scheme. In response to these concerns, the applicant has Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press amended the proposal to provide the dormer windows with Pilkington Level 4 obscure glazing, with the windows fixed shut below 1.8m above internal floor level. In addition, the rooflight positioned bet ween the two rear dormers would also be required by condition to be obscure glazed , further limiting opportunities for overlooking towards neighbouring properties. Subject to a condition securing these measures in perpetuity, it is considered that the proposed dormers and rooflight would not materially increase the level of overlooking beyond that already established by the extant permission and would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers. 7.20 Concerns have also been raised regarding overlooking from the approved ground floor patio doors and windows, given that the internal floor level of the ground floor accommodation is higher than the adjoining neighbouring gardens. It is noted that these openings have already been approv ed under the extant prior approval permission and do not form part of the current application. Nevertheless, as part of the landscaping proposal for the current scheme the applicant has proposed to increase the height of the b oundary fence adjoining Nos. 30 and 31 Deerings Drive to 2.2m, which would provide additional screening between the ground floor accommodation / communal amenity space and neighbouring gardens. Subject to a condition securing the installation and retention of the increased boundary fencing, it is considered that this a dditional mitigation would satisfactorily safeguard the privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers. 7.21 In addition, a privacy screen to the external staircase was previously approved under a discharge of condition application and has been incorporated into the current proposal. Whilst representations have been received stating that the privacy screen has not yet been installed, the approved condition requires the screen to be installed prior to the first use of the external staircase and thereafter retained in perpetuity. As the residential units are not yet occupied, that trigger point has not yet been reached. Notwith standing this, the current application includes the approved privacy screen and a condition will be imposed requiring its installation prior to the occupation of the development and its retention thereafter. This will ensure that the staircase does not result in unacceptable overlooking towards neighbouring properties. 7.22 A neighbouring occupier at Haydon House has requested that a canopy also be installed over the external staircase to prov ide additional privacy mitigation. It is acknowledged that use of the elevated staircase has the potential to result in some overlooking of neighbouring properties. However, the staircase has already been approved as part of the earlier development, with a privacy screen subsequently approved by the Local Planning Authority to mitigate its impact. The staircase does not form part of, nor is it required to facilitate, the development subject to the current application. As such, the principle and associated amenity impacts of the staircase have already been established, and it would not be reasonable to use the current application to require additional mitigation to an element of development that already benefits from planning permission. Moreover, the staircase serves only a single flat and would therefore be subject to relatively limited levels of use. The current application retains the previously approved privacy screen, which will be secured by condition. Whilst this would not Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press necessarily prevent all potential overlooking arising from use of the staircase, it would provide the mitigation previously considered appropriate by the Local Planning Authority, and there is no justi fication for requiring additional measures as part of the current proposal. 7.23 In terms of their visual impact, whilst the proposed first floor front extension and roof alterations would be visible from neighbouring properties, having regard to their siting and relationship with surrounding properties, it is not considered that they would give rise to an unacceptable loss of outlook, daylight or sunlight, nor would they appear unduly overbearing to neighbouring occupiers. 7.24 Taking all of the above into account, an d subject to conditions requiring the retention of the approved privacy screen, th e erection and retention of the 2.2m high boundary fencing, and the rear dormer windows to be permanently fitted with obscure glazing and non -opening below 1.8m above internal floor level, it is considered that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal therefore complies with the above policies in terms of its impact on residential amenity. Quality of Residential Accommodation Internal Accommodation 7.25 Policy D6 of the London Plan and Policy DMHB 16 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 seek to ensure that all housing development provides a high -quality living environment with adequate internal living space. More specifically, Policy D6 sets out minimum internal space standards for new dwellings within Table 3.1, stating that a 3-bedroom, 4-person, two-storey dwelling should provide a minimum gross internal floor area of 84sqm, together with a minimum of 2.5sqm of built-in storage. Policy D6 of the London Plan also requires that at least 75% of the gross internal area of a dwelling should have a minimum floor -to-ceiling height of 2.5m. The existing flats at the site have already been granted prior approval under Class MA of the GPDO and therefore form part of the established residential development. Whilst some of those units are single-aspect, their principle and residential layouts have already been approved and are not for reconsideration as part of the current application. In any event, the London Plan does not impose a general prohibition on single -aspect dwellings; the acceptability of such accommodation depends on the quality of the resulting living en vironment, including outlook, daylight, ventilation and overheating. 7.26 The proposal would enlarge the approved Flat 5 from a one-bedroom to a three- bedroom dwelling through the addition of a first -floor front extension and conversion of the existing loft space. The enlarged flat would have a gross internal floor area of 104sqm, exceeding the mi nimum internal floorspace requirement. The plans also demonstrate that at least 75% of the gross internal a rea of the unit would have a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 2.5m and would also achieve the required level of built-in storage. The enlarged unit would provide a good standard of accommodation overall . Whilst elements of the layout are influenced by the constraints of adapting the existing building, a balance must also be struck Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press between maximising the quality of accommodation and avoiding external alterations which would give rise to unacceptable impacts on neighbouring amenity or the character of the area. In this context, the proposed layout is considered to achieve an appropriate balance and provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers. External Amenity Space 7.27 Policy D6 of the London Plan states that , where there are no higher local standards in the development plan, a minimum outdoor living area of 5sqm should be provided for a one to two -person dwelling, with an additional 1sqm for each additional occupant. Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 sets a higher standard, requiring all new res idential development and conversions to provide good quality and usable private outdoor amenity space in accordance with the standards set out in Table 5.3. For a three-bedroom flat, this equates to a minimum of 25sqm of private outdoor amenity space. 7.28 The proposal does not include any private outdoor amenity space for the enlarged flat. Future occupiers would instead have access to the communal amenity space situated to the rear of the building. Whilst this area has been enhanced through additional soft landscaping, it is acknowledged that its functionality is somewhat limited by its modest size and its relationship with the private pocket gardens serving the ground floor flats. 7.29 Notwithstanding this shortfall, it is important to recogn ise that the proposal does not create an additional residential unit, but instead enlarges an already approved flat to provide family -sized accommodation. The opportunities to provide private external amenity space are significantly constrained by the form and layout of the existing building. Furthermore, the site is well served by high -quality public open space, with Eastcote House Gardens located approximately 150m to the east and Ruislip Woods National Nature Reserve within approximately a 10-minute walk of the site, providing readily accessible re creational opportunities for future occupiers. In addition, given that the enlarged three- bedroom dwelling would provide family -sized accommodation without private outdoor amenity space, a condition would secure appropriate children’s play provision within the rear communal garden. This would improve the functionality of the communal amenity space for families and provide additional mitigation for the identified shortfall in private amenity provision, consistent with Policy S4 of the London Plan. 7.30 On balance, whilst the proposal does not fully accord with the quantitative requirements of Policy DMHB 18, it is not considered that the lack of private amenity space, in the particular circumstances of this case, would justify a refusal of planning permission. The enlarged d welling would otherwise provide a good standard of accommodation, including compliant internal floorspace, improved headroom and a satisfactory internal layout. Having regard to the existing fallback position, the provision of an additional family -sized dwelling, and the accessibility of nearby public open spaces, the prop osal is considered acceptable overall in terms of the living conditions of future occupiers. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Accessibility 7.31 Policy D5 of the London Plan requires development proposals to achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclu sive design and Policy D7 requires all new housing, as a minimum standard, to be designed and constructed as accessible and adaptable in accordance with M4(2) as set out in Approved Document M to the Building Regulations (2015 edition). 7.32 The Council's Access Officer has reviewed the proposal and confirmed no objections from an accessibility perspective, noting that Policy D7 should not be applied to the proposed development as it does not involve the creation of a new stand -alone dwelling, but rather the conversi on of an existing building where full compliance with the Building Regulations M4(2) standards may not be practicable. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policies D5 and D7 of the London Plan. Highways and Parking 7.33 Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 require development to be acceptable in terms of traffic generation, highway capacity, access arrangements, pedestrian safety and parking provision. Policies T4, T5 and T6.1 of the London Plan similarly seek to ensure that development supports safe and sustainable movement, does not adversely affect the operation or safety of the highway network, and provides an appropriate level of residential parking. 7.34 The approved development comprises eight residential units. The current proposal would not increase the overall number of dwellings and there would be no alteration to the existing access arrangements or approved car parking layout. 7.35 The Council's Highway Authority has reviewed the amended proposal and raises no objection. It has confirmed that the enlargement of Flat 5 would not require any additional on -site car parking provision and would not result in a material increase in traffic generation or give rise to an unacceptable impact on highway or pedestrian safety. The proposed cycle parking space is also welcomed and would support sustainable modes of travel. 7.36 Having regard to the absence of any incre ase in the number of residential units, the retention of the approved access and parking arrangements, and the advice of the Highway Authority, it is considered that the proposal would not result in unacceptable parking pressure, traffic generation or harm to highway or pedestrian safety. 7.37 The proposal therefore complies with Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 and Policies T4, T5 and T6.1 of the London Plan. Impact on Trees and Landscaping 7.38 Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 seek to ensure that development protects existing trees and landscape features and incorporates Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press high-quality landscaping that enhances the character and appearance of the area. Policy G7 of the London Plan requires the retention and protection of existing trees of value and the provision of new planting where appropriate. 7.39 The application site is largely hard surfaced to the front and rear, with limited existing soft landscaping. There is one mature street tree situated within the grass verge adjacent to Joel Street and a prot ected tree within the front garden of No. 31 Deerings Drive (Tree Preservation Order No. 363). Neither tree lies within the application site. 7.40 The submitted plans include enhancements to the landscaping of both the front and rear of the site. These include additional soft planting within the frontage to soften the appearance of the forecourt and improvements to the communal rear garden through additional planting and landscaping. Whilst the communal amenity space remains relatively modest in size and constrained by the layout of the approved development, the proposed landscaping represents an improvement over the previously approved scheme and provides a more attractive setting for future occupiers. 7.41 The proposal would not adversely affect t he adjacent street tree or the protected tree at No. 31 Deerings Drive, and no works are proposed within their root protection areas. 7.42 Overall, it is considered that the proposal would protect existing trees of amenity value whilst delivering a satisfactory level of additional landscaping appropriate to the scale of the development. The propos al therefore complies with Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 and Policy G7 of the London Plan. Ecology and Biodiversity Net Gain 7.43 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 pr otect habitats and biodiversity from unacceptable harm. The proposal benefits from the de minimis exemption from the mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain requirements under Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 7.44 Policy DMEI 7 of the Hill ingdon Local Plan Part 2 requires development to demonstrate that it would not result in u nacceptable harm to ecological features or protected species. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) place separate legal duties on developers in respect of European Protected Species. 7.45 The application site is not located within or adjacent to any designated site of ecological importance. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal submitted in support of the earlier redevelopment proposals identified the building as having low bat roost potential, with further survey work recommended only in the event of demolition or works affecting potential roost features. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.46 The current proposal does not involve the demolition of the building and is limited to alterations to an existing building that is already subject to an extant prior approval for residential conversion, which is nearing practical completion. There is no evidence before the Local Planning Authority to indicate that the proposed amendments would give rise to any additional ecological impacts beyond those associated with the approved development. Furthermore, developers remain responsible for complying with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, irrespective of any planning permission granted. 7.47 Accordingly, it is considered that t he proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to biodiversity or protected species and complies with Policy EM7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1, Policy DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2, Policy G6 of the London Plan, and the NPPF. Flood Risk and Drainage 7.48 Policy F4 of the NPPF requires a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) to accompany all development proposals within Flood Zones 2, 3a and 3b. Policy F5 seeks to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source through application of the Sequential Test, where required. Policy F7 requires development in areas at risk of flooding to be safe throughout its lifetime, taking account of the vulnerability of it s users, and to avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere. 7.49 Policy F8 requires develop ment proposals which could affect drainage on or around a site to incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) proportionate to the nature and scale of the proposal. Policies SI12 and SI13 of the London Plan and Policies EM6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 and DMEI 9 and DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 provide corresponding local and regional requirements in respect of flood risk and sustainable water management. 7.50 The application site lies partly within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and is also located within a Critical Drainage Area (CDA). The site is therefore subject to both fluvial and surface water drainage considerations. The site benefits from prior approval under application ref. 51321/APP/2025/1649 for the change of use of the existing building to provide eight residential units. The current proposal would not increase the overall number of residential units but would enlarge the approved Flat 5 from a one -bedroom to a three-bedroom dwelling through a first floor extension, roof alterations and conversion of the loft space. 7.51 In accordance with Policy F4 of the NPPF, the application is supported by a site- specific FRA. In response to the previous reason for refusal, the applicant has also submitted a Sequential Test. Having regard to Policy F5, the submitted Sequential Test demonstrates that there are no reasonably available alternative sites appropriate for the development within the anticipated catchment area that are at a lower risk of flooding. The requirements of the Sequential Test are therefore considered to be satisfied. