The Hillingdon Planning Committee convened on Thursday, 4 June 2026, to consider a range of planning applications. The committee approved applications for new homes at Land at Rushmoor Close, 74 St Georges Drive, Land adjacent to 7 Wepham Close, Hayes Bridge Retail Park, Hayes Park West, Land at Austin Road (Hayes Town Centre), and Haydon School. However, the application for a change of use at Technology House was refused.

Land at Rushmoor Close - 39470/APP/2025/728

The committee approved the erection of two two-storey detached dwellinghouses with associated parking, landscaping, and ancillary works on land at Rushmoor Close. The application site is located within the Eastcote Village Conservation Area. The design was informed by the established Arts and Crafts character of Rushmoor Close, with amendments made during the assessment to ensure the dwellings preserve, rather than detract from, the existing dwellings along the street. The Council's Conservation Officer confirmed the design was contextually appropriate and of high quality. The scheme would deliver two family-sized homes, contributing to the borough's housing supply. Objections were raised regarding loss of private garden land, impact on the character and appearance of the area, neighbouring amenity, parking, and impact on trees and landscaping. However, officers concluded that the proposal would not give rise to harmful impacts on neighbouring properties and that highway and parking matters were acceptable. A Unilateral Undertaking was required to secure that the development is delivered as self-build housing, exempting it from mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain requirements.

74 St Georges Drive - 79535/APP/2026/11

Permission was granted for the erection of a single-storey rear extension, alteration to the roof of the existing single-storey garage, conversion of the main roof to habitable accommodation comprising two side dormers and a hip-to-gable extension to the rear, demolition of an existing chimney, and expansion of a raised patio area to the rear of the property. This application was part retrospective. The proposal was considered to expand on previously granted Permitted Development rights, bringing the development over the threshold requiring planning permission. Concerns were raised by local residents regarding the impact on neighbour amenity, character and appearance of the area, overdevelopment, flood risk, and the retrospective nature of the application. Officers noted that, considering what had already been granted under Permitted Development, the proposal was considered to comply with relevant policies and would not give rise to materially greater harm. A condition was recommended to ensure that unlawful parts of the development built on site, such as the rear patio and west-facing dormer, are regularised in line with the proposed plans within six months or otherwise demolished.

Land adjacent to 7 Wepham Close - 79199/APP/2025/3131

The committee approved the erection of five new-build residential dwellings, with private amenity space, parking, refuge storage, and cycle parking. The development is located on a vacant, underutilised parcel of land within an established residential area. The principle of residential development was considered acceptable, supported by national, regional, and local planning policies, particularly given the council's shortfall in housing land supply. Concerns raised by local residents and a petition included design, character, overdevelopment, neighbour amenity, highways, parking, construction impacts, drainage, flood risk, ecology, and biodiversity. Officers concluded that the proposal represented an acceptable form of backland development that would integrate satisfactorily within its context, not result in unacceptable harm to the character of the area or neighbour amenity, and provide an appropriate standard of accommodation. A Section 106 Agreement was required to secure off-site biodiversity units to achieve the statutory 10% Biodiversity Net Gain.

Technology House - 76417/APP/2025/1879

The committee refused the application for a change of use from mixed Class B8 (Storage and Distribution) and Class E (Commercial Business and Services) uses to mixed Class B8, Class E, and Class F.1 (Learning and Non-Residential Institutions). The primary reasons for refusal were: inadequate pedestrian and vehicular access and car parking provision, which would prejudice highway and pedestrian safety; failure to satisfactorily address flood risk; and the lack of a secured planning obligation for air quality mitigation. While acknowledging the public benefits of community use, officers deemed the proposed location inappropriate and considered these benefits did not outweigh the identified harm.

Hayes Bridge Retail Park - 78343/APP/2025/2925

Permission was granted for enabling works, including site clearance and ground preparation, to support the delivery of a data centre campus. These works are intended to accelerate the construction programme for the wider data centre campus, which has already received planning permission. The proposed works are temporary and limited to site clearance, demolition, excavation, utility diversion, and the installation of temporary hoarding and a substation. The development was considered acceptable in terms of design, heritage, residential amenity, environmental considerations, transport, and sustainability, subject to planning conditions.

Hayes Park West - 12853/APP/2025/2844

The committee approved the partial demolition and redevelopment of the existing multi-storey car park to provide 52 new homes. The development, located on Metropolitan Green Belt land, was considered appropriate development within the Green Belt as it redevelops previously developed land without causing substantial harm to its openness. The proposal would deliver a significant number of homes, including 19% affordable housing, and contribute to the regeneration of the area. Public benefits, including the delivery of affordable housing, health infrastructure contributions, managed public access, and the safeguarding of listed buildings, were considered to outweigh the identified low level of less than substantial harm to the setting of the Grade II* listed Hayes Park Central and South buildings. A Section 106 legal agreement was required to secure these benefits.

Land at Austin Road (Hayes Town Centre) - 76550/APP/2026/460

Approval was granted for the Reserved Matters application concerning access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale for Phases 2 and 3 of the development at Austin Road. This application relates to a larger redevelopment scheme that includes the demolition of existing buildings and the provision of new homes and a community centre. The proposal includes 239 dwellings, with a high proportion of socially rented units, and a new community centre. The design, scale, and layout were considered appropriate for the town centre context, and the development would contribute significantly to housing supply and affordable housing provision. The scheme was assessed against the 'tilted balance' due to the council's housing land supply shortfall, with the benefits of the development outweighing any identified adverse impacts. A Section 106 legal agreement was in place from the original permission, with a deed of variation required to cover amendments.

Haydon School - 9556/APP/2026/461

Permission was granted for the construction of an Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) with associated development, including perimeter fencing, floodlighting, hardstanding areas, a storage container, access pathways, and engineering operations. The proposal aims to provide enhanced all-weather sports provision for the school and the wider community. Sport England raised no objection, considering the sporting and community benefits to outweigh the limited loss of existing grass playing field. Concerns were raised by local residents regarding noise, light pollution, traffic, parking, drainage, residential amenity, and environmental impacts. Officers concluded that, subject to conditions and mitigation measures, the development would not result in unacceptable harm and that the benefits outweighed any identified impacts. The scheme had been revised from a previous refusal to address concerns regarding scale, siting, and parking.