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.52 In respect of flood safety, the submitted FRA demonstrates that the development would remain safe for its anticipated life time, taking account of flood risk and climate change, and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. The proposal would enlarge an existing approved residential unit rather than introduce an additional dwelling at the site. Having regard to the nature of the proposal, the submitted FRA and the existing residential fallback position, the development is considered acceptable in accordance with Policy F7 of the NPPF. 7.53 In terms of surface water drainage, partic ular regard has been given to the site's location within a Critical Drainage Area . Notwithstanding this constraint, the proposal comprises the extension and alteration of an existing building and would not materially alter the existing drainag e arrangements, significantly increase the extent of impermeable surfacing or result in a material increase in surface water run -off from the site. Having regard to the nature and limited scale of the works, and the requirement under Policy F8 for drainage measures to be proportionate to the development proposed, additional SuDS measures are not considered necessary in this instance. 7.54 Overall, the proposal is considered acceptable in respect of flood risk, flood safety and sustainable drainage, including having regard to the site's location within a Critical Drainage Area. It therefore complies with Policies F4, F5, F7 and F8 of the NPPF, Policies SI12 and SI13 of the Lo ndon Plan, Policy EM 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 and Policies DMEI 9 an d DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2. Waste Management 7.56 The proposal does not increase the overall number of residential units at the site and would continue to provide eight self -contained flats as approved under prior approval ref. 51321/APP/2025/1649. The existing refuse and recycling storage arrangements approved under that scheme would therefore continue to serve the development. 7.57 The Council's Waste Services Officer has reviewed the proposal and raises no objection, confirming that the existing refuse storage and collection arrangements remain acceptable to serve the enlarged Flat 5 and that no additional refuse capacity is required. 7.58 Accordingly, the proposal is considere d to provide satisfactory refuse and recycling facilities and would not prejudice the operation of the Council's refuse collection service. The proposal therefore complies with Policy D6 of the London Plan, Policy EM11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 and Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Fire Safety 7.59 Policy D12 of the London Plan requires development proposals to achieve the highest standards of fire safety and to identify measures which reduce the risk to life and support safe evacuation and access for the emergency services. 7.60 The application is supported by a Fire Safety Statement which confirms that the building would incorporate appropriate fire -safety construction, including fire doors, a protected means of escape and suitable access form Joel Street. It also confirms that every part of the building would be within 45m of a fire appliance parking position and that the site is directly accessible from Joel Street. 7.61 The current proposal would enlarge an ap proved residential unit and would not alter the means of escape or emergency access arrangements. Detailed compliance with fire safety requireme nts would also be addressed through the Building Regulations process. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in accordance with Policy D12 of the London Plan. 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 residential developments is in addition to the Mayoral CIL charge. CIL rates are index linked. The proposal involves an increase in residentia l floorspace 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 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 not increase the overall number of residential units at the site, but would enlarge the approved Flat 5 from a one -bedroom to a three- bedroom dwelling, thereby providing a family -sized home within an established residential area. This represents a modest public benefit by contributing towards the delivery of a greater mix of housing stock whilst ma king more efficient use of an existing approved residential development. 9.2 The proposal has been amended and further supporting information has been provided since the previous refusal. The revised scheme has overcome the previous concerns relating to the character and appearance of the area, the setting of the Eastcote Village Conservation Area, the quality of internal accommodation, flood risk, ecology and landscaping. The proposal would not result in unacceptable impacts on the living conditions of neigh bouring occupiers, subject to conditions securing the approved privacy mitigation measures. 9.3 It is acknowledged that the enlarged Flat 5 would not benefit from private outdoor amenity space and would instead rely on the communal amenity space to the rear of the building. Whilst this represents a departure from the quantitative requirements of Policy DMHB 18 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2, the proposal relates to the enlargement of an existing approved dwelling rather than the creation of a new residential unit. Having re gard to the constraints of the existing building, the improvements to the communal amenity space, the accessibility of nearby public open spaces, and the wider benefits of providing family -sized accommodation, this shortfall is not considered sufficient to justify refusal. 9.4 Taking all relevant considerations into ac count, 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 therefore 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. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 10.2 This report has been prepared with re ference 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: x Highways Officer x Urban Design Officer (Design & Conservation Team) AAPPENDICES Planning Application 51321/APP/2025/2991 Hillingdon Planning Committee - 6th October 2026 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 9 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. HO1 T Time Limit The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. RES4 A Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers: 001 Rev B 008 Rev B 009 Rev B 010 Rev B 011 Rev B 012 Rev B 013 Rev B 014 Rev B and shall thereafter be retained/maintained for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012), Part 2 (2020) and the London Plan (2021). 3. RES7 M Materials The materials and finishes to be used in the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building in respect of colour, texture, profile and appearance, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To ensure that the development achieves a high standard of design and appearance, in accordance with Policy DP3 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), Policies D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 4. NONSC O Obscure Glazing Hillingdon Planning Committee - 6th October 2026 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 9 Prior to the first occupation of Flat 5, the two rear dormer windows and the rooflight positioned between the two rear dormers, as shown on drawing No. 014 Rev B, shall be permanently fitted with Pilkington Level 4 obscure glazing (or equivalent) and shall be non- opening below 1.8 metres above the internal finished floor level. The windows and rooflight shall thereafter be retained as such for the lifetime of the development. REASON To safeguard the privacy and amenities of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and Policy DP3 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026). 5 5. NONSC P Privacy Screen Prior to the first use of the external staircase, the approved privacy screen to the external staircase, as shown on drawing No. 014 Rev B, shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development. REASON To safeguard the privacy and amenities of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and Policy DP3 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026). 6. NONSC B Boundary Fencing Prior to the first occupation of any of the approved flats, the boundary fence identified by the annotation 'Increased Boundary Fence' on drawing No. 008 Rev. B shall be erected to a height of 2.2 metres above existing ground level and shall thereafter be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development. REASON To safeguard the privacy and amenities of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and Policy DP3 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026). 7. RES9 L Landscaping The landscaping shown on the approved plans shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of Flat 5 or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which, within

AAPPENDICES Planning Application 32658/APP/2026/195 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 7 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. HO1 T Time Limit The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. 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 plan numbers 02 Proposed Floor Plan 03 Existing Elevations 04 Proposed Elevations 05 Proposed Site Block Plan S-01 Proposed Structural Details; and shall thereafter be retained/maintained for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions Hillingdon Local Plan Parts 1 (November 2012) and 2 (January 2020) and the London Plan (2021). 3. COM5 G General compliance with supporting documentation The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved supporting documents: Planning Statement Structural Report Thereafter the development shall be retained/maintained in accordance with these details for as long as the development remains in existence REASON To ensure that the development complies with the objectives of Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMTC 4 Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 4. NONSC H Hours of use Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 7 The partially enclosed weather-protected seating area and the three open-sided pergolas hereby permitted shall not be used by customers outside the hours of 10:00 and 22:00 on any day. All customers shall vacate those areas by 22:00. REASON To safeguard the living conditions of nearby residential occupiers from noise and disturbance during noise-sensitive periods, in accordance with Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DMHB 11 and DMTC 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020). 5 5. NONSC M Materials Prior to installation of the external structures hereby permitted, details and samples, where appropriate, of all external materials and finishes, including the aluminium framing, roof coverings, glazing, solid panels and any screening, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and permanently retained thereafter. REASON To ensure that the development is of a satisfactory appearance and respects the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area, in accordance with Policies BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One (2012), DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020), and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021). 6. NONSC U Use Restriction The partially enclosed weather-protected seating area and the three open-sided pergolas hereby permitted shall be used only for customer seating and dining ancillary to the public house use of the premises and shall not be used as an independent restaurant, cafe, bar, event or function venue, nightclub, shisha lounge, hookah lounge or for any other separate use. REASON The application has been assessed on the basis that the external structures would provide seating and dining ancillary to the established public house use. A separate or more intensive use could result in unacceptable noise, disturbance and other impacts and should be subject to further assessment, in accordance with Policies DMHB 11 and DMTC 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two (2020). 7. NONSC N No Amplified Music No amplified music, amplified speech, public address system, television audio or any similar amplified sound shall be played or broadcast within the external seating areas hereby permitted, including the partially enclosed weather-protected seating area and the three Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 7 open-sided pergolas, at any time, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers from noise nuisance and to ensure the proposal does not give rise to unacceptable harm to residential amenity in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 8 8. NONSC A Acoustic Installation Prior to the first use of the partially enclosed weather-protected seating area hereby permitted, the acoustic glazing and/or acoustic panel systems shown on the approved plans shall be fully installed and made available for use. The acoustic glazing and/or acoustic panel systems shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained for so long as the approved development remains in use. REASON The acceptability of the development in respect of neighbouring amenity has been assessed on the basis that acoustic enclosure elements would be incorporated into the partially enclosed seating area in order to provide improved acoustic containment. The condition is therefore necessary to safeguard residential amenity in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 9. NONSC E External Lighting No external lighting, or lighting affixed to the approved structures which would be visible from outside the site, shall be installed unless details of such lighting, including its siting, design, luminance, hours of operation and the direction of light spill, have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall thereafter be installed and operated only in accordance with the approved details. REASON To safeguard the visual amenities of the area and the amenities of nearby residential occupiers in accordance with Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Informatives 1. I52 C Compulsory Informative (1) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act (1998) (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 7 property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 22. I70 L LBH worked applicant in a positive & proactive (Granting) In dealing with the application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available detailed advice in the form of our statutory policies from Local Plan Part 1, Local Plan Part 2, Supplementary Planning Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application advice service, in order to ensure that the applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an application which is likely to be considered favourably. 3. I25 C Consent for the Display of Adverts and Illuminated Signs This permission does not authorise the display of advertisements or signs, separate consent for which may be required under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. . For further information and advice, contact - Residents Services, 3N/04, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW (Tel. 01895 250574). 4. The Equality Act 2010 seeks to protect people accessing goods, facilities and services from discrimination on the basis of a 'protected characteristic', which includes those with a disability. As part of the Act, service providers are obliged to improve access to and within the structure of their building, particularly in situations where reasonable adjustment can be incorporated with relative ease. The Act states that service providers should think ahead to take steps to address barriers that impede disabled people. I53 C Compulsory Informative (2) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020) set out below, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and to all relevant material considerations, including The London Plan (2021) and national guidance. DMCI 1 Retention of Existing Community Sport and Education Facilities DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMTC 4 Amenity and Town Centre Uses LPP D14 (2021) Noise LPP D3 (2021) Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach LPP D5 (2021) Inclusive design LPP HC7 (2021) Protecting public houses Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 7 AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History 32658/APP/2001/935 The Pipemakers Arms Ph St John'S Road Uxbridge ERECTION OF FENCING TO PERIMETER OF BEER GARDEN Decision: 20-06-2001 Approved 32658/APP/2007/2243 The Pipemakers Arms Ph St John'S Road Uxbridge ERECTION OF AN OPEN, COVERED SMOKING AREA FOR CUSTOMERS Decision: 14-09-2007 Approved 32658/C/92/0931 Forming Part Of The Pipemakers Arms P.H. St John'S Road Uxbridge Use of open space for additional car parking for public house Decision: 04-09-1992 Refused Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 7 AAppendix 3: List of Relevant Planning Policies The following Local Plan Policies are considered relevant to the application:- Part 1 Policies: PT1.BE1 (2012) Built Environment Part 2 Policies: DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMTC 4 Amenity and Town Centre Uses LPP D3 (2021) Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach LPP D5 (2021) Inclusive design LPP D14 (2021) Noise LPP HC7 (2021) Protecting public houses DMCI 1 Retention of Existing Community Sport and Education Facilities Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7 of 7

AAPPENDICES Planning Application 10181/APP/2022/2051 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 7 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. RES4 A Accordance with Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers: -MMD-372345-C-DR-00-XX-2003 RevP01 Site Location Plan -2021-FF-PL06 RevC Proposed Site Plan -2021-FF-PL02 Unit B - Section & Elevations -2021-FF-PL03 Unit B - Floor Plan & Roof Plan -2021-FF-PL04 Unit A - Floor Plan, Roof Plan, Section & Elevations -WA44182_PL_01_J Landscaping Plan -2021-FF-PL05 RevB Proposed Finishes -WA44182_PL_02_A Bin Store Details and shall thereafter be retained/maintained for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012), Part 2 (2020) and the London Plan (2021). 2. RES5 G General compliance with supporting documentation The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the following has been completed in accordance with the specified supporting plans and/or documents: -Planning Statement prepared by Berrys and dated July 2022 -Exterior Lighting prepared by SKR Lighting Design and dated September 2022 -Views Assessment Statement prepared by Berrys and dated September 2023 -Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Tree Frontiers and dated February 2023 Thereafter the development shall be retained/maintained in accordance with these details for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON To ensure that the development complies with the objectives of Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020). 3. NONSC F Fire Safety No above ground development shall take place unless and until a compliance statement in response to highest standards of fire safety of London Plan Policy D12 (A) has been Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 7 submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved statement and thereafter shall be maintained as such. REASON To ensure that the development meets Fire Safety Standards in accordance with Policy D12 (A) of the London Plan (2021). I Informatives 1. I52 C Compulsory Informative (1) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act (1998) (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 2. I70 L LBH worked applicant in a positive & proactive (Granting) In dealing with the application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available detailed advice in the form of our statutory policies from Local Plan Part 1, Local Plan Part 2, Supplementary Planning Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application advice service, in order to ensure that the applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an application which is likely to be considered favourably. 3. The applicant is advised of the need to comply with all the conditions attached to the outline consent granted on 28/02/2020 (10181/APP/2018/4485) and their associated discharge process. 4. The materials details that would need to be submitted in order to discharge Condition 6 of outline consent granted on 28/02/2020 (10181/APP/2018/4485) should include fire safety performance (in particular as regards cladding). 5. The 2020 outline approval (ref:10181/APP/2018/4485) should not be taken as prejudicial to any future building control application which will need to comply with the Building Control Regulations in place at the time of the submission of a future Building Control application. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 7 I53 CCompulsory Informative (2) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020) set out below, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and to all relevant material considerations, including The London Plan (2021) and national guidance. DMCI 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 4 Development on the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land DMEI 7 Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMHB 7 Archaeological Priority Areas and archaeological Priority Zones DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking 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 D3 (2021) Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach LPP D4 (2021) Delivering good design LPP D5 (2021) Inclusive design LPP DF1 (2021) Delivery of the Plan and Planning Obligations LPP E7 (2021) Industrial intensification, co-location and substitution LPP G2 (2021) London's Green Belt LPP G6 (2021) Biodiversity and access to nature LPP G7 (2021) Trees and woodlands LPP T3 (2021) Transport capacity, connectivity and safeguarding LPP T4 (2021) Assessing and mitigating transport impacts Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 7 AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History 10181/APP/2005/2220 Frogsditch Farm Field Shepiston Lane Hayes CHANGE OF USE OF LAND FROM AGRICULTURE TO SCHOOL PLAYING FIELDS Decision: 08-11-2005 Approved 10181/APP/2010/1570 Frogsditch Farm Shepiston Lane Hayes Use of the site for the storage of plant hire, scaffolding, trenching equipment including the parking of associated vehicles and the operation of an associated groundwork contracting business involving the use of the existing buildings on the site by the operator for the ancillary servicing and maintenance of the plant hire and groundwork contracting equipment by the business (Application for a Certificate of Lawful Development a an Existing Use). Decision: 12-09-2012 Approved 10181/APP/2016/1150 Frogsditch Farm Shepiston Lane Hayes Existing use as open storage (Use Class B8) (Application for a Certificate of Lawful Development for an Existing Use). Decision: 31-08-2016 Approved 10181/APP/2018/4485 Frogsditch Farm Shepiston Lane Hayes Outline planning application for the demolition of 5 existing buildings and construction of replacement building/s with a combined floor space of 1,402.9 sqm and associated hard standing, fencing and landscaping for use class B8. Decision: 17-07-2019 Approved 10181/APP/2020/1314 Frogsditch Farm Shepiston Lane Hayes Details pursuant to conditions 12(demolition management plan) and 17(low emissions machinery) of planning consent ref; 10181/APP/2018/4485 (Outline planning application for the demolition of 5 existing buildings and construction of replacement building/s with a combined floor space of 1,402.9 sqm and associated hard standing, fencing and landscaping for use class B8) Decision: 14-08-2020 Approved Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 7 AAppendix 3: List of Relevant Planning Policies The following Local Plan Policies are considered relevant to the application:- Part 1 Policies: PT1.BE1 (2012) Built Environment PT1.E1 (2012) Managing the Supply of Employment Land PT1.EM2 (2012) Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Green Chains PT1.EM8 (2012) Land, Water, Air and Noise PT1.HE1 (2012) Heritage Part 2 Policies: 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 4 Development on the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land DMEI 7 Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMHB 7 Archaeological Priority Areas and archaeological Priority Zones DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 7 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 D3 (2021) Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach LPP D4 (2021) Delivering good design LPP D5 (2021) Inclusive design LPP DF1 (2021) Delivery of the Plan and Planning Obligations LPP E7 (2021) Industrial intensification, co-location and substitution LPP G2 (2021) London's Green Belt LPP G6 (2021) Biodiversity and access to nature LPP G7 (2021) Trees and woodlands LPP T3 (2021) Transport capacity, connectivity and safeguarding LPP T4 (2021) Assessing and mitigating transport impacts H Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7 of 7

Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Dimitra Angelopoulou 79689/APP/2025/2438 Date Application Valid: 18.09.2025 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 05.06.2026 Application Type: Full Ward: Yiewsley Applicant: LMO Overseas Investments Ltd Site Address: Orbital Industrial Estate, Horton Road, Yiewsley Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and structures and redevelopment of the site to provide modern employment units (for flexible use across classes E(g)(iii), B2, B8 with ancillary office space) alongside car parking, service yards, landscaping, ancillary structures and all other associated works. Summary of Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to section 106 legal agreement and conditions Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 1 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Major application recommended for approval) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 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. Air Quality Mitigation contribution of £196,096. ii. Healthy Streets contribution of £27,170 iii. ‘Be Seen’: ‘Be Seen’ post-construction energy monitoring to be carried out in accordance with the GLA ‘Be Seen’ Energy Monitoring Guidance London Plan Guidance Documents (2021). In the event of a shortfall compared to the approved strategy (101.1% reduction in CO2 emissions), but no less than the minimum policy requirement of 35% on-site reduction, the quantum (tCO2) shall result in a cash in lieu contribution in accordance with a formula to be set out in the S106. iv. An Employment/ Construction Training Scheme secured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD. v. 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 preparing the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed. C) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreement and conditions of approval. D) That, if the Legal Agreement has not been finalised within 6 months (or such other time frame as may be agreed by the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth), delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth to refuse planning permission for the following reason: 'The applicant has failed to mitigate the impacts posed by the proposed development (in respect of Air Quality, Highway Safety, Carbon Emissions and Employment). The scheme therefore conflicts with Policies DMEI 13, Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press DMT 1, DMT 2, DMT 4, DM T 5, DMEI 2 and DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020); the adopted Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2014); and Policies SI 1, T2, T3, T4, SI 2, E11 and DF1 of the London Plan (2021); and paragraphs 5 6-58 of 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 application site is within the wider Orbital Industrial Estate, a designated Strategic Industrial Location (SIL) and comprises 13 small employment units within two terraces of 3,938 sq.m. in total of mainly hardstanding and limited areas of soft landscaping . The proposal relates to the redevelopment of the site to provide 2 modern units of 3,1550sqm of flexible industrial uses and is therefore acceptable in principle in land use terms as these uses are considered appropriate with the SIL. 1.2 Whilst the total overall floorspace has bee n reduced, it is acknowledged that the existing units on site are small and out of date, with poor circulation space, which cannot accommodate the needs of moder n industrial occupiers who seek high- quality flexible buildings of sizeable and usable service yards. Given this and the fact that the overall volume proposed within the new units is substantially increased, the reduction in floorspace proposed is considered to be, on balance, acceptable. 1.3 Unit 1 would be positioned to the north of the site, accessed via the existing upgraded easterly road and Unit 2 would be positioned to the south of the site, accessed via the existing access servic ing the adjacent Northpoint Business Centre to the west. Some new landscaped areas are proposed throughout the site. A total of 32 car parking spaces is proposed; 13 for unit 1 and 19 for unit 2, including 3 accessible parking spaces. Each dedicated service yard is proposed to accommodate two HGV loading bays. There would be a provision of 7 electric vehicle charging points. A total of 4 motorcycle spaces would also be provided on site, 2 per unit. Secured cycle parking storage for 16 long stay parking are proposed; 6 spaces for unit 1 and 10 spac es for unit 2. They would be covered with a metal canopy structure and contain Sheffield hoop designs. 1.4 The proposed design and layout of the proposal would be acceptable, would not result in harm to the character of the surrounding area and would be in keeping with other industrial developments within the SIL. 1.5 The proposed design and layout has taken into account the potential impact on neighbouring residential properties and would not result in harm to neighbouring amenities. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 1.6 The proposal would not have an adverse impact on the safe and efficient operation of the local highway network and would provide parking in accordance with the London and Local Plan parking standards. 1.7 The proposal would deliver a zero-carbon development through on-site energy efficiency measures only and would theref ore significantly exceed the minimum requirements of the relevant Local and London Plan climate change Policies. 1.8 The proposal would meet the policy expectations concerning flood risk mitigation and the installation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. The proposal would also provide new landscaping that would contribute to improving the appearance of Horton Road and would deliver a biodiversity net gain. 1.9 Planning obligations are proposed to secure an energy monitoring of the project. Contributions are secured towards air quality mitigation and healthy streets . An employment strategy and construction training scheme are to be secured alongside a project management and monitoring fee to manage and monitor the planning obligations. 1.10 Subject to the planning conditions and obligations recommended, the proposed development is considered acceptable with respect to design, residential amenity, environmental issues, transport, and sustainability. 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 Figures 1 and 2 below, measures 0.92 hectares in area and comprises 13 employment units, within the wider Orbital Industrial Estate. It contains the small employment units within two terraces of 3,938 sq.m. in total, mainly hardstanding and limited areas of soft landscaping, as shown in Figure 3. The site is bound by Horton Road to the north, the Grand Union Canal to the south with the West Drayton railway line further to the south. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red – Land also owned by the applicant outlined in blue - sourced from plan ref. HRWD-MSA-SI-00-DR-A-20000 RevPL02) Figure 2: Aerial View of the site (application site edged red – sourced from the submitted Design and Access Statement) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 3: Photo of the site (sourced from the submitted Design and Access Statement) 2.2 The site is accessed via Horton Road and is situated within a Strategic Industrial Location (SIL) as identified by the Hillingdon Local Plan. It is on Potentially Contaminated Land and within the Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area. It has a Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) of 1b/2, on a scale of 0 to 6b where 6b is the highest. 2.3 As shown in Figure 4 below, the surroundi ng area to the east and the west is industrial. The Grand Union Canal is to the south. There is residential development on the northern side of Horton Road comprising four- storey flats/maisonettes that are set back from the street edge. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4: The site and the surrounding area 3 Proposal 3.1 This application seeks full planning permission for demolition of existing buildings and structure and redevelopment of the site to provide modern employment units (for flexible use across classes E(g)(iii), B2, B8 with ancillary office space) alongside car parking, service yards, lan dscaping, ancillary structures and all other associated works. Figure 5 below shows the proposed site plan of the proposal. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 5: Proposed Site Plan 3.2 In particular, the proposal would involve the erection of 2 modern employment units to provide 3,155sq.m of flexible employment floorspace with ancillary offices supported by car parking, service yards with loading docks and landscaping. As such, the proposed built footprint would be 783 sq. m. less than the existing. As shown in Figure 5 above, Unit 1 would be positioned to the north of the site and Unit 2 would be positioned to the south of the site. Unit 1 is smaller with approximately 1,079sqm of floorspace and Unit 2 of approximately 2,076sqm of floorspace. Both units would hav e their own dedicated servicing yards and car parking. 3.3 The access for Unit 1 would be via the exis ting upgraded easterly road between existing units and its service yard would be located at the rear. The access for Unit 2 would be via the existing access servicing the adjacent Northpoint Business Centre to the west, and its service yard would be on the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the canal. Some new landscaped areas proposed throughout the site as shown on Figure 5. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 3.4 The proposed Unit 1 would measure approximately 27 m in width and 36m in depth, and would have a clear internal height of 8m, with an external ridge height of 10.9m. The proposed Unit 2 would measure approximately 30 m in width and 58m in depth, and would have a clear internal height of 12m, with an external ridge height of 15.2m to accommodate a mezzanine. The proposed elevations as amended would have horizontal profiled metal cladding of silver and grey colours and part of the ground floor would have blue colour. Glazing would be incorporated for the proposed curtain walling, doors and windows. The buildings are proposed to have sloped roofs set behind a perimeter parapet. Figures 6 and 7 below show the proposed elevations. Figure 6. Unit 1 Illustrative Coloured Elevations Figure 7. Unit 2 Illustrative Coloured Elevations 3.5 Each dedicated service yard is proposed to accommodate two HGV loading bays. In total, there would be 32 car parking spaces provided; 13 for unit 1 and 19 for unit 2, including 3 accessible parking spaces. Each unit would have a car share space allocated to it. There would be a provision of 7 electric vehicle charging points. A total of 4 motorcycle spaces would also be provided on site, 2 per unit. Secured cycle parking storage for 16 long stay parking would be located close to the entrances to each unit; 6 spaces for unit 1 and 10 spaces for unit 2. They Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press would be covered with a metal canopy structure and contain Sheffield hoop designs. 3.6 During the course of the application, amendments were submitted as follows: x Revised simplified elevations to address the Council’s Urban Design Officer’s concerns. x An amended Drainage Strategy Report to address issues raised by the Council’s Local Lead Flood Authority. x Clarification over the fixed mechanical plants to address issues raised from the Council’s Noise Officer. x Response to Council’s Highways Officer’s comments and support of the requested healthy streets contribution. x Clarification to Ca nal and Rivers Trust’s comments in relation to Biodiversity Net Gain Metric, new planting, external lighting, and drainage strategy. 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning histo ry related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. 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 unresolv ed 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).” Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 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 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 11 no. letters were sent to neighbouring properties, a site notice was displayed and an advert was posted in the local paper. The neighbour consultation process expired on 12 th November 2025. 6.2 Following receipt of amended drawings and reports, re-consultations were issued on 11th March 2026 to the consultees who had requested further information or amendments during the application proc ess, along with 11 no. of letters to neighbouring properties. 6.3 The Council received no representations in response to public consultation. 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 No comments have been received from residents. N/A N/A , Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response External Consultation Canal & River Trust Following further clarification received, n o objection is raised subject to the following conditions; Demolition and Construction Risk The Canal & River Trust comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Assessment and Method Statement, tree protection measures, landscaping, Construction and Environmental Management Plan, External lighting details, Contamination Investigations and drainage detail, along with two informatives. Please refer to the recommended conditions within Appendix 1 to secure details of Demolition Method Statement, Tree Protection, Landscaping, Construction Logistics Plan, Lighting, Contamination and Drainage. 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. The recommended informative has been included in Appendix 1 of the report. Cadent Gas Ltd No objection subject to informative The Cadent Gas Ltd 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. Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) No objection The GLAAS comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. 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. A condition to secure details of contamination is recommended should the application be determined for approval. Noise Officer The Noise Officer comments are noted and taken into Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press No objection subject to conditions to secure appropriate levels of noise to protect nearby residential occupiers. consideration as part of the planning assessment. A condition to secure details of noise management is recommended should the application be determined for approval. Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) The LLFA requested further information regarding the drainage hierarchy as detailed in the London Plan, greenfield runoff volumes, exceedance flow routes, and the name of the maintenance owner. This was provided during the application process and as a result, no objection is raised, subject to conditions securing a detailed drainage strategy and verification. The LLFA comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. Conditions to secure details of Sustainable Drainage and Sustainable Drainage Scheme Verification are recommended should the application be determined for approval. Access Officer No objection subject to condition securing a fire evacuation lift for each unit. The Access Officer comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. A condition to secure details of a fire evacuation lift is recommended should the application be determined for approval. 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 £223,266 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. Conditions to secure details of a Construction Logistics and Management Plan and Non-Road Mobile Machinery are recommended should the application be determined for approval. Highways Authority The Highways Authority comments are noted and taken into consideration as Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press No objection subject to a legal agreement to secure a Healthy Streets contribution of £27,170. part of the planning assessment. Please refer to the planning obligation proposed to be secured under S106 Head of Term (ii). Planning Policy Officer N o objection subject to condition restricting Use Class E to E(g)(iii) only. The Planning Policy Officer comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. A condition to restrict the use of the development is recommended should the application be determined for approval. Urban Design Officer Following revised elevations received, n o objection is raised subject to conditions securing detailed landscaping strategy, and boundary treatments. The Urban Design Officer comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. A condition to secure details of landscaping is recommended should the application be determined for approval. Waste Officer No objection The Waste Officer comments are noted and taken into consideration as part of the planning assessment. 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 The NPPF (2026) requires the Council to promote an effective use of land, including previously developed land. It also states that planning decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. The London Plan Policies E4 and E5 encourage intensification and optimising of land and state that development proposals in Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL) should be supported where the uses proposed fall within the Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press industrial-type activities. Similarly, Policy DME 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) supports employment proposals in SILs. 7.2 The site is within the wider Orbital Industrial Estate; a Strategic Industrial Location (SIL) as identified by the Hillingdon Local Plan. As a result, the proposed flexible use across classes E(g)(iii) (industrial processes), B2 (general industrial), and B8 (storage or distribution with ancillary office space) is supported in principle. 7.3 However, the proposal consists of demolishing the existing 3,938 sq. m. buildings and constructing 3,155 sq.m. modern replacement warehouses (two units). The proposed built footprint would therefore be 783 sq. m. less than the existing . To this end, London Plan Policy E7 encourages industrial intensification and the proposal does not respond to this. 7.4 The Council’s Policy Team has no policy objections, subject to an explanation as to why industrial Intensification is not possible on site and subject to a condition regarding a use restriction to ensure no wider use within Use Class E is permitted other than light industrial E(g)(iii). A condition is recommended accordingly to ensure no other inappropriate Class E uses are permitted in this SIL. In addition, conditions are recommended in relation to enlargement and floorspace (no mezzanines for example) restrictions of the units proposed to ensure that the Local Planning Authority could assess all the implications of such a n increase, including impacts on the local highway network and air quality. 7.5 The application is supported by two reports; one from Telsar Commercial Property Specialists and one from Knight Frank. The first report explains the existing condition of the buildings alongside commentary on current market conditions and market demand for Grade A industrial floorspace within proximity to the site. The second report supports the proposed re- development, having regard to other recent developments within the local area. It is noted that the existing units on site are small and out of date, with poor circulation space, which cannot accommodate the needs of modern industrial occupiers who usually seek high-quality buildings of sizeable and usable service yards. 7.6 Furthermore, although the overall floorspace has been reduced, the proposed development delivers a substantial impr ovement in the volume and quality of accommodation within the new units. Together with enhancements to the surrounding external areas, this would support a broader range of employment uses and occupiers. The scheme is particularly well suited to modern business requirements, including increased floor -to-ceiling heights and contemporary facilities. 7.7 Given the above, in this instance, the reduction in floorspace proposed, together with the increase d amount of useable modern and flexible floorspace to compensate for this, the redevelopment is considered to be, on balance, acceptable. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.8 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 Supp lementary Planning Document (2014) requires that developments with estimate d 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 contributi ons towards training and employment in the borough. The applicant has agreed to provide an employment strategy and construction training scheme which is proposed to be secured via a Section 106 legal agreement . It is therefore agreed that there would be economic benefits arising from the proposed scheme and weight is afforded to such benefits. 7.9 Overall, the principle of redeveloping comm ercial buildings for flexible use within Classes E(g)(iii)/B2/B8 within a Strategic Industrial Location is supported and is in accordance with the NPPF (2026), London and Local Plan Policies. Design & Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.10 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 public realm and respect local character. 7.11 The application site and surrounding area is predominantly industrial in nature. The proposal would see the removal of buildings of no architectural merit that no longer serve the needs of industrial/warehousing occupiers seeking modern high quality industrail floorspace. 7.12 The proposed layout would involve Unit 1 to the north of the site, utilising the existing, but upgraded access. Unit 1 would be smaller (approx. 1,079sqm floorspace) than Unit 2 (approx. 2,076sqm floorspace). Unit 2 would be positioned to the south of the site and would be accommodated by the existing access servicing the adjacent Northpoint Business Centre to the west. Both service yards would be to the rear of the units. The layout proposed is well- considered and would allow flexibility in providing a variety of building sizes, to cater for both present and future needs, while providing an active frontage onto Horton Road. 7.13 The proposal would increase the height on site from the existing 5-6m to approximately 15m maximum height. Within this area of industrial use, there are several buildings of comparable scale , many of which feature landscaped street frontages. The proposal would also include frontage tree proposals along Horton Road and soft landscaping on all four boundaries with new tree planting and landscaping. The inclusion of new tree planting and soft landscaping on Horton Road frontage would further soften the appearance and the views of the proposed Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press buildings, and would improve the appearance of the site when viewed in the context of the surrounding area. 7.14 The scale and massing of the buildings are therefore similar to other development within the SIL and is to some extent dictated by the function the buildings have to achieve; clear heights, length to width ratios, structural and loading requirements. The Council’s Urban Design Officer raised no objection to the proposal, but requested that the multi-coloured ground floor be simplified and a clear boundary treatment strategy be conditioned. 7.15 As amended, the functional warehouse des ign would involve metal cladding of silver and grey colours with part of the ground floor having blue colour only, along with some glazing for the proposed curtain walling, doors and windows. These elements would add interest to the proposed development and provide activity along Horton Road frontage. To ensure the finished quality of the final development a condition has been recommended to secure samples of the proposed facing materials, to be submitted and approved prior to their installation. In addition, a condition to secure details of the final landcape scheme has been recommend to include detailed boundary treatment strategy to address the Council’s Urban Design Officer’s comments. 7.16 Given the above reasons, it is considered that the design and layout of the proposal would be acceptable and would be in keeping with other developments within the SIL. Subject to the recommended design conditions as detailed in Appendix 1 of this report, the proposal would be of high quality in accordance with the relevant Policies. Accessibility 7.17 Policy D5 of the London Plan (2021) stat es that development proposals should achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design. 7.18 The Council’s Access Officer raised no accessibility concerns. Three accessible parking bays (10% of the total) are proposed, which is supported . An accessible toilet is shown on plan for both units, along with a lift access to the floors above. The intended use of the units is speculative at this stage. The Council’s Access Officer requested a condition requiring a minimum of one fire evacuation lift per each of the two units. Subject to this condition, which is recommended, the development is considered accord with the requirements of Policy D5 of the London Plan (2021). Security 7.19 Policy DMHB 15 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) states that the Council will require all new development to ensure safe and attractive public and private spaces by referring to the Council's latest guidance on Secured by Design principles. This is supported by Policy D11 of the London Plan (2021). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.20 The proposal makes security provisions, including the provision of fences to secure the site. A secured by design condition has been recommended to achieve appropriate accreditation. Subject to this condition, the proposal would accord with Policy DMHB 15 of th e Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) and Policy D11 of the London Plan (2021). Fire Safety 7.21 Policy D12 of the London Plan (2021) states that all major development proposals should be submitted with a Fire Statement, which is an independent fire strategy, produced by a third party, suitably qualified assessor. The statement should detail how the development proposal will function in fire safety terms. 7.22 A Fire Statement has been submitted, prepared by a suitably qualified assessor and demonstrates consideration of fire safety principles early in the development process. However, this statement does not sufficiently evidence that the materials and method of construction has been reviewed by a suitably qualified assessor, and this is recommended to be addresse d by condition, should the application be determined for approval . Subject to this condition, the proposed development would accord with the requirements of Policy D12 of the London Plan (2021). Residential Amenity 7.23 Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) states that development proposals should not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. 7.24 The site is located within the Orbital Industrial Estate, a designated Strategic Industrial Location (SIL), with surrounding industrial buildings and is separated by Horton Road to the north where residential development is situated. The residential development comprises four-storey flats/maisonettes that are set back from the street edge. 7.25 Due to this separation distance by Horton Road, the proposed Unit 1 of maximum 11m height is not considered to cause any harmful impact on these neighbours in terms of loss of light, overshadowing, loss of privacy or outlook. Unit 2 is located further to the rear of the site and would not therefore impact these properties along Horton Road. The scheme is therefore considere d to comply with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Environmental Issues Noise 7.26 Policies D13 and D14 of the London Plan (2021) states that development should reduce, manage and mitigate noise to improve health and quality of life. This can be done by separating noise generating uses from noise sensitive uses. Mitigation can also be secured through screening, lay out, orientation, uses and materials. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press This is supported by Policy EM8 of the Hi llingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) and Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 7.27 The application is supported by a Noise Impact Assessment. It is of note that there would be no change to the nature of the permitted use on site, with it continuing to be used within Class E(g)(iii)/B2/B8. As such, it would continue to integrate with the uses in the vicinity. The report also confirms that there would be an overall reduction in the number of Large Goods Vehicle (LGVs) and Ordinary Goods Vehicle (OGVs) vehicle movements when compared to the existing situation due to the number of units. In addition, the site layout has been designed so that noise emanating from the premises is reduced with the service yards located to the rear of the two units proposed. 7.28 The Council’s Noise Officer raised no objection to the report but requested a condition securing a Noise Management Plan prior to the operation of the proposal as the intended use is speculative at this stage. Therefore, conditions securing a Noise Management Plan and a Demolition and Construction Management Plan are recommended to mitigate and manage pot ential disturbance to residents. Subject to these conditions, the proposal would accord with Policies D13 and D14 of the London Plan (2021), Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) and Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Air Quality 7.29 Policies SI 1 of the London Plan (2021), EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) and DMEI 14 of the Hillingdon Loca l Plan: Part 2 (2020) are all directly relevant to the proposal. These policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix, and in summary, seek to safeguard and improve air quality to protect existing and new s ensitive receptors. These aims are also supported by the NPPF (2026). 7.30 The application site is located within the Hillingdon Air Quality Management Area and a short distance of the West Drayton/Yiewsley Air Quality Focus Area. The proposed development, due to its size and location, would add to current exceedances of the nitrogen dioxide annual mean limit value within this sensitive area as a result of traffic emissions. The proposal is also not air quality neutral in terms of traffic emissions. 7.31 As advised by the Council's Air Quality Officer, the level of mitigation required for traffic emissions associated with the proposed development is £223,266. Planning conditions pertaining to control dust and emissions from construction and demolition and from Non-Road Mobile Machinery are recommended as per Council's Air Quality Officer’s request. Subject to the relevant planning obligation and conditions, the proposal would accord with Policy DMEI 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020), Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) and Policy SI 1 of the London Plan (2021). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Trees and Landscaping 7.32 Policies G1 and G5 of the London Plan (2021), DMEI 1, DMHB 11 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) are all directly relevant to the proposed development. These policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix, and in summary, seek to safeguard existing trees and deliver high -quality landscaping to enhance amenity, biodiversity and green infrastructure. These aims are also supported by the NPPF (2026). 7.33 The existing site suffers from an evident lack of greening with most of the trees located across the southern boundary with the canal. The proposed development requires the removal of a belt of young self set trees located in narrow strip of fenced off land between parking bays and adjacent industrial unit to the west. Tree protection measures are proposed to retain and safeguard the remaining trees. This is proposed to be secured by condition. 7.34 The existing vegetation along the canal to the south is proposed to be retained and enhanced with native species. The northern boundary is proposed to be planted with a combination evergreen shrubs, hedges and trees . Across the remaining site, some additional landscaped areas are proposed, especially along the eastern boundary. Green roofs are also proposed to be incorporated on the cycle storages. The inclusion of new tree planting and soft landscaping is therefore considered an improvement to the existing situation on site and to positively improve the appearance of the site when viewed in the context of the surrounding area. 7.35 The final details of hard and soft landscaping are proposed to be secured by condition to ensure that the landscape scheme to be delivered is high quality and retained in the long term. Subject to conditions, the proposal would accord with Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Urban Greening Factor 7.36 Policy G5 of the London Plan (2021) states that major development proposals should contribute to the greening of Lo ndon and that the target Urban Greening Factor (UGF) score for commercial development is 0.3 , but excludes B2 and B8 uses, which the site is within. 7.37 The applicant has calculated that the scheme would achieve an UGF score of 0.09. The UGF is acceptable given the s ite’s industrial use and the proposed increase in green cover. Subject to final confirmation of the UGF as per a suitably worded recommended condition, the proposal would be in compliance with the London Plan. Biodiversity 7.38 The Environment Act 2021 has established that all planning permissions granted in England have to deliver at least 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) from January Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2024. Policy N2 of the NPPF (2026) al so states that development proposals should consider the environmental qualities of land proposed for development, including habitats, landscape character and the natural beauty of the countryside, and identify opportunities for those qualities to be conserved or enhanced, including through requirements for biodiversity net gain where these apply. This is supported by Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 7.39 The Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Asse ssment submitted states that the development is anticipated to result in a net gain of +0.26 habitat units, equivalent to a biodiversity net gain of +307.68%. This is mainly due to the retention of trees and the proposed addition of new trees and soft landscaping. It also states that, as there are no hedgerows present in the baseline, a percentage change cannot be calculated, but the net gain of +0.18 hedgerow units correlates to a biodiversity net gain in excess +10%. The proposal would therefore meet and exceed the minimum uplift of 10% as required by the Environment Act 2021. The final details of a Biodiversity Net Gain Scheme which maximises net gains in biodiversity value for the development are recommended to be secured by condition. 7.40 The submitted Ecological Impact Assessment also confirmed no evidence of roosting bats or birds. The report proposes that a Construction Environmental Management Plan should be conditioned along with a condition securing that removal of hedges or trees to take place between 1st March and 31st August to avoid active birds’ nests. These measures are recommended to be secured by condition . In addition, the submitted site plan shows a 3-metre high acoustic fence to be provided to avoid any harm to the Grand Union Canal Site of Metropolitan Importance. This is also proposed to be secured by condition. 7.41 Subject to the relevant conditions noted above, the proposal is considered to accord with the NPPF (202 6), Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Flood Risk 7.42 Policy SI 12 of the London Plan (2021) requires that development proposals ensure that flood risk is minimised and mitigated. This is supported by Policy EM6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) and Policy DMEI 9 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Notably, proposals that fail to make appropriate provision for flood risk and surface water flooding mitigation will be refused. 7.43 The application site is located in Flood Zone 1, meaning that the site is at a very low risk of fluvial flooding. A site-specific drainage strategy has been developed for the redevelopment of the site, that would mitigate the risk of pluvial flooding and is assessed below. The development is therefore considered to accord with Policy SI 12 of the London Plan (2021), Policy EM6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) and Policy DMEI 9 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Drainage 7.44 Policy SI 13 of the London Plan (2021) also requires that development proposals utilise sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) unless there are practical reasons for not doing so and should aim to achieve greenfield run -off rates and ensure that surface water run-off is managed as close to its source as possible. This is supported by Policy EM6 of the Hi llingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) and Policy DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). 7.45 The Council’s Lead Local Flood Authority originally requested further information regarding the drainage hierarchy as detailed in the London Plan, greenfield runoff volumes, exceedance flow routes, and the name of the maintenance owner. This information was provided within an amended Drainage Strategy. The LLFA raised no objection to this, subject to conditions securing a detailed drainage strategy and verification. It is also noted that Thames Water raised no objection in respect of drainage considerations. Accordingly, a revised final drainage strategy is proposed to be secured by conditions. 7.46 Subject to these conditions, the proposed development is considered to comply with Policy DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020), Policy EM6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), Policy SI 13 of the London Plan (2021). Land Contamination 7.47 Policy DMEI 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) states that development on potentially contaminated sites shall assess conditions and demonstrate that the site can be safely remediated. Planning conditions and S106 legal agreements can be used to secure the appropriate level of detail required. 7.48 A phase 1 contaminated land study has been submitted for consideration and is considered sufficient and acceptable for the initial stage of the planning process as assessed by the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer . A condition is proposed to secure further details of a remediation strategy. Subject to such a condition, the proposal is not considered contrary to Policy DMEI 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Transport 7.49 Policies T4 and T6 of the London Plan (2021), DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) are all direct ly relevant to the proposed development. These policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix, and in summary, seek to deliver development which is sustainable in transport terms and safeguards highway and pedestrian safety. These aims are also supported by the NPPF (202 6) at chapter 15, including Policy TR 6 of the NPPF (2026) which states that developments should only be refused if they would have a severe adverse impact on the transport networ k, or an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7.50 According to the TfL webCAT planning tool, the site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 1b/2, on a scale of 0 to 6b where 6b is the highest. Bus services are accessible from the ‘Whitethorn Avenue’ bus stops located along Horton Road, within 100m of the centre of the application site. Both the westbound and eastbound stops comprise a bus shelter with printed timetable information. Further to the west is West Drayton railway and underground station. Trip generation, Access & Active Travel Zone 7.51 The proposal would involve upgraded separate access points for each unit. The Council’s Highways Authority (HA) concludes that the submitted s wept path analysis demonstrates that service vehicles can enter and exit the site in forward gear with sufficient available space for the required vehicles to manoeuvre. A condition is recommended to ensure that these upgraded accesses have been constructed and ready for use prior to first use of the development. 7.52 The HA acknowledges, based on the TRICS assessment, that the proposed development is expected to generate fewer vehicle trips compared to the existing use, resulting in a net reduction in traffic on the adjacent highway network. Given the site’s location within an established industrial area, the same use classes, and the mitigation measures proposed, the HA is satisfied that the development would not result in a severe cumulative impact on the local highway network and there is no unacceptable risk to highway safety. 7.53 Following further clarification received in relation to Active Travel Zone assessment, the HA requested that a Healthy Streets contribution of £27,170 is secured via a legal agreement. The applicant has agreed to this which is proposed to be secured under S106 Head of Term (ii). Car Parking 7.54 Policy T6.2 of the London Plan (2021) states that car parking provision at Use Classes Order B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage or distribution) employment uses should have regard to office parking standards and take account of the significantly lower employment density in such developments. A degree of flexibility may also be applied to reflect different trip -generating characteristics. For outer London, the maximum parking provision is 1 space per 100smq. The proposal would provide 3,155sqm floorsp ace and would therefore require up to 32 car parking spaces. 7.55 A total of 32 no. car parking spaces ar e proposed for staff and visitors, in accordance with London Plan Policy T6.2. The Council’s Highways Authority also accepts this provision, which would be secured by condition. Disabled Person Car Parking 7.56 Policy T6.5, Table 10.6, of the London Plan (2021) states that 5% of all car parking spaces should be provided as designated disabled persons parking bays. This Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press would require 2 no. disabled persons parking bays. The proposal would provide 3 in total , in accordance with London Plan Policy T6.5. The Council’s Highways Authority accepts this provision which would be secured by condition. Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCPs) 7.57 Policy T6.2 of the of the London Plan (2021) states that car parking provision for office development or industrial should inc lude appropriate provision for electric or other Ultra-Low Emission vehicles. 7.58 A total of 7 spaces would have active electric vehicle chargers (EVCPs), equating to 20% in total. The Council’s Highways Authority accepts this provision, which would be secured by condition. Cycle Parking 7.59 Policy T5 of London Plan (2021) provid es minimum cycle standards for B2/B8 uses as; 1 long stay space per 500sqm and 1 short stay space per 1000sqm. The proposal would therefore require 6 long stay cycle spaces, and 3 short stay cycle spaces. 7.60 The development would provide 16 cycle spaces in total, exceeding the above London Plan minimum standards. The Council’s Highways Authority accepts this standard which would also be secured by condition. Motorcycle/Scooter & HGV Parking 7.61 The Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) requires parking spaces for motorised two wheelers (motorcycles, moped and scooters) to be provided at the rate of 5% of car parking spaces. The proposal would therefore require 2 motorcycle spaces. A total of 4 motorcycle spaces would be provided on site, 2 per unit. This is accepted and is proposed to be secured by condition. 7.62 There are no standards for HGV parking provision. Each dedicated service yard is proposed to accommodate two HGV loading bays, final details which would again be secured by an appropriately worded condition. Travel Plan 7.63 Policy T4 of London Plan (2021) states that Travel Plans will be required having regard to Transport for London guidance . A detailed and finalised Travel Plan is proposed to be secured by an appropriately worded condition. Parking Design and Management Plan, Construction Logistics Plan and Delivery and Servicing Plan 7.64 Policy T4 of London Plan (2021) states that Parking Design and Management Plans, Construction Logistics Plans an d Delivery and Servici ng Plans will be Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press required having regard to Transport for London guidance. Detailed and finalised Plans are proposed to be secured by an appropriately worded conditions. Transport Conclusion 7.65 Subject to the necessary planning conditions and obligation, it is considered that the proposal would provide adequate parking provision for the proposed use and would not result in a detrimental impact on the local highway network in accordance with Policies DMT 1, DMT 2, DMT 5 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) and Policies T4 and T7 of the London Plan (2021). Sustainable Development CO2 Emissions 7.66 Policy SI 2 of the London Plan (2021) and DMEI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) are relevant to the devel opment proposed. These policies can be read in full in the Committee Report Part 3 - Policy Appendix, and in summary, seek to secure major development proposals as net zero- carbon by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in operation and minimising energy demand in accordance with the energy hierarchy. These aims are also supported by the NPPF (2026). 7.67 The submitted Energy Strategy proposes several measures aimed at reducing regulated CO2 emissions for the proposed development including a range of passive design measures (improved U- values, solar controlled glazing etc), energy efficiency measures (low energy fans and high efficiency LED lighting etc), heat pumps ( VRF), solar photovoltaic (PV) panels onto the building roofs as a source of on -site renewable energy generation. The strategy states that it is anticipated that the proposal can achiev e 101.1% reduction in CO2 emissions beyond the Baseline Part L 2021 and therefore significantly exceeds the minimum 35% reduction on site required by Policy SI 2 of London Plan. This is proposed to be secured by the corresponding S106 Head of Term. This planning obligation also includes that, in the event of a shortfall compared to the approved strategy, but no less than the minimum policy requirement of 35% on -site reduction, the quantum (tCO2) shall be treated as part of the shortfall and shall result in a cash in lieu contribution in accordance with a formula to be set out in the S106. 7.68 Subject to such obligation, the development would accord with Policy SI 2 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DMEI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Energy Infrastructure 7.69 Policy SI 3 of the London Plan (2021) states that major development proposals should make provisions to connect into district heating networks, thereby utilising secondary heat sources. 7.70 The information submitted states that there are no existing or planned district energy networks within feasible vicinity of the site that would enable a connection Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press to the development, nor are there currently any feasible future connections planned. However, the submitted Energy Strategy states that the proposal would be future proofed to allow connectivity to District Heat Network if one becomes available in the future. An appropriately worded condition is recommended to secure this. Subject to such a condit ion, the development would comply with Policy SI 3 of the London Plan (2021). Water Efficiency 7.71 Policy SI 5 of the London Plan (2021) se ts out water infrastructure requirements for commercial forms of development, including achieving at least the BREEAM excellent standard for the 'Wat 01' wate r category or equivalent, measures to reduce water use, provide adequate wastewater infrastructure capacity and minimise the potential for misconnecti ons between foul and surface water networks. 7.72 To ensure the development would minimise the use of mains water, a compliance planning condition is recommended for it to achieve at least the BREEAM excellent standard for the ‘Wat 01’ water category or equivalent (commercial development), and incorporate measures such as smart metering, water saving, and recycling measures, including retrofitting. Subject to an appropriately worded condition, the proposal complies with Policy SI 5 of the London Plan. Digital Connectivity 7.73 Policy SI 6 of the London Plan (2021) requires that development provides ducting space for full fibre connectivity. 7.74 A condition is proposed and would ensure that sufficient ducting space for full fibre connectivity infrastructure is provided within the development. Subject to the recommended condition, the proposed development would accord with Policy SI 6 of the London Plan (2021). 8 Other Matters Environmental Impact Assessment 8.1 The proposed development does not constitute EIA development as per the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (as amended). Human Rights 8.2 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance. Equality 8.3 Due consideration has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act with regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the assessment of this planning application. No adverse equality impacts are considered to arise from the proposal. Local Finance Considerations and CIL Planning Obligations 8.4 Policy DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020) states that whilst infrastructure requirements will be predominantly addressed through the Council's Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), plan ning obligations will be sought on a scheme -by-scheme basis. Applications that fail to secure an appropriate Planning Obligation to make the proposal acceptable will be refused. 8.5 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulation 2010 (Regulations issued Pursuant to the 2008 Act) have put three tests on the use of planning obligations into law. It is unlawful (sinc e 6th April 2010) to request planning obligations that do not meet the fo llowing tests: i. necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; ii. directly related to the development; and iii. fairly and reasonable related in scale and kind to the development. 8.6 The effect of the Regulations is that the Council must apply the tests much more strictly and is only to ask for planning obligations that are genuinely necessary and directly related to a development. Should planning obligations be requested that do not meet the policy tests th e Council would have acted unlawfully and could be subject to a High Court challenge. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 8.7 On the basis of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulation 2010, it is only considered reasonable to request contri butions for the matters outlined in the Heads of Terms contained in the Summary of Recommendation section at the beginning of this report. These are listed in summary below: i. Air Quality Mitigation contribution of £196,096. ii. Healthy Streets contribution of £27,170 iii. ‘Be Seen’: ‘Be Seen’ post-construction energy monitoring to be carried out in accordance with the GLA ‘Be Seen’ Energy Monitoring Guidance London Plan Guidance Documents (2021). In the event of a shortfall compared to the approved strategy (101.1% reduction in CO2 emissions), but no less than the minimum policy requirement of 35% on-site reduction, the quantum (tCO2) shall result in a cash in lieu contribution in accordance with a formula to be set out in the S106. iv. An Employment/ Construction Training Scheme secured in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations SPD. v. Project Management and Monitoring Fee: A Project Management and Monitoring Fee, equalling 5% of the total financial contributions to be paid under this agreement. Community Infrastructure Levy 8.8 As from 1 April 2012, all planning approvals for schemes with a net additional internal floor area of 100m2 or more will be liable for the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (Mayoral CIL), as legislated by the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and The Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2011. The liability payable will be equal to £60 per square metre (from April 2019) , subject to indexation. The London Borough of Hillingdon is a collecting authority for the Mayor of London, and this

Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Report of the Head of Development Management and Building Control Committee Report Case Officer: Mike Kemp 51743/APP/2026/2046 Date Application Valid: 18-08-26 Statutory / Agreed Determination Deadline: 17-11-26 Application Type: Full Ward: Heathrow Villages Applicant: Tritax London Logistics GP Limited Site Address: 1071 Southampton Road, Heathrow Airport, TW6 3AQ Proposal: Demolition of existing building slab and other structures along with their foundations; backfilling of the excavations; removal of below ground drainage tanks and installation of new septic tank and utility connections 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 – 6th October 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 a series of enabling works, namely the removal of the concrete ground floor slab, pumping station and underground structures associated with the former Gate Gourmet building which has been largely removed. The works are intended to facilitate the future redevelopment of the site. It is proposed that any excavations on the site would be backfilled with crushed material from the site works. 1.2 The removal of the remaining existing st ructures associated with the former building on the site would be beneficial on a temporary basis in visual terms and would facilitate future use of the site for employment related purposes. Appropriate measures may be secured for any future development on the site by condition or through relevant planning obligations to mitigate/control land contamination, air quality, noise impact, impact on existing trees, aviation safety; and to protect biodiversity during construction works. The development would therefore ensure appropriate standards of environmental protection. 1.3 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 . The planning application is therefore recommended for approval, s ubject to the conditions contained in Appendix 1; 2 The Site and Locality 2.1 The application site comprises a roughly 2.3-hectare area of land. The site lies to the south of Heathrow Airpor t previously occupied by a two-storey industrial building, reaching 15.8 metres in height and surrounding servicing, storage and circulation space. The building, formerly used by Gate Gourmet, a company providing on-flight catering which had been vacant for some time has mostly been demolished with only the concrete ground floor slab, pumping station, gatehouse, fencing remaining on site. 2.2 The Site is accessed from Southampton Road East to the north east, with a secondary entrance/exit to the south west from Stansted Road to the west. The site is surrounded by high metal fencing on all sides. There is a row of relatively dense soft landscaping including trees adjoining the southern boundary of the site and the Heathrow Southern Perimeter Road. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 2.3 To the east of the site is a modern five level multi-storey car park extending to approximately 15m in height. Immediately north of the car park and south of Southampton Road East is a substation and vent shaft which is understood to be connected to the Heathrow Express. To the west, beyond Stansted Road, are large warehouses occupied by Swissport Cargo Services and Data. To the north of the Site, beyond Southampton Road East and Sealand Road, is the large IAG World Cargo Building. Figure 1: Location Plan (application site edged red) Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 2: Photograph of the Application Site including building slab to be removed. Figure 3: Photograph of the Application Site including building slab to be removed. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 4: Photograph of the Pumping Station Structures on Site to be removed. 3 Proposal Planning permission is sought for a series of enabling works, namely the removal of the concrete ground floor slab, pumping station and underground structures associated with the former Gate Gourmet building which has been largely removed. The works are intended to facilitate the futu re redevelopment of the site. It is proposed that any excavations on the site would be backfilled with crushed material from the site works. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press Figure 5: Proposed Plan – Extent of structures and slab on site to be removed. 4 Relevant Planning History 4.1 A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2. 4.2 Planning application 51743/APP/2026/2046 has been submitted for the Demolition of existing structures and building slab to enable the erection of a warehouse building for use within Class B2 and/or B8 with ancillary Class E(g), along with associated structures, car and cycle parking, landscaping, access alterations and oth er associated works. The enabling works subject of the application considered in this report are however considered independently of the development proposals contained in this related application. 5 Planning Policy 5.1 A list of planning policies relevant to the consideration of the application can be found in Appendix 3. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 A total of 10 surrounding properties were directly notified regarding the development. Site notices were posted in multiple locations surrounding the site on the 11th September 2026 . A press advert was published in the West London Gazette on 10th September 2026. 6.2 At the time of the publication of this report, no members of the public have submitted comments in relation to the planning application. Any comments received following publication of this re port will be reported verbally to members of the committee. Table 2: Summary of Consultee Responses Consultee and Summary of Comments Planning Officer Response Airport Safeguarding - Heathrow No objection, however it is advised that if a crane is required then the applicant is required to submit all crane details such as maximum height, operating radius, name, and phone number of site manager along with installation and dismantling dates to the CAA Airspace Coordination and Obstacle Management Service (ACOMS) system. Noted that no objections are raised. A condition is recommended to be added requiring the applicant to submit additional information to the to the CAA Airspace Coordination and Obstacle Management Service (ACOMS) system if cranes are required on site. NAT’s (National Air Traffic Services) No objection from a safeguarding perspective. Noted Thames Water No comments received in relation to the planning application. Noted Transport for London (Infrastructure Safeguarding) No objection in principle, there are a number of potential constraints on the redevelopment of a site situated close to underground tunnels and infrastructure. Details in relation to the potential impact of demolition and construction works on London Underground assets are required prior to the commencement of development. Noted that no objections are raised. A condition is attached to the application requiring that the applicant submit further details to determine that there would not be a Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press negative impact on London Underground assets. Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) An archaeological evaluation report has been submitted in support of the planning application. The evaluation was requested by GLAAS to be carried out in advance of the planning application being submitted, in order to inform the potential for the site to contain archaeological remains of significance. It is clear from the report that the site has been previously impacted by the construction of the current car park, and that it is unlikely that any archaeological remains survive outside the current building footprint. The current building foundations are likely to have had an even higher impact on any potential remains and therefore it is recommended that no further archaeological work is necessary for this site. Noted that no objections are raised. Cadent Gas No objection. Noted Internal Consultees Highways No response received. Highways matters are addressed at Paragraphs 7.19 – 7.24 of this report. Noise Officer No comment. Noted Contaminated Land Officer No objection subject to submission of a scheme to deal with contamination, remediation strategy and verification report to be secured by planning condition. A scheme to deal with contamination, remediation strategy and verification report would be secured by planning condition as recommended. Urban Design Potential contamination around former tanks may influence landscaping and groundworks . Positive reuse of demolition materials and reduced waste export. Comments are noted a condition relating to contaminated land is recommended as referenced above. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 7 Planning Assessment Principle of Development 7.1 Policy DMAV2 of the Local Plan states that development proposals within the Heathrow Airport boundary will only be support ed where: i) they relate directly to airport related use or development; ii) there is no detrimental impact to the safe and efficient operation of local and strategic transport networks; iii) they comply with Policy DMEI 14: Air Qu ality; iv) there are no other significant adverse environmental impacts; where relevant, an environmental impact and/or transport assessment will be required with appropriate identification of mitigation measures; and v) they comply with all other relevant policies of the Local Plan. 7.2 Policy SD1 of the London Plan includes Heathrow as an opportunity area for the provision of new jobs, whilst Policy E7 of the London Plan promotes the intensification of business uses in Use Classes B1c, B2 and B8 occupying all categories of industrial land, including th rough more efficient use of land through higher plot ratios having regard to operational yard space requirements (including servicing). The proposals would facilitate th e reuse of the site for emplo yment purposes and are considered acceptable when assessed in line with this policy given that the previous warehouse building on the site has been removed. 7.3 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 7.4 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 2026each seek to ensure that development achieves the highest standard of design, which integrates positively to the character its surroundings. 7.5 The development involves the removal of all existing structures, slab and hardstanding from the site, resulting in an absence of any remaining built form. The removal of the small, remaining va cant structures associated with the pumping station and the removal of the concrete slab associated with the ground floor structure and surrounding hardsta nding would result in a tidier appearance and there would be visual benefits arising from this, albeit th ese are expected to be temporary as it is anticipated that the site would be redeveloped for employment use at a later time. 7.6 As the clearance of the site and remaining structures and built form are beneficial in visual terms, it is considered that t he development would comply with Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 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 2026. Heritage Impact 7.7 The Grade II listed Stanwell Farmhouse is located 80 metres to the south of the site and lies on the opposite side of the Duke of Northumberland's River and Longford River. Other nearby heritage assets including the Grade II listed Callis Farmhouse located 630 metres to the west, the Stanwell Conservation Area (885 metres to the west). 7.8 Policy DMHB 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states: The Council will expect development proposals to avoid harm to the historic environment. 7.9 Policy DMHB 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states: new development, including alterations and extensions to existing buildings, within a Conservation Area or on its fringes, will be expected to preserve or enhance the character or app earance of the area. It should sustain and enhance its significance and make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. 7.10 Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development that affects a listed building or its sett ing, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. 7.11 In line with Policy HE6 of the NPPF 2026, consideration must be given to the impact of a proposed development on th e significance of designated heritage assets and great weight should be given to the asset's conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to subs tantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. 7.12 As referenced above, the development involves the removal of all existing structures, slab and hardstanding from the site, resulting in an absence of any remaining built form. The impact in relation to any of the above-mentioned heritage assets would be negligible and the deve lopment would preserve the setting of these designated heritage assets and would not result in harm to their historic significance. 7.13 The site lies within the Heathrow Archaeological Priority Zone. An archaeological evaluation report has been submitted in support of the planning application and has been reviewed by the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) who were consulted in relation to the planning application. GLAAS note in their response that the site has been previously impacted by the construction of Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press the current car park, and that it is unlikely that any archaeological remains survive outside the current building footprint. The current building foundations are likely to have had an even higher impact on any potential remains and therefore it is recomme nded that no further archaeological work is necessary for this site. It is therefore concluded that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on heritage assets of archaeological interest. 7.14 Consequently, the development would not conflict with Policy HE6 of the NPPF (2026) and Policy DMHB 7 of the Local Plan Part 2. Residential Amenity 7.15 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. 7.16 The majority of the surrounding land uses are industrial/commercial in nature. The nearest residential uses are located approximately 160 metres to the south of the site on the opposite side of the Duke of Northumberland's River and Longford River on the edge of Stanwell in Spelthorne District. No built form is proposed on the site and the site and therefore the proposed development would have no impact on the residential amenity of surr ounding uses, whether residential or commercial in terms of daylight/sunlight or outlook. 7.17 Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021) stat es 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. 7.18 The application is accompanied by a Construction Management Plan and Demolition Specification which sets out details relating to construction and demolition works that would be undertaken on site, including measures which would be applied to limit noise and dust generation. Subject to compliance with the measures set out within these documents and where accounting for the relative distance to surrounding noise sensitive uses, particularly residential dwellings it is considered that no harm would be caused to the amenity of surrounding uses. On this basis it is cons idered that it is considered that the development would comply with Policies D3, D13, D14 and E5 of The London Plan (2021). Transport 7.19 Policy TR6 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 Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 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. 7.20 Policy T2 of the London Plan requires that the cumulative impacts of development on public transport and the road network capacity including walking and cycling, as well as associated effects on public health, should be taken into account and mitigated and requires that d evelopment proposals should not increase road danger. 7.21 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. 7.22 Policy DMT 6 of the Local Plan requires t hat proposals comply with the Council's parking standards to facilitate sustainable development and address issues relating to congestion and amenity. Policy T6 of the London Plan sets out maximum car parking standards applicable to new development. 7.23 The proposals relate to site clearance works and therefore no on-site parking is proposed or required. Any highways impacts would be associated with construction/demolition works, including the removal of material on site and contractor parking. The site has close access to the M25 and M4 via the Southern Perimeter Road and therefore access to the site for construction traffic can be appropriately managed without impacting substantially on the amenity of surrounding residential occupiers. Details for traffic management would need to be set out within a Construction Management and Logistics Plan secured by planning condition, prior to works being undertaken on site. 7.24 It is noted that the site is in close prox imity to underground rail tunnels owned by Transport for London which are part of the Piccadilly Line and Elizabeth Line network. TfL’s infrastructure team have been consulted regarding the planning application and have advised that should permission be granted, there would be a requirement for the applicant to subm it a Risk Assessment Method Statement (RAMS) relating to the construction works for approval in writing in consultation with TfL. This would be necessary given the importance of these transport assets. A condition to secure these requirements is recommended to be attached should the application be determined for approval. Tree Protection and Urban Greening 7.25 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. 7.26 Policy G5 of the London Plan stipulates that major development proposals, should include urban greening as a fundamental element of site and building design by Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press incorporating measures such as high-quality landscaping (including trees), green roofs, green walls, and nature-based sustainable drainage. 7.27 There are no trees located within the appl ication site, however there is a row of trees located immediately to the south of the site on the grass verge to the north of the Southern Perimeter Road. The proposals do not involve the removal of any of the tree s located to the south of the site, however construction work would be undertaken in close proximity to these tr ees. The application is accompanied by an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) which is considered to incorporate appropriate measures to protect the trees to the south of the site, outside of the site boundary during the construction operations. Compliance with the submitted AMS is recommended to be secured by condition. 7.28 As there are no trees on the site at the current time and as the proposals relate to site clearance works, it would not be expected that new landscaping is proposed as part of any works, given that new soft landscaping should be delivered as part of any new development on the site. Furthermore, the site is currently used for a Class B2/B8 use and class B2 and B8 uses are exempt from the requirement to achieve a UGF score of 0.3 applicable to other forms of commercial development. 7.29 The proposals would not conflict with the requirements of Policy DMHB 14 of the Local Plan and Policy G5 of the London Plan. Ecology 7.30 Policy DMEI 7 of the Local Plan states that the design and layout of new development should retain and enhance any ex isting features of biodiversity or geological value within the site. If developme nt is proposed on or near to a site considered to have features of ecological or geological value, applicants must submit appropriate surveys and assessments to demonstrate that the proposed development will not have unacceptable effects. Similarly, Policy G6 of the London Plan states that development proposals should manage impacts on biodiversity and aim to secure net biodiversity gain. 7.31 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. 7.32 Paragraph 8.6.6 of The London Plan stat es that biodiversity net gain is an approach to development that leaves biod iversity in a better state than before. This means that where biodiversity is lost due to development, the compensation provided should be of an overall greater biodiversity value than that which is lost. This approach does not change the fact that losses should be avoided, and biodiversity offsetting is the option of last resort. 7.33 Paragraph 6.28 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part 2 states that it is important that planning decisions are appropriately informed by the right level of survey and Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press information on ecology features. Where appropriate, the Council will require the use of the approved DEFRA biodiversity impact calculator to inform decisions on no net loss and net gain. 7.34 A Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment has been submitted in support of related planning application 51743/APP/2026/1267 on the site ; this includes an assessment of the baseline condition of the site which comprise hardstanding associated with the former building on the site as well as some small structures. The Assessment characterises the site as being of low distinctiveness within the BNG Statutory Metric and is allocated a score of zero. It is therefore assessed that the development would meet the de -minimis criteria, whereby there would be no requirement to provide 10% BNG. From visiting the site, officers would agree with this assessment. The proposals contained in this application are temporary in nature and it would be anticipated that any future development on the site provides additional soft landscaping, increasing the provision of habitats and biodiversity on-site. 7.35 A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) has been submitted in support of related planning application 51743/APP/2026/1267 and highlights that the site is of low ecological value and of generally negligible potential to support protected species. The site is identified as being of low value to support commuting bats, but of negligible potential to support roosting bats. The PEA id entifies that the Duke of Northumberland and Longford rivers which are within 30m and 60m south of the Site boundary respectively supply valuable habitat for biodiversity within the context of the wider landscape. In addition, both rivers are upstream from and associated with two SINCs; Duke of Northumberland’s River at Bedfont (Metropolitan Grade) and Longford River at Feltham (Borough Grade I) respectively. Given the potential for constructi on works to impact negatively on both SINC’s it is considered appropriate that a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) be prepared and submitted prior to the commencement of development, as recommended within the applicants PEA. 7.36 Accounting for the above assessment and subject to the recommended conditions referenced above it is considered that the development would comply with Policy DMEI 7 of the Local Plan and Policy G6 of the London Plan. Contaminated Land 7.37 Policy DMEI 11 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan Part 2 states that all development proposals within a Source Protection Zone, Safeguard Zone, or Water Protection Zone must assess any risk to groundwater resources and demonstrate that these would be protected throughout the construction and operational phases of development. 7.38 Policy DMEI 12 of Hillingd on Council's Local Plan Part 2 requires proposals for development on potentially contaminated sites to be accompanied by at least an initial study of the likely contaminants. Conditions will be imposed where planning permission is given for development on land affected by contamination to ensure Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press all the necessary remedial works are implemented prior to the commencement of development. 7.39 The application is accompanied by a Preliminary Risk Assessment Report which addresses on site sources of potential contamination. No significant contamination sources have been identified from the current commercial use, however, Heathrow Airport expansion ground reworking and drainage trench installation, car parks / service yards and Made Ground associated with historic development phases have been identified as potential sources of contamination. Potential contaminants include metals, hydrocarbons and asbestos 7.40 The Preliminary Risk Assessment Report has been reviewed by the council’s Contaminated Land Officer who has advised that the report provides and appropriate assessment of risk. A condition is recommended requiring the submission of a site investigation report to include further analysis of soil, soil gas, surface water, and groundwater sampling which identifies all risks, limitations, and recommendations for remedial measures to make the site suitable for the proposed use . Alongside this a written method statement outlining details of remediation would be required. Both parts of the assessment shall be submitted prior to the commencement of development. A verification report which includes the details of the final remediation works an d their verification to show that the works have been carried out in full and in accordance with the approved methodology shall be submitted upon completion of the approved remedial works. 7.41 Subject to the submission of appropriate details required under this condition, it is considered that risks of contamination may be appropriately addressed and mitigated in compliance with Policy DMEI 12 of the Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies Aviation Safety 7.42 Policy DMAV 1 of the Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies states that the Council will support the continued safe operation of Heathrow Airport and RAF Northolt and will consult with the airport operator on proposals in the safeguarded areas. Proposals that may be a hazard to aircraft safety will not be permitted. 7.43 Consultation has been carried out with all relevant parties, namely National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and Heathrow Airport , both of which have raised no objection to the development. Heathrow Airport have adv ised that a condition is required regarding details of any cranes proposed to be used during construction works and this condition is recommended to be attached. Accounting for this, it is considered that the development would accord with Policy DMAV 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 and would not present unacceptable risk to aviation safety. Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 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 The site would not be liable for CIL as no floorspace is proposed as part of the planning application. Please note, th is 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 removal of the remaining existing st ructures associated with the former building on the site would be beneficial on a temporary basis in visual and would facilitate future use of the site for employment related purposes. Appropriate measures may be secured by condition or through relevant planning obligations to mitigate/control land contamination, air quality, noise impact, impact on existing trees, aviation safety; and to protect biodiversity during construction works . The development would therefore ensure appr opriate standards of environmental protection. 9.2 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 . The planning application is therefore recommended for approval, s ubject to the conditions contained in Appendix 1; Hillingdon Planning Committee – 6th October 2026 PART 1 – Members, Public & Press 10 Background Papers 10.1 Relevant published policies and documents taken into account in respect of this application are set out in the report. Documents associated with the application (except exempt or confidential information) are available on the Council's website here, by entering the planning application number at the top of this report and using the search facility. Planning 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, subjec t to any necessary redaction for exempt or confidential information. Internal consultee comments: x Highways x Noise Officer x Contaminated Land Officer x Urban Design External consultee comments: x Airport Safeguarding - Heathrow x NAT’s (National Air Traffic Services) x Thames Water x Transport for London (Infrastructure Safeguarding) x Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) x Cadent Gas AAPPENDICES Planning Application 51743/APP/2026/2046 Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1 of 11 AAppendix 1: Recommended Conditions and Informatives Conditions 1. A1 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: 15192 -BNY-DRW-ARC-ZZ-GFL-10-0001 15192-BNY-DRW-ARC-ZZ-GFL-10-0003-SPA 15192-BNY-DRW-ARC-ZZ-ZZ-20-0000-SPA REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions Hillingdon Local Plan Parts 1 (November 2012) and 2 (January 2020) and the London Plan (2021). 3. COM5 G General compliance with supporting documentation The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the following has been completed in accordance with the specified supporting plans and/or documents: Demolition Specification Rev C dated August 2025 reference R101 Arboricultural Method Statement dated 28 July 2026 Archaeological Evaluation Report dated July 2026 Issue No. 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment dated 27 July 2026 26/4893.A.2 Issue 3 Preliminary Risk Assessment dated 30 July 2026 26/4893.A.1 Issue 4 Construction Management Plan dated July 2026 Thereafter the development shall be retained/maintained in accordance with these details for as long as the development remains in existence REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions Hillingdon Local Plan Parts 1 (November 2012) and 2 (January 2020) and the London Plan (2021). 4. A2 A Arboricultural Method Statement Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 of 11 The development shall be implemented in accordance with the tree protection measures outlined within the approved Arboricultural Method Statement dated 28 July 2026. Where the arboricultural method statement recommends that the tree protection measures for a site will be monitored and supervised by an arboricultural consultant at key stages of the development, records of the site inspections / meetings shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. REASON To ensure that trees and other vegetation can and will be retained on site and not damaged during construction work and to ensure that the development conforms with policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 5 5. A39 C Contaminated Land (i) The development hereby permitted (excluding demolition, site clearance and initial ground investigation works) shall not commence (excluding demolition, site clearance and initial ground investigation works) until a scheme to deal with unacceptable contamination, (including asbestos materials detected within the soil), has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). All works which form part of any required remediation scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied or brought into use unless the Local Planning Authority dispenses with any such requirement specifically and in writing. The scheme shall include the following measures unless the LPA dispenses with any such requirement specifically and in writing: (a) A site investigation, including where relevant soil, soil gas, surface water, and groundwater sampling, together with the results of analysis and risk assessment shall be carried out by a suitably qualified and accredited consultant/contractor. The report should also clearly identify all risks, limitations, and recommendations for remedial measures to make the site suitable for the proposed use; and (b) A written method statement providing details of the remediation scheme and how the completion of the remedial works will be verified shall be agreed in writing with the LPA prior to commencement, along with the details of a watching brief to address undiscovered contamination. No deviation shall be made from this scheme without the express agreement of the LPA prior to its implementation. (ii) If during remedial or development works contamination not addressed in the submitted remediation scheme is identified an addendum to the remediation scheme shall be agreed with the LPA prior to implementation; and (iii) Upon completion of the approved remedial works, this condition will not be discharged until a comprehensive verification report has been submitted to and approved by the LPA. The report shall include the details of the final remediation works and their verification to show that the works have been carried out in full and in accordance with the approved methodology. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 of 11 (iv) No contaminated soils or other materials shall be imported to the site. All imported soils for landscaping and/or engineering purposes shall be clean and free of contamination. Before any part of the development is occupied, all imported soils shall be independently tested for chemical contamination, and the factual results and interpretive reports of this testing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems and the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (January 2020) Policies - DMEI 11: Protection of Ground Water Resources and DMEI 12: Development of Land Affected by Contamination. 6 6. NONSC C Construction Logistics Plan and Construction Management Plan Prior to commencement of development a full and detailed Construction Logistics Plan and Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These documents shall be prepared in accordance with the GLA Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition SPG (or any successor document) relevant to that phase has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan. This plan shall detail: (i) The phasing of the works; (ii) The hours of work; (iii) On-site plant and equipment; (iv) Measures to mitigate noise and vibration; (v) Measures to mitigate impact on air quality; (vi) Waste management; (vii) Site transportation and traffic management, including: (a) Routing; (b) Signage; (c) Vehicle types and sizes; (d) Hours of arrivals and departures of staff and deliveries (avoiding peaks times of day); (e) Frequency of visits; (f) Parking of site operative vehicles; (g) On-site loading/unloading arrangements; and (h) Use of an onsite banksman (if applicable). (viii) The arrangement for monitoring and responding to complaints relating to demolition and construction; and (ix) Details of cranes and other tall construction equipment (including the details of obstacle lighting). Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4 of 11 (x) a dust risk assessment, including means to monitor and control dust, noise and vibrations, following the published guidance by The Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) on how to assess impacts of emissions of dust from demolition and construction sites. The relevant phase of development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Construction Logistics Plan. REASON To ensure that the proposed development does not interfere with the free flow of traffic and conditions of safety on the public highway, to ensure the development process does not have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of nearby residential properties, in accordance with Policies DMT 1, DMT 2, and DMEI 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Development Management Policies (2020) and Policies D14, SI 1, T4, and T7 of the London Plan (2021). Also, to ensure that construction work and construction equipment on the site and adjoining land does not obstruct air traffic movements or otherwise impede the effective operation of air traffic navigation transmitter/receiver systems, in accordance with Policy DMAV 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Development Management Policies (2020). 7 7. NONSC L London Underground transport infrastructure The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the following documents (in consultation with LU Infrastructure Protection), for each progressive stage of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority which: 1.Identify the location of the existing LU structures to ensure that the works have no impacts on LU tunnels; 2. Carry out pre and post condition surveys of LU structures or tunnels; 3. Provide an impact assessment on LU assets for the overall development, which should determine if monitoring works on TfL asset are required. If monitoring works are required, instruments are required to be installed on TfL assets with sufficient baseline readings before the start of the demolition works; 4. Before commencing construction/demolition, the development must be shown to take no support from LU property/tunnels or to detrimentally change the loading on them. The anticipated building load changes on LU tunnels and structures for temporary construction stage and permanent long term stage should be provided; 5. Provide assessment of ground movement impact on London Underground structures and tunnels due to temporary and permanent changes in loading associated with the proposed demolition/construction works. Depending on the ground movement assessment results, a Movement Monitoring Action Plan should be developed and submitted to LU for approval; 6.Provide detailed design and Risk Assessment and Method Statements for all temporary and permanent works; 7. Before commencing any work on site, over or immediately adjacent to LU's tunnels, details of any proposed boreholes or bored piles (including site investigation works) shall be submitted to LU and their written approval shall be obtained. Driven piles will not be Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 11 permitted in the vicinity of LU's tunnels or other subsurface structure; 8. Provide detailed design and Risk Assessment and Method Statements for tall plant/crane/lifting equipment/heavy plant; 9. Before commencing work on site, it shall be demonstrated to LU's satisfaction that no drainage will flow on to LU properties and no existing TfL drainage ditches or pipes will be connected to or impaired; 10. A hydrology report has to be submitted to LU's satisfaction to demonstrate that there will be no change in groundwater level and no potential for introducing new water paths around TfL structure or LU tunnels due to the proposed works including the new sceptic tank; 11. Provide the waterproofing details of all the temporary and permanent works. REASON To ensure that the development does not impact on existing London Underground/DLR transport infrastructure, in accordance with the London Plan 2021 Policy T3 and Sustainable Transport Walking and Cycling London Plan Guidance 2022. 8 8. NONSC C Cranes Prior to the installation of any cranes on the site, the crane operator is required to submit all crane details such as maximum height, operating radius, name, and phone number of site manager along with installation and dismantling dates to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing in consultation with Heathrow Airport Limited. The details shall also be submitted to the CAA Airspace Coordination and Obstacle Management Service(ACOMS) system. The installation and operation of any Cranes shall be carried out in full accordance with the details approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To ensure the development does not endanger the safe movement of aircraft or the operation of Heathrow Airport in accordance with the requirements of Policy DMAV 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (2020). Informatives 1. I52 C Compulsory Informative (1) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act (1998) (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). I53 C Compulsory Informative (2) Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6 of 11 The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020) set out below, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and to all relevant material considerations, including The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London consolidated with alterations since 2011 (2016) and national guidance. BE13 New development must harmonise with the existing street scene. BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features and provision of new planting and landscaping in development proposals. DMAV 1 Safe Operation of Airports DMAV 2 Heathrow Airport DME 2 Employment Uses Outside of Designated Sites DMEI 10 Water Management, Efficiency and Quality DMEI 12 Development of Land Affected by Contamination DMEI 14 Air Quality DMEI 3 Decentralised Energy DMEI 7 Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LLP D1 (2021) London's form character and capacity for growth 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 E4 (2021) Land for industry, logistics and services to support London's economic function LPP E5 (2021) Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL) LPP E7 (2021) Industrial intensification, co-location and substitution H Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7 of 11 LPP G4 (2021) Open space LPP G5 (2021) Urban greening LPP G6 (2021) Biodiversity and access to nature LPP SD6 (2021) Town centres and high streets LPP SI1 (2021) Improving air quality LPP SI7 (2021) Reducing waste and supporting the circular economy LPP T1 (2021) Strategic approach to transport LPP T4 (2021) Assessing and mitigating transport impacts LPP T5 (2021) Cycling LPP T6 (2021) Car parking LPP T6.5 (2021) Non-residential disabled persons parking LPP T7 (2021) Deliveries, servicing and construction LPP T8 (2021) Aviation H Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 8 of 11 AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History 51743/APP/2012/1781 Gate Gourmet, Building 1071 Southampton Road Heathrow Airport Erection of two storey extension, including part demolition of existing building and associated works. Decision: 06-11-2012 Approved 51743/APP/2022/657 Building 1071 Southampton Road Heathrow Airport A Prior Notification Application submitted under Schedule 2, Part 11, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order (2015) (as amended) for the full demolition of the main building and the associated structures within 1071 Southampton Road East. Decision: 13-04-2022 Refused 51743/APP/2026/1267 Building 1071 Southampton Road Heathrow Airport Demolition of existing structures and building slab to enable the erection of a warehouse building for use within Class B2 and/or B8 with ancillary Class E(g), along with associated structures, car and cycle parking, landscaping, access alterations and other associated works. Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 9 of 11 AAppendix 3: List of Relevant Planning Policies The following Local Plan Policies are considered relevant to the application:- Part 1 Policies: Part 2 Policies: BE13 New development must harmonise with the existing street scene. BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features and provision of new planting and landscaping in development proposals. DMEI 14 Air Quality DMEI 3 Decentralised Energy DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMAV 1 Safe Operation of Airports DMAV 2 Heathrow Airport DME 2 Employment Uses Outside of Designated Sites DMEI 10 Water Management, Efficiency and Quality DMEI 12 Development of Land Affected by Contamination DMEI 7 Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts LLP D1 (2021) London's form character and capacity for growth LPP D11 (2021) Safety, security and resilience to emergency LPP D12 (2021) Fire safety Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 10 of 11 LPP D3 (2021) Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach LPP E4 (2021) Land for industry, logistics and services to support London's economic function LPP E5 (2021) Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL) LPP E7 (2021) Industrial intensification, co-location and substitution LPP T7 (2021) Deliveries, servicing and construction LPP T8 (2021) Aviation DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP SD6 (2021) Town centres and high streets LPP D1 (2021) London's form, character and capacity for growth LPP D14 (2021) Noise LPP D4 (2021) Delivering good design LPP D5 (2021) Inclusive design LPP D8 (2021) Public realm LPP G4 (2021) Open space LPP G5 (2021) Urban greening LPP G6 (2021) Biodiversity and access to nature LPP SI1 (2021) Improving air quality LPP SI7 (2021) Reducing waste and supporting the circular economy LPP T1 (2021) Strategic approach to transport LPP T4 (2021) Assessing and mitigating transport impacts LPP T5 (2021) Cycling LPP T6 (2021) Car parking LPP T6.5 (2021) Non-residential disabled persons parking H Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 11 of 11

Meeting: Hillingdon Planning Committee Date: 6 October 2026 Time: 7:00pm Venue: Committee Room 5, Civic Centre ADDENDUM SHEET Item 6 Location: 44 Murray Road Amendments/Additional Information: Officer Comments: Following submission of revised Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing information, the Council undertook a further period of public consultation between 11th of August 2026 and 9th of September 2026. Two comments were received raised concerns regarding impacts on residential amenity, including daylight and sunlight, highway congestion, parking pressures, air quality, construction impacts and the accuracy of the submitted assessment. Officers have reviewed the representations received and the revised Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing information. Concerns regarding daylight, sunlight and neighbouring amenity have been assessed at paragraphs 8.19-8.30 of the officer report and addendum paragraphs 1.6-1.10, and officers remain satisfied that the proposal would not result in unacceptable impacts. Concerns regarding the submitted assessment have been considered and do not alter the conclusions re ached. Highway, traffic and parking matters are assessed at paragraphs 8.39 -8.49 and addendum paragraphs 1.3 -1.5, with no objection raised by the Local Highway Authority. Concerns relating to air quality, health impacts and construction disturbance are acknowledged; however, given the scale and nature of the proposal, these matters do not warrant refusal of the application and any temporary construction impacts would be addressed through separate legislation and controls. Following publication of the agenda, a further objection representation and a Rights to Light representation have been received. 1. Intensification out of character with the surrounding suburban area. 2. Policy DMH4 thresholds should not themselves determine the acceptability of development. 3. Loss of an existing family dwelling. 4. Density and scale should be assessed having regard to the site's PTAL rating and suburban character. 5. Increased hardstanding, frontage parking and reduced soft landscaping. 6. Impact on No. 42 Murray Road and the weight to be afforded to independent daylight/sunlight evidence. 7. Existing boundary conditions should not justify additional impacts arising from the proposal. 8. Practical operation of the shared access serving No. 42 Murray Road. 9. Highway and parking concerns, including visitor parking, servicing and deliveries. 10. Waste and recycling arrangements should not be left to planning conditions. 11. Quality and usability of the proposed amenity space. 12. The cumulative impacts of the development outweigh the benefit of four additional dwellings. 13. Planning conditions should not be relied upon to address fundamental concerns with the scheme. 14. Members should use the site visit to understand the relationship with No. 42 Murray Road. 15. Concern regarding Complaint. 16. Rights to Light Representation 1. The principle of development is assessed at paragraphs 8.1 -8.5 and the impact on character and appearance is assessed at paragraphs 8.6 -8.17. Officers remain satisfied that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. 2. Officers agree tha t compliance with Policy DMH4 is not the sole determining factor. In addition to the assessment at paragraphs 8.1-8.5, further review of Policy DMH4 was undertaken within addendum paragraphs 1.11 -1.15. The proposal has also been assessed against all other material planning considerations, including residential amenity, highways, landscaping and design. 3. This matter is addressed at paragraphs 8.1, 8.4 and 8.5. Whilst the proposal would result in the loss of an existing dwelling, it would provide a net gain of four dwellings and includes a three - bedroom family-sized unit. 4. Density, scale and site context are assessed within the principle of development section at paragraphs 8.1-8.5 and highways considerations at paragraphs 8.39-8.49. Officers remain satisfied th at the proposal would not constitute overdevelopment of the site and no objection has been raised by the Highway Authority. 5. These matters are assessed at paragraphs 8.9 -8.14 and 8.56 - 8.62. Officers remain satisfied that the retention of frontage trees and hedging, together with additional planting, would preserve the leafy suburban character of Murray Road. 6. The impact on No. 42 Murray Road is assessed at paragraphs 8.24-8.26, with the overall residential amenity assessment set out at paragraphs 8.19 -8.30. Officers remain satisfied that the proposal would not result in unacceptable impacts in terms of daylight, sunlight, outlook, privacy, enclosure or overbearing impact. 7. Officers have assessed the proposal on its own merits, having regard to the existing site context and the proposed development. Refer to paragraphs 8.24-8.30. 8. Access arrangements are assessed at paragraphs 8.40 and 8.46-8.49. No objection has been raised by the Highway Authority. 9. These matters are assessed at paragraphs 8.39-8.49 and further considered within addendum paragraphs 1.3-1.5. The Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal. 10. Waste and recycling matters are assessed at paragraphs 8.76 - 8.78. Officers remain satisfied that the outstanding details can appropriately be secur ed by condition. 11. Amenity space provision is assessed at paragraphs 8.35 - 8.38. Officers remain satisfied that the proposed private and communal amenity space is of an acceptable quantity and quality. 12. The overall planning balance is assessed at paragraphs 10 .1- 10.5. Officers remain satisfied that the proposal is acceptable when assessed against the Development Plan and all material planning considerations. 13. Officers remain satisfied that the development is acceptable in principle. Conditions are recommended on ly where they relate to matters that can appropriately be controlled through the planning process. Following publication of the agenda, three further objections have been received raising concerns regarding:  The scale, height and footprint of the proposed development.  Impact on the character and appearance of the area and the nearby Conservation Area.  Loss of light to neighbouring properties.  Increased traffic congestion and parking pressures.  Air quality impacts arising from additional vehicle movements.  Loss of green space and landscaping.  The adequacy of on -site parking provision.  The effect of the development on the appearance of Murray Road. 14. Members undertook a site visit on 22nd of September 2026, as set out at paragraph 1.2 of the addendum report. 15. The Council's complaints procedure is separate from the determination of a planning application and is not a material planning consideration. 16. The Rights to Light representation has been noted. Rights to light are private civil matters and are not material planning considerations. Notwithstanding this, impacts relating to daylight, sunlight and residential amenity have been assessed at paragraphs 8.19 - 8.30, together with addendum paragraphs 1.6-1.10. The additional representations have been reviewed and do not raise any new material planning considerations beyond those already assessed within the officer report. The principle of development, scale, design and impact on the character and appearance of the area, including the nearby Conservation Area, are assessed at paragraphs 8.1 -8.17. Impacts on neigh bouring residential amenity, including daylight and sunlight, are assessed at paragraphs 8.19 -8.30 and addendum paragraphs 1.6 -1.10. Highway, traffic and parking matters are assessed at paragraphs 8.39 -8.49 and addendum paragraphs 1.3 -1.5, with no objection raised by the Local Highway Authority. Landscaping and green space considerations are assessed at paragraphs 8.56-8.62. The matters raised have been reviewed and do not raise any new material planning considerations beyond those already assessed within the officer report and addendum. The principle of development, Policy DMH4, character A petition containing 94 signatures has been received objecting to the proposal. Th e petition raises concerns regarding:  The loss of an existing family dwelling and provision of flats rather than family housing.  The principle of development and compliance with Policy DMH4.  The impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of Murray Road.  The scale, height and bulk of the proposed building.  Impact on neighbouring occupiers, including loss of light and outlook.  Increased traffic, parking demand, visitor parking and access to No. 42 Murray Road.  Increased noise and pollution.  Loss of the front garden and green space.  Potential impacts on neighbouring properties during construction, including concerns relating to subsidence.  Lack of renewable energy measures within the proposed development.  Concerns that previous objections have not been adequately considered. and appearance, residential amenity, highways, parking, landscaping, sustainability and construction -related matters have all been assessed within the officer report and addendum. Officers remain satisfied that the proposal accords with the Development Plan and the recommendation remains unchanged. Item: 14 Location: Frogsditch Farm Amendments/Additional Information: Officer Comments: Following the submission of a revised layout drawing to include more specific details relating to the proposed yard area an update to Condition 1 is required. Condition 1 update : The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers: - MMD-372345-C-DR-00-XX-2003 RevP01 Site Location Plan - 2021-FF-PL06 RevC Proposed Site Plan The submission of this revised plan does not alter the parking ratio, bin store, access or the location of the proposed buildings. Additional space is provided to ensure that the loading areas are provided with additional space for vehicle entry egress and to improve the - 2021-FF-PL02 Unit B - Section & Elevations - 2021-FF-PL03 Unit B - Floor Plan & Roof Plan - 2021-FF-PL04 Unit A - Floor Plan, Roof Plan, Section & Elevations - WA44182_PL_01 R Landscaping Plan - 2021-FF-PL05 RevB Proposed Finishes - WA44182_PL_02_A Bin Store Details and shall thereafter be retained/maintained for as long as the development remains in existence. REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012), Part 2 (2020) and the London Plan (2021). functionality of the yard area. Item: 16 Location: Building 1071 Southampton Road Amendments/Additional Information: Officer Comments: Comments have been received from Fisher German on behalf of Esso Petroleum Limited, who have apparatus situated near the proposed works. Esso have no objections to the proposals. Noted that no objections have been raised.